Another State Introduces Auto Glass Regulation Bill With ADAS and AOB Provisions

In early March 2025, another state legislature introduced an auto glass services bill that would impose recalibration notification requirements, ban the assignment of benefits, and set standards for what constitutes reasonable fees. The pattern was by then unmistakable: following NCOIL's model legislation, states were moving quickly to translate the framework into state law.

The bill introduced in March required shops to obtain an insurance claim number from the customer before agreeing to perform any insured glass repair or replacement—a provision designed to make the claims process more transparent and harder to exploit through inflated invoicing. It also required shops to inform customers prior to starting work if recalibration would be necessary and whether it would be performed in accordance with manufacturer specifications.

If a shop was not capable of performing a proper calibration or did not plan to do so, it was required to tell the customer in writing and direct them to a location where the recalibration could be properly completed. The bill did not restrict shops to OEM tools or OEM glass for meeting manufacturer specifications, preserving some flexibility for shops using aftermarket equipment that meets OEM recalibration tolerances.

The penalty structure in the bill was $2,500 per violation—less severe than Iowa's eventual $50,000 ceiling, but still a meaningful deterrent for shops that repeatedly failed to comply. Enforcement was tied to the state's consumer protection framework rather than a specialized auto glass regulatory body.

For auto glass shop owners in the affected state and those watching from neighboring jurisdictions, the bill's introduction was a signal to review disclosure practices and intake documentation. Shops that wait until a bill becomes law to begin compliance preparation face a compressed timeline for process and paperwork changes.

The wave of state legislation introduced and advanced in early 2025 reflected the insurance industry's success in framing auto glass fraud as a consumer harm requiring a legislative remedy. Shop owners and their trade associations pushed back by arguing that many of the proposed restrictions would disadvantage legitimate small shops while doing little to stop sophisticated fraud networks. That debate would continue throughout the year.