HB 228: Utah’s New Vehicle Title Branding Law

What Utah Dealers Need to Know Before January 1, 2027

Utah dealers who purchase used vehicles—particularly vehicles from out-of-state auctions, wholesalers, trade-ins, and other interstate sources—should begin preparing for an important change to Utah’s vehicle titling system.

During the 2026 General Session, the Utah Legislature passed HB 228, Vehicle Sales Amendments. The legislation makes significant changes to how Utah identifies and handles vehicles with salvage, total-loss, damage, and other title histories.

HB 228 takes effect January 1, 2027.

The legislation does not prohibit dealers from selling properly titled rebuilt or branded vehicles. Nor does it create an entirely new dealer sales process. Instead, it strengthens Utah’s title-branding system, establishes more specific title brands, and—perhaps most importantly—requires the Utah Motor Vehicle Division to check the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) before issuing certain new Utah titles.

For Utah dealers, the practical impact may occur well before a vehicle reaches the retail sales lot.

A vehicle purchased with what appears to be a clean out-of-state title could potentially have salvage, total-loss, or damage information contained in NMVTIS. Beginning January 1, 2027, Utah DMV will have a statutory obligation to check that information when certain vehicles are brought into the Utah title system.

The result is simple: title-history due diligence should become an increasingly important part of a dealership’s vehicle acquisition process.

This article explains the new law, the existing disclosure requirements dealers should remember, and recommended procedures dealerships can consider implementing before the new law takes effect.

What Does HB 228 Change?

HB 228 amends three primary sections of Utah Code:

·       Utah Code §41-1a-102 — definitions;

·       Utah Code §41-1a-513 — examination of title records and national title records; and

·       Utah Code §41-1a-1004 — salvage vehicles, branded titles, and buyer notification.

The legislation says its purpose is to define motor vehicle title brands, establish circumstances under which certain vehicles may receive a rebuilt-and-restored brand, require DMV to check a national database before issuing certain Utah titles, and make related technical changes.

These changes become effective January 1, 2027.

Utah Will Have More Clearly Defined Title Brands

One of the first changes is the addition of a statutory definition of a vehicle title “brand.”

Under HB 228, a brand is a label on a title certificate identifying a motor vehicle as:

·       fire damaged;

·       flood damaged;

·       gray market;

·       hail damaged;

·       stolen/recovered; or

·       rebuilt and restored.

A “branded title” is then defined as a title certificate containing a brand.

The law also establishes definitions for several of these conditions.

For example, a fire-damaged vehicle is defined as a motor vehicle damaged by fire to a degree that an insurance company declared it a total loss.

A flood-damaged vehicle is a vehicle declared a total loss by an insurance company because of immersion in liquid or contamination with toxic fluid.

Similarly, a hail-damaged vehicle is one damaged by falling hail to a degree that an insurance company declared the vehicle a total loss.

These definitions matter because Utah's title will provide more information about the reason behind a vehicle's branded-title history.

“Rebuilt and Restored” Will Become More Descriptive

Perhaps one of the most consumer-visible changes under HB 228 is the treatment of rebuilt vehicles.

The law provides that a vehicle that has, or qualifies for, a fire-damaged, flood-damaged, or hail-damaged brand may receive a rebuilt and restored brand if the vehicle has been rebuilt or restored sufficiently that it may safely be operated on a highway.

But the title will provide more information than simply stating that the vehicle is rebuilt.

HB 228 requires the rebuilt-and-restored designation to be followed by the applicable prior brand. The statute specifies the following labels:

Rebuilt and Restored — Fire

Rebuilt and Restored — Flood

Rebuilt and Restored — Hail

Rebuilt and Restored — Stolen

This gives dealers and consumers more information about why a vehicle received its branded-title history.

That distinction can be important.

Consider two vehicles that both carry a rebuilt title. One may have been declared a total loss because of hail damage while another may have suffered significant flood damage.

Those are very different vehicle histories. Under the new system, the Utah title is intended to provide greater visibility into that history.

For dealers, this makes accurately recording the complete title brand, rather than merely marking a vehicle “rebuilt,” increasingly important.

