AB 545 amends Vehicle Code section 24016 to extend an existing prohibition on selling products or devices that can change an electric bicycle’s speed capability to explicitly include applications. The bill leaves intact the statute’s other technical requirements — manufacturer certification to CPSC standards, motor cut‑off behavior, and rules that make an electric bicycle exempt from vehicle registration and licensing — and keeps the consequences for violating the provision at the infraction level.
Why it matters: firmware, smartphone apps, and cloud‑based services increasingly provide easy ways to bypass speed limits on e‑bikes without any physical hardware sale. By naming “applications,” the law targets the digital supply chain (app developers, sellers, and app stores) and forces marketplaces and sellers to treat software that alters speed capability the same as physical speed‑modifying devices.
That raises enforcement, compliance, and consumer‑repair questions for manufacturers, retailers, repair shops, and platform operators.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends section 24016 to (1) require electric bicycles to meet existing CPSC equipment rules and motor disengagement behavior; (2) keep manufacturer certification and label requirements; (3) prohibit tampering that changes speed capability unless the bike still qualifies as an e‑bicycle and its classification label is replaced; and (4) ban the sale of any product, device, or application that can modify an e‑bike’s speed so it no longer meets the statutory definition.
Who It Affects
Electric bicycle manufacturers and importers, independent and factory repair shops, aftermarket vendors and app developers that provide firmware or unlocking tools, online marketplaces and app stores that distribute such software, and local law enforcement and courts asked to enforce infractions.
Why It Matters
The amendment closes a gap for software‑based speed modifications and shifts attention from purely physical aftermarket parts to digital distribution. Compliance will require different controls (digital takedowns, seller vetting, labeling for retrofits) and creates an enforcement challenge because software can be distributed remotely and updated post‑sale.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 545 sits on top of an existing California framework that treats certain electric bicycles as non‑motor vehicles if they meet specific design and performance limits. The statute already requires that e‑bikes meet U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission bicycle manufacturing standards, that motors cut out when brakes are applied (or via a disengage switch), and that manufacturers certify compliance and affix a classification label.
The bill does not change those baseline technical rules; instead, it expands how the law treats attempts to change a bike’s top speed.
Concretely, the amendment makes it unlawful not only to sell a physical device that increases a bike’s speed capability, but also to sell an application that performs the same function. Think smartphone apps, desktop programs that flash controller firmware, Bluetooth dongle companion apps, or cloud services that remotely alter controller settings.
The bill pairs that prohibition with an existing anti‑tampering rule that allows a speed change only if the bicycle still fits the legal definition of an electric bicycle and the classification label is replaced — meaning anyone who does an in‑place change must test, reclassify, and relabel the bike.From a compliance perspective, the practical effect is twofold. First, manufacturers and importers keep a continuing role: their required certification and labeling system becomes a compliance anchor when bikes are modified or resold.
Second, software authors and platforms become targets for enforcement and risk management. Marketplaces and app stores will likely need to assess listings for “applications” that enable speed modifications and may face pressure to delist or block distribution of software that plainly enables a bike to exceed statutory speed thresholds.Enforcement will be imperfect.
The bill treats violations as infractions, which limits penalties and focuses action on sellers rather than end users. Digital distribution complicates detection: apps can be hosted offshore, shared in private channels, or embedded in multi‑purpose utilities.
As a result, the statute creates clear prohibitions but leaves important implementation questions — from how to prove an app’s intended use to how sellers demonstrate a relabeled bike still meets the statutory class — to regulators, courts, and market actors.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds the word “application” to the existing ban on selling items that can change an e‑bike’s speed capability so it no longer fits the legal definition of an electric bicycle.
Manufacturers must continue to certify compliance with the Consumer Product Safety Commission bicycle rules (16 C.F.R. 1512.1 et seq.).
A person may not modify an e‑bike’s speed capability unless the bike still meets the statutory definition and the classification label is appropriately replaced.
The statute requires motors to disengage when brakes are applied or via an equivalent switch or mechanism.
Violation of the new prohibition is an infraction; the bill also includes a clause saying the state need not reimburse local agencies for costs tied to the new infraction.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Baseline technical and safety criteria
This subsection restates the mechanical and manufacturing baseline: e‑bikes must meet CPSC bicycle equipment and manufacturing regulations and the motor must disengage when brakes are applied or via a release switch. Practically, these are the objective technical standards that regulators and manufacturers use to classify a product as an electric bicycle rather than a motor vehicle.
