BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 686
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 17, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION
Susan A. Bonilla, Chair
SB 686 (Jackson) - As Amended: June 10, 2014
SENATE VOTE : 22-12
SUBJECT : Vehicles: vehicle dealers.
SUMMARY : Prohibits a vehicle dealer from selling a used
vehicle if the dealer knows or should have known that the
vehicle is subject to a manufacturer's safety recall and does
not correct the defect. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits the holder of any vehicle dealer's license from
selling or otherwise transferring ownership at retail of a
used vehicle, as defined, including any used vehicle
advertised as "certified" or any similar descriptive term, if
the dealer knows or should have known that the vehicle is
subject to a manufacturer's safety recall, unless the repairs
required to correct the defect have been performed on the
vehicle.
2)Provides that this prohibition does not apply to transfers or
sales by a dealer to another dealer, an auto auction, or a
manufacturer.
3)Provides that a dealer is deemed to have knowledge of a
manufacturer's safety recall if any of the following applies:
a) The dealer receives notification from the manufacturer
of the vehicle about the manufacturer's safety recall for
that vehicle, as specified; or
b) The dealer is a franchisee of the manufacturer, or was a
franchisee of the manufacturer at the time the manufacturer
issued notice of the safety recall; or
c) Prior to the sale or other transfer of ownership at
retail of the vehicle, the manufacturer has made
information about the manufacturer's safety recall
regarding the specific vehicle available on the
manufacturer's Internet Web site, searchable by vehicle
SB 686
Page 2
identification number (VIN), stating that the
manufacturer's safety recall repairs have not been
performed.
4)States that a violation of these provisions is actionable
under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition
Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17500 (related to
false advertising), or any other applicable statute or federal
law, and further states that such rights and remedies are
cumulative and not to be construed as restricting any right or
remedy that is otherwise available.
5)Defines a "manufacturer's safety recall" as a recall pursuant
to the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
and that does not include service campaigns or emissions
recalls where the manufacturer has not issued a safety recall
notice to owners of affected vehicles.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW
1)Establishes the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP-21), and requires the Secretary of the United States
Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) to promulgate
regulations by July 6, 2013, requiring motor vehicle safety
recall information to be publicly available online and
searchable by vehicle make, model, and VIN. (Public Law
112-141, 112th Congress, Section 31301)
2)Sets forth in federal regulations the requirements for when
manufacturers must notify vehicle owners, dealers, and
distributors about a defect that relates to motor vehicle
safety or noncompliance with a federal motor vehicle safety
standard. (49 Code of Federal Regulations 577.1 et seq.)
EXISTING STATE LAW
1)Prohibits any person from acting as a dealer, remanufacturer,
manufacturer, or transporter, as specified, without having
first been issued a license or temporary permit, as specified.
(Vehicle Code (VC) Section 11700)
2)Prohibits a holder of a license from, among other things,
making or disseminating any statement which is untrue or
misleading and which is known, or which by the reasonable
exercise of care should be known, to be untrue or misleading,
SB 686
Page 3
as specified. (VC 11713(a))
3)Establishes the Car Buyer's Bill of Rights and prohibits a car
dealer from selling or advertising for sale a used car as
"certified" under certain conditions, including if the dealer
knows or should have known that the vehicle was reacquired by
the vehicle's manufacturer or a dealer pursuant to state or
federal warranty laws, or if the term "certified" or any
similar descriptive term is used in any manner that is untrue
or misleading or that would cause any advertisement to be in
violation of the provisions prohibiting a car dealer from
scheming to sell a vehicle or service at a price other than
advertised in accordance with the Vehicle Code, or the unfair
competition laws contained in the Business and Professions
Code. (VC 11713.18.)