Utah DMV Will Begin Mandatory NMVTIS Checks

This is likely the provision of HB 228 with the greatest practical significance for used-car dealers.

HB 228 adds a statutory requirement for the Utah Motor Vehicle Division to check certain title applications against the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System, commonly known as NMVTIS.

NMVTIS is a national electronic vehicle record system that contains information contributed by states and other required reporting entities. Available NMVTIS information can include title and brand history, odometer information, theft history, and salvage or total-loss information.

Beginning January 1, 2027, when an application is made for a new Utah certificate of title, Utah DMV must check the VIN against NMVTIS when the applicant:

·       has no certificate of title for the vehicle; or

·       presents a certificate of title from another state.

If a jurisdiction contributing information to NMVTIS identifies the title as having a salvage brand, total-loss status, or damage designation, the Division is directed to follow Utah’s procedures for issuing a branded title.

For dealers purchasing vehicles outside Utah, this provision deserves particular attention.

A Clean Out-of-State Title May Not Tell the Entire Story

Dealers routinely purchase vehicles from auctions and wholesalers throughout the country. The physical title presented with a vehicle is understandably an important part of the dealer's acquisition decision.

HB 228 makes it increasingly risky, however, to rely solely upon the appearance of an out-of-state title.

Imagine a dealer purchases a vehicle at an out-of-state auction.

The vehicle is represented with an apparently clean title. The dealer purchases the vehicle based on the market value of a clean-title vehicle, transports it to Utah, reconditions it, and prepares it for retail sale.

The dealership then submits the out-of-state title to Utah DMV.

Beginning January 1, 2027, Utah DMV is required to perform the NMVTIS check described in HB 228. If information contributed to NMVTIS identifies a salvage brand, total loss, or damage history, Utah's statutory branding procedures may be triggered.

The dealership could therefore find itself owning a vehicle whose Utah title and resulting market value differ from what the dealer expected when purchasing the vehicle.

HB 228 does not itself require dealers to run NMVTIS before purchasing inventory.

However, doing so may become an important dealership risk-management practice.

NMVTIS Is Different From a Typical Vehicle-History Report

Dealers should also understand what NMVTIS is—and what it is not.

NMVTIS is a federal vehicle-information system designed in part to make title, brand, salvage, theft, and related information available across jurisdictions. According to the U.S. Department of Justice's NMVTIS program, reports can include current and previous state title information, title issue dates, latest reported odometer information, theft history, vehicle brands, and salvage/total-loss information.

That does not mean an NMVTIS report should be treated as a complete mechanical, collision-repair, maintenance, or ownership-history report.

A dealer may use other commercial vehicle-history products for additional information.

The important distinction under HB 228 is that NMVTIS is specifically the database Utah DMV is directed by statute to check in the circumstances described by the law.

For that reason, dealers may want to consider incorporating an NMVTIS report into their acquisition procedures for higher-risk inventory, particularly out-of-state vehicles.

Odometer Discrepancies Will Be Clearly Identified

HB 228 also addresses odometer discrepancies.

The legislation defines an “odometer discrepancy” as a situation in which the written odometer disclosure statement required under Utah law indicates that the vehicle's odometer does not match the actual amount of miles or kilometers driven.

When a vehicle has an odometer discrepancy, the Division must indicate “Odometer discrepancy” on the title certificate.

Dealers should therefore pay particular attention to inconsistencies between:

·       physical odometer readings;

·       title mileage;

·       auction announcements;

·       prior vehicle-history records;

·       odometer disclosure statements; and

·       other available mileage information.

An unexplained mileage discrepancy should be investigated before the vehicle is offered for retail sale.

Gray-Market Vehicles Are Also Addressed

HB 228 establishes definitions for gray market and compliant gray market vehicles.

A gray-market vehicle generally refers under the new statute to a motor vehicle manufactured outside the United States, not intended by the manufacturer for U.S. sale, and not meeting applicable federal or state motor vehicle safety or emissions standards.

A vehicle with a gray-market brand may qualify for a compliant-gray-market brand if statutory requirements are satisfied. Among other things, HB 228 provides for alteration to meet applicable safety requirements and successful completion of the required safety inspection.

