Maryland Becomes a National Model with Law Requiring ADAS Disclosure Before Glass Replacement

While New Hampshire's calibration disclosure bill was killed in committee earlier in 2023, Maryland took the opposite path. House Bill 920, enacted as Chapter 561 of the 2023 Laws of Maryland and signed by Governor Wes Moore, established a set of consumer protections specific to motor vehicle glass repair and replacement on vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance systems.

The law defined ADAS as an electronic system that uses automated technology including cameras and sensors to detect nearby obstacles and driver errors. It further defined "recalibration" as the readjustment of cameras, sensors, and other technology to ensure proper working order in accordance with manufacturer specifications.

Under the enacted law, a motor vehicle safety glass facility — defined as an entity that both repairs or replaces motor vehicle safety glass and provides related ADAS recalibration — must, before performing work on a vehicle equipped with ADAS: first, inform the customer whether recalibration is required; and second, provide the customer with cost information for the recalibration service.

Violations of these requirements were classified as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices under Maryland's Commercial Law framework, meaning enforcement would run through the state's consumer protection apparatus rather than through a separate glass-industry licensing board.

For glass shops operating in Maryland, the law immediately required procedural changes: pre-service vehicle inspections to assess ADAS equipment, scripted customer communication about calibration requirements, and written cost estimates that addressed the calibration component of the job. Shops that already practiced thorough pre-service disclosure were largely already compliant; those relying on after-the-fact customer authorization for added services needed to restructure their intake process.

Maryland's law drew national attention from trade groups because it represented a completed, signed legislative model that other states could replicate or adapt. The contrast between Maryland's outcome and New Hampshire's failure illustrated how state-by-state advocacy results could vary dramatically based on committee composition, insurer lobbying, and the strength of local industry coalitions.