4)Prohibits a dealer or person holding a retail seller's permit
from selling a new or used vehicle that is not in compliance
with the Vehicle Code and departmental regulations, unless the
vehicle is sold to another dealer, sold for the purpose of
being legally wrecked or dismantled, or sold exclusively for
off-highway use, as specified. (VC 24007 (a)(1))
5)Provides that when a federal motor vehicle standard is
established under federal law, as specified, no dealer shall
sell or offer for sale a vehicle to which the standard is
applicable, and no person shall sell or offer for an item of
equipment sale for use upon a vehicle to which the standard is
applicable unless: (a) the vehicle conforms to the applicable
federal standard; or (b) the vehicle or equipment bears a
certification, as specified. (VC 24011)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of this bill . Under existing state and federal law,
car dealers are not required to check whether a used car sold
at retail is subject to a recall, and if a pending recall is
known, car dealers are not required to notify potential buyers
or remedy the recalled defect. In response to concerns about
the sale and safety of recalled cars, this bill would prohibit
a dealer from selling a used car at retail if the dealer knew
or should have known that the car is subject to a
manufacturer's safety recall and did not repair the safety
SB 686
Page 4
defects. This bill would not, however, prohibit the sale of a
used car with unrepaired recall defects in private party sales
or in wholesale transactions. This bill is sponsored by
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety.
2)Author's statement . According to the author, "Since the
1960's, federal law has prohibited franchised new car dealers
from selling or leasing new vehicles that are under a federal
safety recall unless they have been repaired, but there is no
prohibition against selling, loaning, renting, or leasing used
cars that have an open federal safety recall pending unless
they have been repaired.
"Auto manufacturers are required by the federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Act to provide auto safety recall repairs for free to
anyone who owns the vehicle. In order to have a recalled
vehicle repaired, the owner may have to take it to an
authorized dealership repair facility. Auto manufacturers
compensate their franchised auto dealers for performing the
repairs.
"As reported by the New York Times, Good Morning America (ABC
News), and other national media, as well as numerous local
media in California, some new and used car dealers are selling
recalled used cars to California consumers without fixing the
safety recalls. The problem of auto dealers selling
unrepaired, recalled cars to consumers has also been
documented by the non-partisan U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) in its June 2011 report to Congress.
"This bill will give consumers who cannot afford a new car, or
simply choose to purchase a used car, the same level of
protection new car buyers have had since the 1960's.
According to the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, [this bill] will also create at least 1,000
new jobs for automotive technicians performing safety recall
repairs."
3)Understanding motor vehicle safety recalls . The National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Act) gives the U.S.
DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
authority to issue motor vehicle safety standards and to
require manufacturers to recall vehicles that have
safety-related defects or do not meet federal safety
standards.
SB 686
Page 5
Manufacturers voluntarily initiate most recalls, while others
may be influenced by NHTSA investigations. If a safety defect
is discovered, the manufacturer must notify NHTSA, as well as
vehicle owners, dealers, and distributors, plan a recall
campaign to remedy it, send repair guidance to franchised
dealerships, send notices to vehicle owners, and monitor the
effectiveness of the recall campaign and provide to NHSTA data
on the status of the recall campaign. The manufacturer is
required to remedy the problem at no charge to the owner (for
vehicles sold up to 10 years before the recall). After a car
is brought to a franchised dealership for repair, the dealer
will perform the recall remedy and submit claims to the
manufacturer for reimbursement. NHTSA is responsible for
monitoring the manufacturer's corrective action to ensure
successful completion of the recall campaign; however, NHTSA
cannot require car dealers to notify potential buyers of an
outstanding safety defect or require that they get the defect
remedied prior to a sale.
Conversely, NHTSA may have received enough complaints and
information about the operation of a vehicle that it finds
there is a significant threat to public safety and initiates a
mandatory recall. NHTSA can perform an investigation with a
review by engineers and experts and work with the vehicle
manufacturer to recall vehicles. These recalls are
facilitated through direct relationships between
manufacturers, franchised dealerships, and owners who
purchased the new vehicles. Manufacturers may dispute a
mandatory recall by petitioning NHTSA or bringing suit in
court. According to NHTSA, from 2000 to 2011, all safety
defect recalls for passenger vehicles were conducted
voluntarily by manufacturers, although some of those recalls
were conducted based on NHTSA's investigations of safety
defects.