E‑bikes not treated as motor vehicles
This paragraph preserves the long‑standing carve‑out: operators of qualifying electric bicycles are exempt from vehicle registration, licensing, and financial responsibility rules. That status matters because modifications that take a bike out of the statutory definition can change regulatory treatment; the rest of the section guards that boundary.
Manufacturer certification requirement
Manufacturers must certify their e‑bikes comply with CPSC rules. That certification is the statutory hook for compliance and liability: manufacturers who supply noncompliant bikes risk administrative and marketplace consequences. The certification requirement also matters when a bike is modified — it frames who is responsible for initial labeling and compliance testing.
Tampering limit and relabeling obligation
This subsection makes it unlawful to tamper with or modify an e‑bike’s speed capability unless the altered bike still meets the statutory e‑bike definition and the actor replaces the classification label. In practice, that creates a post‑modification compliance pathway: authorized modifications are permitted, but they trigger an evidentiary duty to show the bike still qualifies and to update the label so downstream users and enforcement can see the new classification.
Ban on selling products, devices, or applications that alter speed capability
The new language extends the existing sales prohibition to include ‘applications’ — covering software that changes controller settings, flashes firmware, or otherwise enables a bike to exceed legal speed limits. This is a substantive shift from hardware‑only regulation to covering digital tools and services. Enforcement will focus on sellers and distributors of such software, including online marketplaces and app stores, though the statute does not define ‘application’ in detail.
No state reimbursement for local costs
The act declares no state reimbursement is required under the California Constitution because the only local costs arise from creating or modifying an infraction. That declaration allocates fiscal responsibility and indicates the Legislature views the change as a matter of criminal (infraction) law rather than a funded new program for local governments.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Road safety advocates and municipal traffic planners — the law targets aftermarket speed increases that can raise collision risk and complicate speed‑based classification, potentially improving predictability of e‑bike behavior on streets.
- Traditional e‑bike manufacturers and authorized dealers — by outlawing aftermarket speed‑unlock tools (including software), manufacturers gain a clearer legal basis to protect their certified products and preserve warranty and compliance regimes.
- Consumers seeking standardized products — buyers of certified e‑bikes get stronger legal backing against rogue modifications that change performance from what they purchased, aiding resale transparency.
Who Bears the Cost
- App developers, firmware authors, and independent software sellers that provide unlocking or tuning tools — they risk enforcement exposure and may need to alter or withdraw products from the California market.
- Online marketplaces and app stores — platforms will face added moderation duties, takedown requests, and potential legal exposure if they distribute software that enables speed modifications.
- Independent repair shops, aftermarket vendors, and modders — these businesses may lose revenue streams from legal (or borderline legal) tuning services and must navigate relabeling and compliance burdens if they perform permitted modifications.
- Local law enforcement and courts — although violations are infractions, agencies will incur investigation and processing costs, and prosecutors and courts will handle cases under limited penalty structures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill seeks to protect public safety and preserve product certification by stopping speed‑increasing modifications — including software — but in doing so it restricts consumers’ and independent technicians’ ability to modify and repair e‑bikes; the central dilemma is balancing predictable, regulated vehicle performance against the realities of software distribution, right‑to‑repair activity, and the cross‑jurisdictional nature of digital tools.
The bill accomplishes a focused legal goal — bring software within the same prohibition previously reserved for physical devices — but it leaves several implementation details unresolved. The statute does not define “application,” so regulators and courts will need to determine whether that label covers mobile apps, desktop utilities, web services, firmware images, or remote cloud‑based controllers.
That ambiguity complicates compliance planning for developers and takedown policies for marketplaces.
Enforcement is another knotty area. Software can be hosted offshore, distributed in private channels, or hidden inside multifunction apps, which makes detection and jurisdictional control difficult.
Proving an app’s primary purpose is to modify speed capability (as opposed to, say, performance telemetry or logging) will require factual work that may not be straightforward in an infraction proceeding. The relabeling pathway for lawful modifications imposes an evidentiary and administrative burden on shops and owners: who certifies the post‑modification test, what documentation suffices, and how to police false labels are open questions.
Finally, the law tightens the legal boundary around consumer modification and repair. That reduces some safety risks but risks chilling legitimate repair, customization, and aftermarket innovation, particularly where updates improve range or efficiency but incidentally change speed profiles.
The limited penalty (infraction) might blunt deterrence for some distributors, while regulation of digital distribution raises free‑market and cross‑border enforcement questions that California alone will have difficulty resolving without broader cooperation or clearer definitions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.