This provision will affect a relatively small portion of the typical Utah dealer's inventory, but dealerships that purchase imported or unusual foreign-market vehicles should be familiar with these requirements before acquiring or advertising the vehicle.

Existing Disclosure Rules Still Matter

One of the most important compliance points for dealers is understanding that HB 228 does not eliminate Utah's existing salvage and branded-title disclosure requirements.

Utah Code §41-1a-1004 requires, subject to statutory exceptions, written notification before the sale of a vehicle for which a salvage certificate or branded title has knowingly been issued or that has knowingly been declared a total loss by an insurance company. For salvage or insurer-declared total-loss vehicles, the statute references the disclosure requirements contained in §41-1a-1005.3.

Dealers should therefore continue treating title-brand disclosure as an important part of the sales transaction.

A good compliance process should ensure that information identified during vehicle acquisition follows the vehicle throughout the dealership's entire process:

Acquisition → Inventory → Advertising → Sales → Contracting → Title Processing

Information discovered by the dealership's title clerk should not remain only in the title department.

Likewise, information discovered by the buyer at an auction should not disappear before the vehicle reaches the sales department.

Advertising Branded Vehicles: Don't Forget the Existing Rules

Utah law also contains specific advertising requirements for certain branded, salvage, and total-loss vehicles.

An advertisement for a vehicle for which a salvage certificate or branded title has been issued must disclose that fact.

Subject to statutory exceptions, an advertisement for a vehicle declared a total loss by an insurance company must also disclose the total-loss status.

The disclosure must be displayed at least as prominently as the description of the advertised vehicle, and the statute requires use of the applicable terminology, including:

·       “salvage certificate”;

·       “branded title”; or

·       “insurer declared total loss.”

This requirement is especially important in today's retail environment because dealership inventory may automatically appear in numerous places.

A single vehicle entered into a dealer's DMS or inventory-management system may feed to:

·       the dealership website;

·       third-party automotive marketplaces;

·       social-media listings;

·       paid digital advertisements; and

·       other inventory feeds.

A dealership should not assume that because a branded-title disclosure appears somewhere on the vehicle-detail page that every advertisement generated from that listing automatically complies with Utah law.

Dealers should review how branded-title information flows through every advertising platform they use.

Recommended Dealer Compliance Process for 2027

The following recommendations are not all mandates created by HB 228. Rather, they are practical compliance and risk-management procedures dealers should consider adopting in response to the new title environment.

STEP 1 — Verify the VIN Before Purchasing

Before acquiring a vehicle, confirm that the VIN on the vehicle matches the VIN appearing on:

·       the title;

·       auction paperwork;

·       bill of sale;

·       condition report; and

·       vehicle-history information.

VIN discrepancies should be resolved before completing the acquisition whenever possible.

STEP 2 — Examine the Actual Title

Whenever possible, do not rely solely upon a seller's statement that a vehicle has a “clean title.”

Review the actual title or reliable electronic title information.

Look for:

·       salvage brands;

·       rebuilt brands;

·       flood brands;

·       fire brands;

·       hail brands;

·       theft/recovery information;

·       odometer statements;

·       prior-state branding; and

·       other title notations.

STEP 3 — Consider Running NMVTIS Before Acquisition

This is particularly recommended for:

·       out-of-state auction purchases;

·       unfamiliar wholesalers;

·       vehicles with unusual title histories;

·       prior insurance vehicles;

·       vehicles with significant prior damage;

·       vehicles priced materially below market;

·       imported vehicles; and

·       situations in which the title history does not make sense.

Dealers have access to NMVTIS information through approved NMVTIS data providers. The Department of Justice specifically recognizes automobile dealers among the commercial users that can benefit from NMVTIS information.

The cost of a report is minor compared with the potential loss associated with purchasing a vehicle at clean-title value and later receiving a branded Utah title.

STEP 4 — Preserve the Acquisition Records

Dealers should consider keeping the following with the vehicle acquisition file:

·       copy of the title presented at acquisition;

·       auction announcement;

·       auction condition report;

·       NMVTIS report, if obtained;

·       other vehicle-history reports;

·       bill of sale;

·       seller representations;

·       damage disclosures; and

·       relevant photographs.