The process of alerting owners of used vehicles is more
difficult because the vehicles may have changed hands several
times, and manufacturers may not have established
communications with used vehicle dealers who buy and sell
multiple different types of cars.
4)GAO report finds lack of recall information for used cars a
'significant risk' . According to a June 2011 GAO report that
examined the federal safety recall process, "NHTSA cannot
SB 686
Page 6
require used-car dealers (or franchised dealerships that sell
used vehicles) to notify potential buyers of an outstanding
safety defect or require that they get the defect remedied
prior to sale." The report pointed out that, with 35 million
used cars sold in used and franchised dealerships in 2009
alone, unknown recalls "could pose a significant risk to the
safety of millions of vehicle drivers and may have a negative
impact on recall completion rates." It adds, "NHTSA also
currently lacks the authority to require manufacturers to
notify used-car dealerships - which sold 11 million cars in
2009 - of recalls or require these dealerships to notify
potential buyers of an outstanding recall. As a result, many
consumers may be unknowingly putting their lives at risk by
purchasing a defective vehicle."
According to a February 11, 2014 press release by private-sector
vehicle information provider Carfax, "[M]ore than 3.5 million
cars were listed for sale online with an open safety recall.
Texas, California, Missouri, Florida and Ohio led the nation
with the most recalled cars for sale online last year."
5)Substantial number of recalls announced annually . Based on
data provided to the Committee, it appears that there are a
very substantial number of automobile recalls occurring
annually, meaning that the number of recalls affecting used
cars is also going to be significant.
According to Carfax, over 36 million vehicles currently
registered for use on American roads are under a safety recall
- or 1 out of every 7 cars. According to the Los Angeles
Times, "[A]utomakers have issued almost 20 million vehicle
safety announcements so far this year. No, the world's cars
aren't falling apart. But headlines and lawsuits over slow
recalls have made auto manufacturers more vigilant?Automakers
that were slow to recall defective vehicles in the past have
been hit with increasing large federal fines and costly
product-liability lawsuits. Meanwhile, [NHTSA] faces growing
congressional criticism for not forcing car companies to
recall vehicles quickly." ("Auto recalls speed up, are on
track to break a record," May 15, 2014, Los Angeles Times)
USA Today also reports that while most recalls include less than
50,000 vehicles and are typically completed in two or three
months, General Motors (GM) has issued eight recalls this year
covering seven million vehicles, and will need nine million
SB 686
Page 7
parts, including ignition switches and power steering motors,
to make all necessary repairs. The largest of these recalls
is the recall for 2.6 million cars with faulty ignition
switches that has been linked to 13 deaths. According to GM,
suppliers have to make the parts, and GM has to notify
customers, ship the parts to dealers, and train mechanics how
to do the repairs. GM estimates this process will take up to
six months to make and distribute all the parts for this
recall, pushing the completion time out to October of 2014.
There is no estimate on when the other recalls will be
finished. ("Owners of recalled GM cars face long repair
wait," May 8, 2014, USA Today)
6)Defining the "safety recall" . This bill would prohibit the
sale of vehicles that are "subject to a manufacturer's safety
recall." This is an important distinction because not all
recalls are safety-related under the Act, and would not
trigger the provisions of this bill.
According to NHTSA, the Act defines motor vehicle safety as "the
performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a
way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of
accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or
performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk
of death or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational
safety of a motor vehicle." A defect includes "any defect in
performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." Generally, a safety
defect is defined as a problem that exists in a motor vehicle
or item of motor vehicle equipment that poses a risk to motor
vehicle safety, and may exist in a group of vehicles of the
same design or manufacture, or items of equipment of the same
type and manufacture.
