This bill creates a statewide regulatory framework for shops that repair or replace vehicle glass, with special attention to vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). It defines who counts as a motor vehicle glass repair shop, requires pre‑service disclosures about ADAS and calibration, conditions contracting on an insured’s claim filing, and bars a range of inducements and misrepresentations in connection with insurer‑paid repairs.
The law aims to protect safety (by surfacing calibration needs and preventing shops from leaving ADAS uncalibrated), preserve insureds’ choice of repair facility, and curb claim‑steering and fraud. Compliance will change operations for glass shops, affect insurer verification processes, and shift some calibration work toward dealerships and ADAS specialists.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires motor vehicle glass shops to tell insureds whether a vehicle has ADAS and whether manufacturer‑recommended calibration is needed, and to state whether the shop will perform calibration to manufacturer specifications. It makes insurer‑paid contracts contingent on a filed first‑party claim and a claim/referral number, imposes disclosure and invoicing rules, and prohibits inducements and specified forms of misrepresentation.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are motor vehicle glass repair shops, independent calibrators, OEM dealerships, and insurers that handle first‑party windshield claims; insurance producers and consumers with ADAS‑equipped vehicles are also directly implicated. Smaller shops that lack calibration capability will face operational decisions and possible referral flows to certified specialists.
Why It Matters
This bill ties consumer protection and vehicle safety to the insurance‑claims pathway: it reduces avenues for claim steering and fraud while making calibration status and responsibility transparent. That reshapes revenue flows for glass shops and dealerships and creates new compliance obligations and potential civil penalties.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Start with definitions: the act treats ‘‘motor vehicle glass’’ broadly to include associated non‑glass parts and makes calibration work part of ‘‘repair or replacement’’ when ADAS is affected. That means calibration is not an optional add‑on in the statute’s world — it is part of the covered service when a manufacturer recommends it after glass work.
Operationally, a shop must tell the consumer, before any work begins, whether the vehicle has ADAS and whether manufacturer guidance calls for calibration after the job. If the shop plans to do a calibration, it must tell the insured whether it will follow the vehicle maker’s specifications.
If the shop does calibrate, it must provide written confirmation to the consumer about whether that calibration succeeded; if it did not, the shop must advise the consumer to take the vehicle to a certified dealer or qualified specialist and warn against relying on the ADAS.For insurer‑paid repairs the bill imposes a gating rule: a shop cannot enter a contract that will be paid by a first‑party policy until the insured has filed a first‑party claim and the shop has a claim or referral number. The shop must give a good‑faith estimate and an updated estimate before starting, issue an itemized invoice and receipt on completion, and limit charges to reasonable and customary fees.
The statute also prescribes how shops must verify and represent insurer approval to avoid falsely claiming coverage.The bill draws a clear line on inducements and misrepresentation: shops cannot offer anything of value to induce claims or direct insureds, cannot falsify dates or locations of damage to inflate coverage, cannot sign forms falsely, and cannot perform work that exceeds what is necessary to restore safety. While the law preserves insureds’ right to pick their shop, it allows insurers to maintain networks and to recommend providers.
Finally, the act creates a civil enforcement path for public prosecutors to recover penalties when entities violate these provisions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill voids any contract entered on or after January 1, 2027 that purports to assign an insured’s duties or rights under a motor vehicle policy to another person.
A shop must obtain proof that an insured has filed a first‑party claim and receive a claim or referral number before contracting for repairs that will be paid by the insurer.
Before work a shop must inform the insured whether the vehicle has ADAS, whether manufacturer guidance requires calibration after the repair, and whether the shop intends to perform calibration to manufacturer specifications; after work the shop must provide written confirmation whether calibration was successful.
The statute enumerates a wide set of prohibited practices: offering inducements for claims, charging above reasonable and customary fees, falsifying dates or locations of damage, misrepresenting insurer approval, and submitting false or incomplete claim documentation.
Violations expose the violator to civil penalties enforceable by city attorneys, district attorneys, county counsel, or the Attorney General: up to $500 for a first violation and up to $2,000 for subsequent violations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope
This section establishes the vocabulary the rest of the act uses: ‘‘motor vehicle glass,’’ ‘‘motor vehicle glass repair shop,’’ ‘‘advanced driver assistance system,’’ and insurer‑related terms. Notably, it explicitly includes calibration and recalibration of ADAS in the definition of repair or replacement where those systems are affected, which pulls calibration work into the statute’s coverage and creates a legal basis for the disclosure and quality requirements that follow.
Ban on assignment of insured’s rights
The statute forbids an insured from assigning or delegating their policy duties or benefits to a third party for windshield and calibration work; contracts that do so on or after January 1, 2027 are void. That blocks common arrangements where shops seek assignment of benefits (AOB) from insureds to bill insurers directly in the insured’s name, while still allowing insureds to direct payment to a shop for covered services.