This documentation can become especially important if Utah DMV later identifies title information inconsistent with what the dealership received when purchasing the vehicle.

STEP 5 — Flag Branded Vehicles in the Dealership's System

Once a title issue is discovered, the information should be clearly identified in the dealership's DMS or inventory system.

Consider establishing an internal inventory status such as:

BRANDED TITLE — DISCLOSURE REQUIRED

or another conspicuous internal designation.

The objective is to prevent a communication failure between purchasing, title processing, advertising, and sales personnel.

STEP 6 — Verify Advertising Before Publication

Before advertising a branded, salvage, or applicable total-loss vehicle, confirm that the required disclosure appears in the advertisement in the manner required by Utah law.

Dealers using automated inventory feeds should periodically audit those feeds.

Do not assume every third-party website displays information exactly as it was entered into the dealership's DMS.

STEP 7 — Train Sales Staff

Salespeople should understand the difference between:

·       clean title;

·       branded title;

·       salvage certificate;

·       rebuilt/restored title;

·       insurer-declared total loss; and

·       odometer discrepancy.

Salespeople should also know where the dealership's title information is stored and who to contact if a customer asks a question they cannot answer confidently.

Staff should never guess about a vehicle's title history.

STEP 8 — Complete the Required Written Disclosure

Where Utah law requires written disclosure, ensure that the proper disclosure is provided and completed as part of the transaction.

Do not rely exclusively on a salesperson verbally telling the customer about the vehicle history.

Written disclosure protects the consumer and creates documentation that the dealership fulfilled its disclosure obligation.

STEP 9 — Retain the Disclosure With the Deal Jacket

The dealership should retain the signed disclosure with the sales transaction records according to its established record-retention policy and applicable law.

This provides evidence of what was disclosed and acknowledged at the time of sale.

A Recommended “Stop-Sale” Procedure

Dealers should consider establishing a simple internal rule:

If the title history, NMVTIS information, auction announcement, odometer history, or other documentation conflicts, stop the vehicle from being advertised or sold until the discrepancy is resolved.

A temporary delay in selling a vehicle is usually preferable to discovering a title problem after delivery to the customer.

The dealership's system could use a status such as:

TITLE HOLD — DO NOT SELL

until the title department or management has resolved the issue.

This is especially useful because title issues are often discovered by employees who are not directly involved in the retail sale.

A Suggested Vehicle Acquisition Checklist

Dealers may want to add a simple title-history checklist to their purchasing process:

Before Purchase

☐ VIN matches vehicle and ownership documents

☐ Title state identified

☐ Actual title or acceptable title documentation reviewed

☐ Existing brands checked

☐ Odometer reading compared

☐ Auction announcements reviewed

☐ Prior damage information reviewed

☐ NMVTIS checked when dealership policy requires it

☐ Other vehicle-history report reviewed when appropriate

☐ Seller representations retained

After Purchase / Before Advertising

☐ Title documents reviewed by title department

☐ Brand information entered into DMS

☐ Advertising disclosure verified

☐ Vehicle cleared for retail sale

☐ Any discrepancy placed on title hold

At Retail Sale

☐ Current title status reverified

☐ Required disclosure completed

☐ Customer signature obtained where required

☐ Disclosure retained with deal records

☐ Title application accurately reflects vehicle status

A checklist like this does more than create paperwork. It creates a consistent process so that title information does not depend upon whether one particular employee happens to notice a problem.

Pay Special Attention to Out-of-State Inventory

If a dealership makes only one procedural change because of HB 228, out-of-state acquisitions deserve the greatest attention.

Beginning January 1, 2027, HB 228 expressly requires DMV to conduct the NMVTIS check when an applicant for a Utah title presents an out-of-state title.

That means dealers purchasing vehicles from auctions in neighboring states—or anywhere else in the country—should consider determining what NMVTIS says before determining what the vehicle is worth to the dealership.

This can become part of the buyer's valuation process.

Instead of:

Inspect → Bid → Buy → Check title history

dealers may increasingly want a process closer to:

Inspect → Verify VIN/title history → Determine title risk → Establish value → Bid → Buy

That is a relatively small procedural change that could prevent a significant financial loss.