According to the 2011 GAO report, there are two types of safety
recalls. Compliance recalls occur when vehicles or vehicle
equipment is determined to be noncompliant with applicable
federal safety standards, as identified by NHTSA or a
manufacturer. Compliance recalls range from design issues
with seatbelts to improper placement of warning labels for
airbags, and from 2000 to 2009, accounted for 18% of vehicle
recalls. The other 82% of recalls were safety defect recalls,
which occur when a defect in a vehicle creates an unreasonable
safety risk as determined by NHTSA or a manufacturer.
Examples may include problems with ignition switches, steering
SB 686
Page 8
components, fuel systems, accelerator controls, air bags,
wiring or child safety seats, among other things, that have
the potential to cause harm or increase the risk of a crash.
NHTSA also provides a partial list of what would not
constitute a safety-related defect: air conditioners and
radios that do not operate properly, ordinary wear of
equipment that must be periodically maintained or repaired,
nonstructural rust, paint or cosmetic blemishes, and excessive
oil consumption.
According to NHTSA, about 70% of all vehicles subject to a
recall are fixed within the 18-month period during which
manufacturers provide recall completion data to the agency;
however, this figure differs greatly by year, by manufacturer,
and by type of defect. For example, some recall components,
such as brakes and airbags, had roughly a 60% completion rate,
while other components, such as wheels, had an 80% completion
rate.
7)Existing resources for used-car buyers and dealers . According
to a June 25, 2013, letter from NHTSA, "An auto dealer (or any
vehicle owner) today may easily access up-to-date, VIN
[vehicle identification number]-specific information regarding
the safety recall status of a used car. Such information may
be accessed through the manufacturer's publicly accessible
VIN-look up website, through a commercial VIN-look up service
for registered owners, or through the manufacturer's toll-free
number.
"By entering a unique VIN on the vehicle manufacturer's publicly
accessible VIN-look-up website, an auto dealer can access
VIN-specific recall information from such manufacturers as
General Motors, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Chrysler, Hyundai/Kia,
Volkswagen, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz, Suzuki, Mitsubishi, Volvo,
and Porsche. Mazda, Subaru, and Harley-Davidson also provide
VIN-specific recall information on their publicly accessible
websites, but only after the vehicle owner enters contact
information and creates a website account. An auto dealer also
can access the website of a VIN-look-up service, such as
CARFAX, to find VIN-specific recall information. Finally, all
light vehicle manufacturers offer VIN-specific recall
information through their toll-free, customer service
telephone numbers."
Car dealers and consumers may also purchase vehicle history
SB 686
Page 9
reports from private companies such as Carfax, which compiles
vehicle accident history information from multiple sources,
including the Department of Motor Vehicles, insurance
companies, and law enforcement. Carfax also maintains a free
public website (recall.carfax.com) that allows consumers to
check for open recall information by VIN number for 39 major
manufacturers, if that information has been reported to the
company.
8)Recent changes in federal law on vehicle safety recall
information . In 2012, Congress enacted the MAP-21 Act, a
funding and authorization bill to govern federal
transportation spending that contains a provision requiring
motor vehicle safety recall information about outstanding
recalls to be posted online in a format that preserves
consumer privacy and is searchable by vehicle make, model, and
VIN. The MAP-21 Act required U.S. DOT to promulgate
regulations by July 6, 2013 requiring each vehicle
manufacturer to provide vehicle recall information on a public
Web site and to car dealers.
On August 14, 2013, NHTSA issued a final rule that will require
all major manufacturers (those who produce more than 25,000
vehicles per year) to provide the public with online access to
recall information searchable by VIN and without requiring
additional information to allow consumers to instantly
determine whether action is required to address an uncompleted
safety recall. This information will be required to be
updated at least weekly. While many automakers already make
this information available, those who do not will be required
to comply by August 14, 2014.
