On October 6, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the California Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Act. This legislation aims to fortify consumer protections and enhance transparency in the car-buying process. The enactment of this law follows a series of discussions and amendments, as highlighted in our previous blog and podcast, which traced the bill’s evolution and its alignment with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) vacated CARS Rule.
On September 15, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed into law House Bill 3178, introducing new requirements for auto dealers in the state. This legislation aims to standardize certain aspects of auto finance transactions, specifically those involving retail installment contracts (RICs) or lease agreements, and ensure clarity in the car-buying process. The law will take effect in 2026.
On August 8, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published a series of proposed rules aimed at redefining what constitutes a “larger participant” in several key financial markets. Under § 1024 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Bureau’s supervisory authority extends to “larger participants” offering consumer financial products or services. The proposed rules seek to amend existing thresholds in the consumer reporting, auto financing, consumer debt collection, and international money transfer markets to better align with current market conditions and regulatory priorities. The Bureau is accepting comments on these proposals until September 22, 2025.
On July 28, the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs issued a reminder to more than 3,000 auto dealerships regarding their obligations under the New Jersey data deletion law, N.J.S.A. § 56:12-18.1. This law, enacted and effective in January 2024, requires dealerships to offer data deletion services for consumer information stored in vehicles accepted for resale or lease. Dealerships are now on notice of their compliance obligations under the law.
As of April 27, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had not filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to appeal the Fifth Circuit’s decision vacating the Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation Rule (CARS Rule). The ruling, which was issued in response to a petition by the National Automobile Dealers Association and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association, challenged the procedural validity of the FTC’s rulemaking process. The court found that the FTC failed to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking as required leading to the vacating of the rule.
On February 27, Texas State Senator José Menéndez (D) introduced Senate Bill 1736, a piece of legislation aimed at regulating convenience fees associated with electronic payments for motor vehicles. SB 1736 would allow such fees to be imposed to offset electronic payment processing costs as long as certain restrictions are met and disclosures are made.
In a move that could significantly impact the auto retail industry, California has introduced Senate Bill 766, known as the California Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Act. Introduced by Senator Benjamin Allen (D) on February 21, this bill aims to impose stringent new regulations on auto dealers in the state, many of which echo back to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) own CARS Rule.
On January 29, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a report analyzing the auto lending market’s impact on servicemembers. This report indicates that servicemembers face heightened financial challenges in the auto lending market, including higher loan amounts, interest rates, and monthly payments. Despite these challenges, servicemembers were less likely to experience vehicle repossessions.
On January 27, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a significant opinion holding that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) does not prohibit the enforcement of arbitration agreements in credit card contracts under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a significant opinion vacating the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation Rule (CARS Rule). The decision came in response to a petition filed by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA), challenging the procedural validity of the rule. The petitioners argued that the FTC violated its own regulations by failing to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) before promulgating the CARS Rule. They also contended that the FTC’s cost-benefit analysis was arbitrary and capricious.