Rhode Island House Bill H6049

Rhode Island 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/3/23
• Refer: 3/3/23
• Report Pass: 4/25/23
• Engrossed: 5/9/23
• Refer: 6/15/23

Caption

General Regulatory Provisions -- Filing Of Assumed Name

Impact

One significant implication of H6049 is the transition of record-keeping and filing responsibilities to a centralized database managed by the Secretary of State. This change is expected to help unify various municipal practices, potentially reducing confusion and administrative burdens for business owners. By requiring annual renewals of trade names, the bill ensures that the trade name registry remains current and reflective of active businesses within the state. Such a move could assist in enhancing legal protections against fraudulent activities associated with inactive or outdated trade names.

Summary

House Bill H6049 proposes amendments to Chapter 6-1 of the General Laws of Rhode Island, which governs the filing of assumed names (now referred to as trade names). The bill aims to centralize the oversight of trade name registrations under the Office of the Secretary of State, effectively streamlining administrative processes. It mandates that individuals conducting business under a trade name must file an application with their local town or city clerk, including vital details such as their personal identities, municipality of operation, and the appropriate North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. This centralization is intended to improve the efficiency and accessibility of business registrations across the state.

Contention

While the bill has garnered supportive votes in favor of its passage, concerns might arise regarding the regulatory requirements imposed on small business owners. Some may argue that the annual renewal process could act as an undue burden, particularly for businesses with limited resources. Additionally, there may be apprehension about the centralization of authority, with critics suggesting that it could diminish local governments' roles in overseeing business operations in their respective communities. Ultimately, the bill's impact on local governance versus state oversight remains a point of discussion amongst stakeholders.