9)Arguments in support . According to the sponsors, Consumers
for Auto Reliability and Safety, "This bill will improve
protections for Californian consumers, their families, their
passengers, pedestrians, and others who share the roads, from
used vehicles that are so unsafe, they are under a federal
safety recall. According to statewide polling, an
overwhelming 88% of California 2014 voters support banning car
dealers from selling recalled used cars.
"While some responsible, ethical dealers have instituted
practices to ensure that all used vehicles they sell to
consumers have had the safety recalls performed, others fail
to do so. The impetus for this bill arises from the reckless
SB 686
Page 10
practices of some auto dealers who fail to take easy steps to
ensure that the cars they provide to their customers are safe,
and have had any safety recall repairs completed. As numerous
national and local news organizations?have reported,
California car dealers continue to sell, or attempt to sell,
unsafe, recalled cars to consumers.
"Are some safety recalls 'minor'? No. According to [NHTSA,]
'All safety recalls resulting from defects present an
unreasonable risk to safety and we believe it is inappropriate
to suggest that some defects are not risky enough to require
repair. For the safety of the motoring public, all recalled
vehicles should be fixed promptly.'"
According to Enterprise Holdings, Avis Budget Group, and Hertz
rental car companies, "[This bill] would require dealers to
comply with practices already adhered to by the rental car
industry for roughly 20,000 used retail car sales facilitated
by the undersigned companies in the state of California
annually."
"As you know, each of the undersigned companies have for the
last several years voluntarily adhered to a policy whereby no
car will be rented that is subject to open safety recall
unless the necessary repairs have been made. In addition,
these rental car companies are supporting federal legislation
being championed by U.S. Senators Boxer, Feinstein, McCaskill,
Blunt, Murkowski and Schumer to prohibit rental car companies
from renting vehicles that are under a federal safety recall
unless they have been repaired. S. 921 passed the U.S. Senate
Commerce Committee unanimously and is expected to become law
prior to the conclusion of this Congress."
According to the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, "[This bill would] help protect the
motoring public, and will also create at least 1,000 new
good-paying jobs for skilled automotive technicians in
California, performing safety recall repairs on the millions
of vehicles that still have outstanding safety recalls
pending?There is no excuse for auto dealers to fail to ensure
that safety recall repairs are performed, prior to putting
their customers into a car, pickup, SUV, or van, whether the
vehicle is new or used."
The Center for Public Interest Law and Children's Advocacy
SB 686
Page 11
Center also writes that, "[T]he measure prohibits an auto
dealer from selling or transferring a vehicle that has
suffered an official notice of a defect. Indeed, if there is
such a problem and the auto is then sold or loaned without
repair or even warning, the liability implications should lead
most prudent dealers to embrace this measure. It does involve
the burden of monitoring defect notices. But these dealers are
in the business of selling this very product - one with
obvious safety implications not only for the purchaser, but
for those who may suffer collision with the vehicle. In
contrast, the average consumer is not in an advantageous
position to monitor these notices, particularly where they
occur in advance of his interest in a particular model car."
10)Arguments in opposition . The Californian New Car Dealers
Association opposes this bill on multiple grounds, and writes
that, "Despite recent amendments, nothing about [this bill]
has changed from last year. This bill has not been amended to
address any of the concerns raised by Committee members -
rental car companies are still excluded and there is still no
distinction between serious and minor safety recalls.
Furthermore, the [NHTSA] database is still not operational.
There is only one thing that is different since 2013:
President Obama has introduced federal legislation to address
the sale and rental of recalled vehicles. The GROW AMERICA
Act is President Obama's $302 billion transportation omnibus
proposal to reauthorize funding?that is set to expire on
September 30, 2014?Unlike the fundamental flaw in [this bill],
both rental car companies and car dealers are included in the
President's proposal?California should delay any action on
[this bill] because anything approved by the Legislature will
be preempted by the President's proposal.
"[This bill] wrongly targets all car dealers for a problem that
has been brought about by the rental car industry?Rather than
focusing on rental car companies, SB 686 targets every dealer
- regardless of how minor the recall is, or whether the part
is available. While we believe a recall mandate is premature
since federal comprehensive legislation is pending, any
mandate whenever imposed should include both dealers and
rental car companies. With the most recent amendments, [this
bill] moves further away from a comprehensive solution.
