It's exactly what you said: It's the burden of proof.
Right now, if the company has not kept records, the burden of proof is on the bureau to bring evidence at a tribunal that they were in the wrong, because they have kept records that the company did not. The burden of proof means that if you have not kept records....
Let's say it's that scenario: A small firm doesn't keep a price list and advertises a rebate. Right now, under the current law, the bureau has to have some external proof to win the case, because if they subpoena they will find nothing. With the proposed amendment, if the company—even if they didn't lie—didn't keep records, they will lose. In the current scenario, where there are no records, they win. In the future scenario, where they have not kept records, they lose.