What Happens if NMVTIS and the Physical Title Disagree?

This may become one of the most important practical questions after HB 228 takes effect.

Dealers could encounter circumstances in which an out-of-state title appears clean but information reported through NMVTIS indicates salvage, total-loss, or damage history.

HB 228 directs Utah DMV to follow the branded-title procedure when the statutory NMVTIS check identifies the applicable information.

Dealers encountering a discrepancy should avoid making assumptions about what Utah DMV will ultimately issue.

Instead, the dealership should consider:

·       placing the vehicle on an internal title hold;

·       preserving the original title and acquisition documentation;

·       preserving the NMVTIS report;

·       contacting the auction or selling dealer when appropriate;

·       determining whether arbitration or another remedy may exist under the purchase terms;

·       working with Utah DMV to determine the correct title status; and

·       avoiding retail delivery until the title issue is understood.

Auction arbitration deadlines can be short. For that reason, dealerships may want title-history review to occur immediately after acquisition rather than weeks later when the vehicle is finally submitted for Utah titling.

This Is Also a Buyer-Training Issue

HB 228 should not be viewed solely as a title-clerk issue.

The dealership employee who may have the greatest ability to prevent a future title problem could be the person buying the vehicle.

Buyers should understand that the price they are willing to pay depends partly upon the title that Utah will ultimately issue—not merely the title appearing in an auction listing.

Management may therefore want to establish clear policies describing when buyers must obtain additional title-history information before bidding.

For example, a dealership could require additional review for every out-of-state vehicle or use a risk-based policy covering particular auction announcements, vehicle histories, or acquisition sources.

What Dealers Should Do During the Remainder of 2026

HB 228 does not take effect until January 1, 2027, giving Utah dealers time to prepare.

Rather than waiting until the first title problem occurs, dealerships should consider using the remaining months of 2026 to:

·       review current acquisition procedures;

·       determine when NMVTIS reports will be obtained;

·       update internal title checklists;

·       review branded-title disclosure forms;

·       audit website and third-party advertising feeds;

·       establish title-hold procedures;

·       train vehicle buyers;

·       train sales staff;

·       train title personnel on the new Utah brands; and

·       identify who has authority to clear a vehicle when conflicting title information is discovered.

Dealers should also watch for administrative guidance from the Utah State Tax Commission and Motor Vehicle Division as implementation approaches.

The Bigger Picture: Know the Vehicle Before You Buy It

HB 228 is fundamentally a title-integrity law.

The legislation gives Utah more specific terminology for branded vehicles, provides more descriptive rebuilt-and-restored title labels, identifies odometer discrepancies, addresses gray-market vehicles, and requires Utah DMV to consult NMVTIS when certain vehicles enter the Utah title system.

For dealers, however, the lesson is broader:

The best time to discover a title problem is before purchasing the vehicle—not after selling it.

The traditional compliance focus has often been on disclosure at the retail sale. That remains extremely important.

HB 228 provides another reason for dealers to move part of that compliance effort upstream into inventory acquisition.

A dealership with a strong process should be able to answer four questions about every used vehicle:

1. What did we know when we purchased it?

2. What does the title say?

3. What does the available title history say?

4. What have we disclosed to the customer?

When those answers are documented and consistent, the dealership is in a much stronger position to protect both the customer and the dealership.

Dealer Takeaway

Effective January 1, 2027, Utah HB 228 changes the state's vehicle title-branding system and requires DMV to check NMVTIS when issuing certain Utah titles, including vehicles entering Utah with an out-of-state title.

For Utah dealers, the recommended response is not complicated:

Check earlier. Document better. Flag title issues internally. Advertise accurately. Disclose properly.

Most importantly, dealers purchasing out-of-state inventory should consider making title-history verification part of the buying decision, rather than waiting until the vehicle reaches the title desk.

That relatively simple change could help prevent expensive title problems and improve transparency for Utah vehicle buyers.

Important Notice

This article is intended to provide general educational information regarding HB 228 and Utah motor vehicle title requirements. It is not intended as legal advice. Dealers should review their individual procedures with qualified legal counsel when necessary and should follow guidance issued by the Utah State Tax Commission and Motor Vehicle Division.