"SB 686 is not just premature and unnecessary, but also poorly
conceived and ambiguous. The bill fails to differentiate
SB 686
Page 12
between minor recalls (stickers on window visors, verbiage in
owner's manuals) and major recalls (those that threaten
imminent danger to drivers and passengers), nor does it
account for the significant disruptions that occur between the
time when recalls are 'announced' and when parts and repair
procedures are made available to dealers. Additionally, it
fails to adequately define key terms, specify when a dealer
must verify a vehicle's recall status, or provide any
protection for a dealer once an inquiry has been made.
Without providing any clear avenues for dealers to comply, SB
686 is fundamentally flawed."
CarMax Auto Superstores Inc., also writes in opposition that,
"[This bill] is well-intended, but is significantly flawed as
currently drafted?Manufacturer's safety recalls should be
taken seriously by manufacturers, dealers, and consumers which
is why CarMax carefully advises its customers to register
their vehicles with its manufacturer as soon as they purchase
the vehicle so they can be apprised of any future
recalls?[NHTSA] issued a rule in 2013 which takes effect
August 2014 requiring all automakers to post on their website
a database of recalls which can be searched using the [VIN].
There are significant doubts throughout the industry that
NHTSA will meet its anticipated start date. Even if it does,
a website only addresses part of the issue: notice [of] a
recall. Without access to diagnostic equipment and parts, an
independent dealer like CarMax is not able to make the repairs
even when given notice. Rather, CarMax is completely reliant
on a franchise dealer to perform the repairs on its behalf."
Independent Automobile Dealers Association of California also
writes in opposition, "Auto dealers are being targeted by
consumer attorneys at an ever increasing rate. With no means
to absolutely prove that a dealer has been diligent and has
checked for a safety recall, [this bill] provides consumer
attorneys an additional item which they can use to file suit
against a dealer.
"Currently, a dealer searching a manufacturer's website to
identify the presence or absence of a safety recall cannot
prove that he has performed the search as required prior to
sale. Manufacturer's websites are not designed to print a
report, leaving a print of the screen shot the only option.
Those sites do not display a date or time stamp, which would
SB 686
Page 13
prove when a dealer performed the search. [This bill] would
penalize a dealer for not checking for or having a safety
recall performed when necessary but fails to recognize that
the proper tools for compliance are not available at this
time. A single, VIN searchable database for all vehicle
manufacturer safety recalls is a solution which would enable a
dealer to search and retain proof."
11)Comments and questions for the Committee .
In light of the large number of safety recalls occurring every
year, opponents of the bill contend that there should be a
distinction between "major" and "minor" safety recalls, and
that "minor" safety recalls for things such as improper
labeling or changes to the owner's manuals should not prohibit
the sale of a used car sale to a consumer.
Supporters, on the other hand, contend that all safety recalls
are in fact safety recalls that are based on safety risk to
consumers, and that distinguishing or second-guessing NHTSA's
determinations for whether a vehicle meets federal safety
standards is not wise public policy and does not address the
problem. According to the GAO, less than 20% of safety
recalls are "compliance" recalls, or recalls for not meeting a
federal motor vehicle safety standard, which may include
seatbelt designs or noncompliance stickers.
As such, the Committee may wish to inquire of those opposing the
bill how they would distinguish "major" and "minor" recalls,
and what percentage of total recalls they believe are "minor"
in nature. The Committee may also wish to inquire of
supporters and opponents as to the average length of time it
takes to repair a recall, and what percentage of safety
recalls can be repaired immediately, for example, by replacing
an improper sticker, and what percentage require a longer
delay due to availability of parts.
