ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 710
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 710/7 (2026)

Unreasonable dealer or franchise restrictions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 710/7) (from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 757)
    Sec. 7. Unreasonable dealer or franchise restrictions. It shall be unlawful directly or indirectly to impose unreasonable restrictions on the motor vehicle dealer or franchisee relative to transfer, sale, right to renew, termination, discipline, noncompetition covenants, site-control (whether by sublease, collateral pledge of lease, or otherwise), right of first refusal to purchase, option to purchase, compliance with subjective standards and assertion of legal or equitable rights.
(Source: P.A. 81-43.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2003–2016 · leading case: Crossroads Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Sterling Truck Corp., 792 N.E.2d 488 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crossroads Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Sterling Truck Corp., 792 N.E.2d 488 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff appeals both rulings, arguing that the addenda are (1) “coercive” or an “attempt to coerce” within the meaning of section 4(c) of the Act (see 815 ILCS 710/4(c) (West 2000)), (2) “unreasonably restrictive” within the meaning of section 7 (815 ILCS 710/7 (West 2000)),…”
Ford Motor Co. v. Motor Veh. Review Bd., 788 N.E.2d 187 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “757; 815 ILCS 710/7 (West 2000). The Act has always contemplated that termination disputes be resolved by arbitration or judicial proceedings as provided for in section 12 of the Act.”
Napleton's Arlington Heights Motors v. FCA US LLC, 214 F. Supp. 3d 675 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “) Lastly, Illinois Plaintiffs allege a violation of 815 ILCS 710/7 in which the FCA unlawfully imposed unreasonable restrictions on their assertion of legal or equitable rights by wrongfully promulgating rules that disqualify any participant from the Customer First Program if…”
Crossroads Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Sterling Truck Corp. (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff appeals both rulings, arguing that the addenda are (1) "coercive" or an "attempt to coerce" within the meaning of section 4(c) of the Act (See 815 ILCS 710/4(c) (West 2000)), (2) "unreasonably restrictive" within the meaning of section 7 (815 ILCS 710/7 (West 2000)),…”
Ford Motor Co. v. Motor Veh. Review Bd. (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “757; 815 ILCS 710/7 (West 2000). The Act has always contemplated that termination disputes be resolved by arbitration or judicial proceedings as provided for in section 12 of the Act.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.