Washington State Proposes One of the Country's Strictest Auto Glass Services Bills

Washington state's legislature saw the introduction of Senate Bill 5871 in December 2025—a wide-ranging auto glass services proposal that was potentially among the most comprehensive shop-regulation bills in the country. The bill built on the NCOIL model legislation framework that had driven enactment in Iowa and New York, adding additional specific prohibitions that went beyond what other states had enacted.

On the ADAS disclosure side, SB 5871 required Washington shops to inform customers if their vehicle had an ADAS system before performing a glass replacement, notify them whether the shop planned to recalibrate according to OEM specifications, and—if not—explicitly direct them to an OEM-certified dealer or qualified specialist for proper recalibration. Unlike some other state bills, the Washington legislation did not specify who was responsible for physically transporting the vehicle to the specialist, creating some ambiguity that industry observers anticipated would be addressed in committee.

The bill's list of prohibited practices was unusually detailed. Beyond the standard AOB ban and gift-with-claim prohibitions found in Iowa and New York, SB 5871 would ban shops from charging fees higher than "reasonable and customary" amounts in Washington, submitting "false, misleading or incomplete documentation," claiming work was performed in one geographical area when it was done in another, suggesting customers falsify damage dates, falsely signing work orders or insurance forms, misrepresenting prices, or claiming insurance had approved work without actually verifying coverage.

Each prohibition reflected a specific fraudulent practice documented in insurance industry fraud reports—suggesting the bill's drafters had built it from a catalog of documented abuse rather than general regulatory principles. The resulting bill was more specific than most, which could make enforcement more straightforward but could also create definitional disputes about what constitutes "reasonable and customary" fees in a given market.

The penalty structure in SB 5871 was $2,500 per violation—comparable to another state bill introduced in March 2025, but less aggressive than Iowa's $50,000 ceiling. For a shop performing many transactions per month, however, a $2,500-per-violation fine could accumulate rapidly if compliance failures were systematic.

Washington's bill, if enacted, would represent a significant compliance burden for shops operating in the state. But it also provided a clear roadmap for best practices that shops anywhere could implement voluntarily: accurate disclosures, transparent pricing, verified insurer approvals, and honest documentation. Shops that already met those standards had nothing to fear from the bill's specific prohibitions.