The Committee may also wish to ask how a dealer or a consumer
might proceed under the bill when a used car that is pending
sale is subject to a safety recall. According to opponents of
the bill, if a recall campaign had a delay in getting
replacement parts, dealers would either have to hold cars
while they wait for parts or would have to turn away sellers
of recalled cars or purchase those cars at a lower price based
on the recall. However, according to the sponsors, cars under
recalls like GM's ignition switch recall will likely already
SB 686
Page 14
depreciate in value because of the recall itself, and if there
was a delay in getting parts, recalled car owners could sell
those cars in private party transactions, dealers could sell
those cars in wholesale transactions or out of state, or
dealers could choose not to purchase a recalled car that has
not been repaired or budget in the estimated time to fix the
car as part of the cost of doing business.
Opponents also argue that it is fundamentally unfair for the
bill to impose broad prohibitions on the sale of vehicle
dealers when rental car companies are permitted to continue
renting and leasing used vehicles without a similar
requirement to check for recall notices. The author's office
asserts that rental car companies should be exempt for now
because they operate in a different and more complicated legal
framework (interstate commerce) than in-state sales, that
federal rental car legislation is currently pending and has
the active support of the rental car industry, and that the
rental car companies have in the meantime taken a pledge to
ground recalled cars. Opponents also contend that this bill
is premature because the GROW AMERICA Act, which would address
both sale and rental of all vehicles subject to recall until
repaired, is pending, and that any action on this bill would
be preempted by this proposal.
The Committee may wish to inquire of the author and opponents as
to the likelihood of success of these federal efforts, and
whether or not it would be prudent to impose the prohibition
as it is in the bill's current form, or impose it on dealers
and rental companies alike, perhaps with an amendment
explicitly acknowledging the precedence any federal
legislation would enjoy related to recall requirements.
12)Double-referral . This bill is double-referred to the
Assembly Judiciary Committee, where it will be referred if
approved by this Committee.
13)Related legislation . AB 964 (Bonta) of 2013 would have
prohibited a vehicle from being advertised or sold if the
dealer knows or should have known that the vehicle is subject
to a manufacturer's safety recall, and would have required
written disclosure of specified problems with the vehicle. AB
964 is currently on the inactive file on the Assembly Floor.
14)Previous legislation . SB 990 (Vargas) of 2012 would have
SB 686
Page 15
allowed a car dealer selling a used car to obtain data from a
commercial entity, rather than the federal government, to
provide required information to consumers on the vehicle's
title history. SB 990 was held in the Senate Transportation
and Housing Committee.
AB 753 (Monning) of 2011 would have expressly prohibited a
rental car company from renting a vehicle that is subject to a
recall notice unless the vehicle has been repaired as
specified in the notice. AB 753 failed passage in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
AB 1215 (Blumenfield), Chapter 329, Statutes of 2011, requires
new car dealers to participate in a program to electronically
title and register vehicles that they sell and to post
specified warning notices on some used cars.
AB 68 (Monta�ez), Chapter 128, Statutes of 2005, enacts the Car
Buyer's Bill of Rights, which provided that a car dealer may
not advertise of sell as "certified" a used or pre-owned motor
vehicle unless specified conditions are satisfied, and further
provided that vehicles sold as "certified" may not be sold "as
is," or if the dealer has disclaimed any warranties.
SB 114 (Bowen) of 2005 would have enhanced the process by which
attempts are made to notify an owner of a motor vehicle of a
required safety-related vehicle recall. SB 114 was held on the
Suspense File in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety (sponsor)
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Avis Budget Group
California Nurses Association
California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG)
Center for Public Interest Law/Children's Advocacy Institute
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Consumer Action
Consumer Attorneys of California
Consumer Federation of California
Consumer Watchdog
Consumers Union
SB 686
Page 16
Enterprise Holdings
Hertz
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
National Consumers League
SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A.
State Farm
Trauma Foundation
Opposition
California New Car Dealers Association
CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.
Independent Automobile Dealers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Eunie Linden / B.,P. & C.P. / (916)
319-3301