Pre‑ and post‑service ADAS notices and calibration disclosure
A shop must notify the customer before doing any work whether the vehicle has ADAS and whether the vehicle maker recommends calibration after the glass job. If the shop cannot or will not perform a calibration, it must so disclose and recommend dealer or specialist referral. If a calibration is performed, the shop must give written notice confirming success or advising referral when calibration fails. Practically, this forces shops to triage vehicles by ADAS presence and to document calibration outcomes for consumer safety and potential downstream liability.
Claim‑verification, estimates, invoices, and pricing limits
For insurer‑paid work the bill requires two preconditions: the insured must file a first‑party claim, and the shop must have a claim or referral number before contracting. Shops must provide good‑faith and updated estimates, itemized invoices, receipts, and must not charge more than reasonable and customary fees. The provision also places an affirmative duty on shops to verify insurer approval before asserting that an insurer will pay, which shifts some administrative burden to shops and reduces opportunities to mislead consumers about coverage.
Prohibited inducements and deceptive practices
This section lists a suite of prohibited behaviors: offering gifts or payments to induce claims or steer customers, fabricating or misrepresenting claim facts (date or location of damage), falsifying work orders, submitting misleading documentation, performing unnecessary work beyond safety restoration, and misrepresenting relationships with insurers. It also contains a small but specific consumer‑protection detail: required consumer notices and invoices must use the same font size as other billing documents to avoid burying critical warnings.
Choice of repair shop and permissible insurer conduct
The bill makes clear insureds cannot be forced to use a particular shop to get claim payments, while preserving insurers’ ability to recommend shops or operate networks and clarifying that the statute does not create a private cause of action. That balance preserves consumer choice but leaves enforcement to public authorities, rather than private litigants.
Pattern as evidence of knowing violation
Where a shop routinely engages in prohibited activity, courts may presume the shop acted knowingly in violating the choice‑of‑shop provision. This creates a practical evidentiary shortcut for prosecutors and regulators when pursuing repeat offenders, concentrating enforcement on patterns rather than isolated mistakes.
Civil penalties and public enforcement
The statute caps civil penalties at $500 for a first violation and $2,000 for subsequent violations and authorizes enforcement by city attorneys, district attorneys, county counsel, or the Attorney General in a civil action brought in the name of the people of California. Penalties are modest and rely on public law enforcement rather than private suits, which will shape enforcement priorities and strategies.
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
- Owners of ADAS‑equipped vehicles: they receive explicit pre‑service warnings about calibration needs and written confirmation when calibration is performed, improving safety information after glass work.
- Consumers generally: the law protects insureds from being forced to use a particular shop, requires clear estimates and itemized invoices, and restricts steer‑and‑kickback practices that can raise costs or reduce transparency.
- Compliant independent shops and certification specialists: shops that already document calibration work and follow manufacturer specs gain a more level playing field as inducement‑based competitors are restricted.
- OEM dealerships and ADAS specialists: shops that can meet manufacturer calibration standards are likely to see increased referrals when independent shops cannot perform calibration to spec.
- Insurers and public payers concerned with fraud: clearer verification and bans on misrepresentation reduce some common avenues for inflated or false claims.
Who Bears the Cost
- Small and mid‑sized motor vehicle glass repair shops: those without calibration equipment or training face capital outlays, new documentation processes, and likely increased referrals to dealers, which can reduce margins.
- Insurers and claims administrators: verifying claim filing and managing preauthorization processes for shops may increase administrative workload and slow turnaround times, at least initially.
- Consumers with complex ADAS vehicles: an unsuccessful calibration can require dealer visits or specialist appointments, potentially adding time and out‑of‑pocket expense if coverage gaps arise or if insurers dispute necessity.
- Public prosecutors and local counsel: enforcement is placed on city and county offices and the Attorney General, which may stretch limited enforcement resources and prioritize repeat or egregious cases.
- Repair shops that relied on assignment‑style arrangements: firms whose business models used assignments of benefits will need to redesign billing and collections, possibly disrupting cash flow.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to balance two legitimate objectives — protecting consumers and ADAS functionality by making calibration transparent and preventing fraud/steering — against the economic reality that many independent glass shops lack access to OEM calibration tools and training; ensuring safety therefore risks shifting work (and higher costs and delays) to dealerships and certified specialists, while allowing looser rules would undercut consumer protections and invite abuse.
Two practical implementation problems stand out. First, ‘‘manufacturer specifications’’ for calibration are not uniform in accessibility or clarity; many independent shops will need technician training, tools, or access to OEM software to meet the statute’s standard.
The bill creates demand for certified calibrators but does not fund training or create a clear certification pathway for independent shops, raising a risk that calibration work concentrates at dealers with higher prices.
Second, several central terms are operationally vague. ‘‘Reasonable and customary fees’’ is a common regulatory standard but often requires follow‑on rulemaking or litigation to produce actionable benchmarks. The prohibition on assigning rights eliminates certain assignment‑of‑benefits business models, but the statute simultaneously permits insureds to direct payments — a difference that may encourage informal or indirect arrangements that skirt the ban.
Finally, enforcement is left to public prosecutors and capped at relatively low penalties, which could blunt deterrence unless agencies prioritize these violations or higher penalties emerge through case law or future legislation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.