By on May 2, 2015

2009 Chevrolet Cobalt Kia StoreA proposed bill in California aimed at closing a loophole in federal recall law is being rushed through the legislative process. Consumers Union, the parent of Consumer Reports, is not happy about it. Neither are automakers.

The bill – AB 287 – is being supported by California car dealers as a way to defend themselves against future lawsuits, even though it requires more work on their part. If passed, the law would make it illegal to rent or sell a recalled vehicle in California without prior disclosure, force dealers to fix used vehicles of the same make as their franchise, and require automakers to reimburse dealers for recalled vehicle storage.

The current federal law states dealers only be required to fix new cars before sale; rental and used cars are absent from the legislation.

Consumers Union says the new law is a “half-measure” and still doesn’t cover the problem of fixing used cars sold by non-franchised dealers, used vehicles of other makes at franchised dealers and rental vehicles before they are rented to customers. Oddly enough, the Association of Global Automakers agrees with Consumers Union, though for vastly different reasons. The automaker association – representing companies such as Honda, Nissan, and Hyundai – believes any such law should be a federal affair instead of complying with a patchwork of state-level laws which could be quite complex.

Brian Maas, president of the California New Car Dealers Association, told Automotive News, “The regulation of recalls on used cars in the United States is zero” and “doing something is way better than where we are today.”

For their part, Consumers Union believes if the law goes into effect it will become a model for other states, eliminating the willingness of governments to introduce additional legislation fixing the underlying problem: repairing recalled vehicles before they are sold or rented.

[Source: Automotive News]


Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!


7 Comments on “Consumers Union: California Recall Bill Backed By Dealers Is “Not Enough”...”

  • avatar

    The complaints that the proposed legislation does not go far enough is valid.

    First, the resources to find out what recalls are in place for a vehicle are bountiful.

    Second, if the vehicle is not of your franchise or you are a non-franchised dealer, cycling the vehicle through the proper dealer for the recall is less than onerous.

    Third, rental places have enough computing power at the server where vehicle maintenance records are kept to monitor recalls and cycle the vehicle through a dealer as a routine warranty service.

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    They want it to be at the federal level so that they can get the most bang for their lobbying buck to prevent any law. It is way more expensive to hire lobbiests in all 50 states.

    • 0 avatar

      Actually, big corporations prefer to prevent regulations at the federal level, states, even though there are 50 of them, are much cheaper and much easier to influence.

    • 0 avatar

      It’s more complicated than that. Corporations love regulation — if it keeps the competition out. They hate regulation that costs them money.

  • avatar

    What franchised dealer wouldn’t perform all open recalls on a used car of their brand? That’s always one of the first things that get’s done. It sounds more to me like the dealers just want to get some positive publicity for supporting a “safety” that really doesn’t change a thing in the way they do anything.

  • avatar

    This is going to improve recall compliance as it relates to used cars and rentals, but it will come at the expense of individual owners who bought the cars new. As we’ve seen with the GM ignition switches and the FCA alternators, with the use of certain components across entire product lines the sheer number of replacement parts required is massive. It’s simply impossible to make enough parts available to comply with the recall for everyone within the time frame that the regulators think it should take. Someone is going to have to be sent to the back of the line; who do you think that’s going to be? Is it going to be the individual who bought one car, or the rental companies that have thousands of affected vehicles in their fleet? The Chrysler alternator recall was announced in October 2014; it wasn’t until this past April that my dealer had one to install in my car. If this law was in effect I’d probably be waiting until next October.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • mfrank: It wasn’t just quality. Datsuns always seemed more modern than other brands and look more appealing...
  • -Nate: My late father in law brought home a 1981 (?) version of this from the original owner, it was a N/A Diesel as...
  • johnds: Coming from a General Motors family, I remember the term “CamCord” came from a group of...
  • stuki: I don’t know if prospective CUV buyers base much of their decision on the test drive, but the difference...
  • Inside Looking Out: “building cars you would enjoy driving” You cannot be serious. G6 (new back then) was...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber