2026 ISSUE 2 | GLANCDA.ORG OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE GREATER LOS ANGELES NEW CAR DEALERS ASSOCIATION As Auto Shows Evolve, New Opportunities Emerge for Dealerships
BUSINESS LAW | LITIGATION | ESTATE PLANNING | REAL ESTATE | TAX | EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES FERRUZZO & FERRUZZO, LLP | A Limited Liability Partnership, including Professional Corporations FERRUZZO.COM | CALIFORNIA | TEXAS Business Transactions • Buy-Sell Agreements • Entity formation and structure • Shareholder Agreements • Manufacturer approvals and relations Employment Practices • Arbitration agreements • Wage and hour class action lawsuits • Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims • Employee handbooks and compliance Estate Planning • Succession planning for business continuation • Family estate planning (wills and trusts) Tax • Property tax planning, audits and appeals • EDD audits Business Litigation • Consumer Legal Remedies Act lawsuits • Sales and Service Agreements • Disputes before the CA New Motor Vehicle Board • Manufacturer audit disputes • Hearings before the AQMD, RWQC and OSHA Real Estate • Dealership site acquisitions and lease agreements • Lender opinion letters An Automotive Industry Authority For over 40 years, Ferruzzo & Ferruzzo, LLP has been a leading authority in the Automotive Industry. Our team of auto-focused attorneys provide a spectrum of legal services to support every aspect of running and owning your new car and/or truck dealership. Solving Your Challenges, Together
4 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE Opportunities Ahead By Jeannie Brewer, President, GLANCDA 6 As Auto Shows Evolve, New Opportunities Emerge for Dealerships 10 NADA’s 51st Washington Conference Dealers Get the Bigger Picture on the Policy and Political Landscape By Enrique Gutierrez, Director of Public Affairs, NADA 12 MANNING LEAVER LEGAL LANE The California CARS Act: Dealer Litigation Ahead What Dealers May See When the New Rules Hit the Courtroom By Daniel F. Berberich, Esq., Partner, Manning, Leaver, Bruder & Berberich LLP 16 California Dealership Transactions Jump 52% Why Buyers Continue to Pay Up for the Right Store By Haig Partners LLC 18 Privacy and Wearable Recording Devices What California Businesses Should Know After the SB 1130 Veto By Christian J. Scali, Managing Shareholder, Scali Rasmussen 22 California’s New Privacy Rules Preparing for the Next Wave of Compliance Requirements By Mark Sanborn, Senior Product and Regulatory Counsel, ComplyAuto 24 Winning Back Vehicle Owners Why the Service Experience Is the Product By Sean Reyes, Chief Marketing Officer, Armatus Dealer Uplift 28 Texting, Lead Generation, AI Outreach and Revocation Rules Under the TCPA What Dealerships Need to Know By Fisher Phillips 30 Want Better Technician Feedback? Make It Safe to Give By Keith Player, Founder, Candora 32 Los Angeles Auto Outlook ©2026 The Greater Los Angeles New Car Dealers Association (GLANCDA) | MBR Connect™, formerly The newsLINK Group LLC. All rights reserved. Los Angeles Dealer is published three times per year and is the official publication for this association. The information contained in this publication is intended to provide general information for review, consideration and education. The contents do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you need legal advice or assistance, it is strongly recommended that you contact an attorney as to your circumstances. The statements and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of GLANCDA, its board of directors or the publisher. Likewise, the appearance of advertisements within this publication does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation of any product or service advertised. Los Angeles Dealer is a collective work, and as such, some articles are submitted by authors who are independent of GLANCDA. While a first-print policy is encouraged, in cases where this is not possible, every effort has been made to comply with any known reprint guidelines or restrictions. Content may not be reproduced or reprinted without prior written permission. For further information, please contact the publisher at (801) 676-9722. We are GLANCDA. GLANCDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT Jeanne Brewer Acura of Glendale VICE PRESIDENT Evan Ellis Glendale Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ram SECRETARY/TREASURER Peter Smith Bob Smith Toyota IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT Howard Tenenbaum Porsche Woodland Hills GLANCDA DIRECTORS Peter Browning John Davis Rinaldi Halim Robb Hernandez Tim Hutcherson Brad Mugg Tim Smith Ian Thomas Local Office: Bob Smith, Executive Director 3786 La Crescenta Ave., #206 Glendale, CA 91208 bob@glancda.org | (213) 748-0243 Management Office: Kelly Edwards, Administrator 2281 Lava Ridge Ct., Ste. 200 Roseville, CA 95661 info@glancda.org | (213) 748-0240 Originally founded in 1907, the Greater Los Angeles New Car Dealers Association provides valuable educational and philanthropic benefits to the Los Angeles Community. The association believes that involvement with local charitable organizations makes a positive difference for everyone involved. 3
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE Opportunities Ahead Jeannie Brewer, President, GLANCDA As 2026 draws to a close, I want to thank our dealer members, industry partners, and fellow board members for their continued support of the Greater Los Angeles New Car Dealers Association (GLANCDA). As my two-year term as president concludes in December, I am proud of what we have accomplished and optimistic about the opportunities ahead. Our dealer members’ involvement is one of our greatest strengths. This December, GLANCDA will hold elections for five open seats on its Board of Directors. If you are ready to help shape policy, strengthen dealer representation and guide GLANCDA’s priorities, submit your self-nomination beginning Nov. 1. Contact Executive Director Bob Smith to discuss the responsibilities, timeline and impact of board service. The Los Angeles Auto Show is another exciting opportunity. It opens Nov. 20 for nine days at the Los Angeles Convention Center, and GLANCDA proudly supports and promotes this important industry showcase. As a membership benefit, every dealer member receives 40 complimentary any-day admission tickets. Reserve your tickets now and invite employees, customers and community partners to experience the latest in automotive innovation. If your membership has lapsed or you have not yet joined, begin or renew your membership for 2026 and beyond to receive this benefit and support our association’s important work. Visit glancda.org or contact Bob Smith or Kelly Edwards to begin or renew your membership. Active and paid members can also visit our website to review the status of a specific dealership. Looking ahead, we are expanding opportunities for industry partners. Beginning in 2027, businesses that support new car dealers can become affiliate members and sponsors of GLANCDA programs and events. Affiliate members will have opportunities to connect directly with dealer leaders while supporting initiatives such as our Annual Dealer Member Luncheon in April, workforce development programs at local community colleges, a March event at the Petersen Automotive Museum, and technician tool scholarship presentations. Contact GLANCDA to discuss affiliate membership and sponsorship options, and watch for additional details in November and December. Advocacy remains central to our mission. Bob Smith continues to coordinate opportunities for dealers to meet with local, state and federal elected officials. Our industry faces significant challenges, including manufacturer issues involving the franchise system and direct vehicle sales, facility requirements and increasingly complex regulatory compliance obligations. Help policymakers understand the realities of operating a dealership by contacting Bob Smith to schedule a meeting with an elected representative, inviting an official to visit your dealership or volunteering for an upcoming advocacy effort. Your firsthand perspective can influence decisions affecting your business, employees and community. Finally, growing our membership and strengthening GLANCDA as a valuable resource for every dealer will remain priorities in 2027. Encourage a neighboring dealer to join, attend an upcoming GLANCDA event, share your ideas with association leaders and help build relationships across our industry. Our association is strongest when dealers participate, and getting involved can be enjoyable and rewarding. Thank you for the privilege of serving as your president. I look forward to GLANCDA’s continued success and to working together to strengthen our industry. 4
As Auto Shows Evolve, New Opportunities Emerge for Dealerships The automotive retail landscape continues to evolve, and so does one of the industry’s longest-standing consumer engagement platforms: the auto show. For decades, auto shows have connected automakers with prospective buyers, giving consumers the opportunity to explore new vehicles, compare competing models and experience the latest technology in a single destination. Today, these events are expanding beyond traditional vehicle exhibitions, creating new opportunities throughout the automotive retail ecosystem. The Los Angeles Auto Show, founded in 1907 and held annually in the nation’s largest vehicle market, offers a compelling example of this transformation. Organizers recently announced a 130% year-over-year increase in combined media and sponsorship commitments for the 2026 event, driven by growing interest from companies spanning financial services, technology, energy, gaming, entertainment and consumer lifestyle categories. The growth reflects a broader shift in how marketers view auto shows: not simply as destinations for automotive enthusiasts but as consumer engagement platforms that reach shoppers at multiple stages of the vehicle purchase journey. For automotive dealerships, this evolution presents an opportunity worth examining. The Auto Show Audience Remains a Valuable Automotive Consumer Despite the expansion into lifestyle, entertainment and consumer experiences, the foundation of the auto show remains unchanged: bringing prospective buyers face-to-face with vehicles. Unlike traditional advertising, auto shows allow consumers to sit inside vehicles, evaluate features, compare competing brands and experience new technologies in a pressure-free environment. These interactions help consumers narrow their consideration sets before visiting a dealership. A shopper who arrives already familiar with a vehicle’s features, design and driving experience may be further along in the purchasing process than someone beginning their research. Auto shows also attract consumers who may not be actively shopping but are beginning to consider their next vehicle. Engaging these audiences early can build brand familiarity and influence future purchasing decisions. The ability to reach both immediate and future buyers creates value extending well beyond the event itself. Major Consumer Brands Recognize the Opportunity The 2026 Los Angeles Auto Show, presented by Chevron with Techron, illustrates how companies outside traditional automotive manufacturing increasingly recognize the value of engaging automotive consumers. Chevron with Techron becomes the first energy company in the show’s history to serve as Presenting Sponsor, while Capital One Auto Navigator has secured the Official Car Shopping and Financing sponsorship category. Capital One’s participation is particularly relevant to automotive retailers, reinforcing the growing intersection of vehicle discovery, financing preparation and the consumer purchase journey. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power will also sponsor the outdoor LADWP Test Track, where consumers can experience electric and hybrid vehicles from multiple manufacturers side by side. Beyond automotive-related categories, organizations including the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, TikTok and entertainment brands are participating in experiences that introduce the show to new audiences and expand its reach across media, culture and lifestyle. These companies recognize something fundamental about the auto show audience: Attendees are willing to dedicate significant time to exploring products, engaging with brands and discovering new experiences. For dealerships investing substantial resources in digital advertising and customer acquisition, that concentration of consumer attention is increasingly valuable. A Broader Role for Dealerships and Regional Automotive Retailers Historically, automakers have carried much of the responsibility for establishing a brand’s presence at major auto shows, and a comprehensive OEM-led presence remains the preferred model. Manufacturer participation delivers the greatest depth of vehicle
displays, technology showcases and brand experiences, benefiting the event, dealerships and consumers alike. However, when an automaker elects not to participate, an opportunity emerges for local dealerships and regional dealer groups to maintain their brand’s visibility in a highly competitive shopping environment. This is particularly relevant for premium brands such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Lexus. Los Angeles Auto Show attendee research confirms that existing owners of these brands attend in significant numbers, arrive expecting to see their brands represented, and actively cross-shop competing vehicles. When those brands are absent, competitors gain a valuable opportunity to engage consumers who already demonstrate an affinity for the premium automotive segment and may be considering their next purchase. For regional retailers, this creates both a competitive consideration and an opportunity to keep their brands in consumers’ consideration sets. With the growing popularity of on-site test drives, regional dealer groups can create compelling brand experiences without replicating the scale or investment of an OEM-led exhibit. A curated display featuring a selection of priority models could be complemented by those same vehicles available for test drives just steps away, allowing consumers to move seamlessly from product discovery to firsthand driving experience. Ultimately, consumers attend auto shows expecting choice. They want to explore vehicles across brands, compare options and experience models that interest them most. When a brand is absent, that expectation doesn’t disappear; consumers simply turn their attention to the competitors present. In the consumer’s eyes, that absence can reflect more on the brand than on the event itself. While regional participation may not replicate the impact of an OEM-led exhibit, it can preserve brand awareness, support existing customer relationships and engage prospective buyers who might otherwise gravitate toward competing vehicles. November 20-29, 2026 Los Angeles Convention Center 7
The greater opportunity lies in recognizing that auto show participation need not depend exclusively on OEM initiatives. In a competitive retail market, ensuring a brand is present where consumers evaluate their next vehicle can be a meaningful advantage. Connecting the Auto Show Experience to the Showroom The most significant opportunity for dealerships may be connecting the excitement of vehicle discovery with an eventual showroom visit. Dealerships can build on consumer interest generated at an auto show through coordinated local advertising, digital engagement, test-drive opportunities and post-event marketing, making it easier for shoppers to continue their research and visit a dealership. Regional auto shows also provide opportunities to strengthen community relationships, introduce dealership groups to new audiences and build connections that extend into vehicle ownership and service. As vehicle technology grows more sophisticated and purchasing decisions become increasingly complex, firsthand product experiences remain an important complement to digital research. A Q4 Marketing Platform with Growing Reach Timing is another important consideration. The 2026 Los Angeles Auto Show takes place Nov. 20-29, aligning with Thanksgiving, Black Friday and the opening of the holiday shopping season. The event begins Nov. 19 with AutoMobility LA, its global media and industry day, bringing together automotive executives, journalists, technology leaders and business decision-makers. Ten public days then provide an extended opportunity to reach consumers during one of the year’s most competitive retail marketing periods. For dealerships, that timing offers potential alignment with year-end sales initiatives, local advertising campaigns and customer acquisition strategies. The Next Chapter of Automotive Consumer Engagement The 130% growth in media and sponsorship commitments at the Los Angeles Auto Show signals broader recognition of the value that automotive events deliver in today’s competitive consumer marketplace. As financial services, technology, entertainment and lifestyle companies expand their presence, the automotive industry has an opportunity to reconsider how it leverages these established platforms. For manufacturers, auto shows remain an important vehicle for showcasing products and building brand awareness. For dealerships and regional retailers, they offer opportunities to engage consumers earlier in the purchase journey, strengthen market visibility and translate vehicle discovery into lasting customer relationships. Ultimately, the strength of an auto show comes from bringing together the vehicles consumers want to explore and the businesses that make ownership possible. As these events evolve, the opportunity extends across the automotive industry, from the companies building the vehicles to the dealerships bringing them into consumers’ driveways. 8
Anticipate every turn In an industry that’s always evolving, your dealership can rely on our Dealer Financial Services team’s 90 years of experience to see what’s around the corner, forward-thinking insights to prepare you, and technology to keep you ahead of the curve. What would you like the power to do?® Casey Cooper, casey.cooper@bofa.com Amy Shimamoto, amy.shimamoto@bofa.com business.bofa.com/dealer ©2026 Bank of America Corporation. All rights reserved. DFS-699-AD 8714383 Investment products offered by Investment Banking Affiliates: Are Not FDIC Insured Are Not Bank Guaranteed May Lose Value “Bank of America” and “BofA Securities” are the marketing names used by the Global Banking and Global Markets divisions of Bank of America Corporation. Lending, derivatives, other commercial banking activities, and trading in certain financial instruments are performed globally by banking affiliates of Bank of America Corporation, including Bank of America, N.A., Member FDIC. Trading in securities and financial instruments, and strategic advisory, and other investment banking activities, are performed globally by investment banking affiliates of Bank of America Corporation (“Investment Banking Affiliates”), including, in the United States, BofA Securities, Inc., which is a registered broker-dealer and Member of SIPC, and, in other jurisdictions, by locally registered entities. BofA Securities, Inc. is a registered futures commission merchant with the CFTC and a member of the NFA.
NADA’s 51st Washington Conference Dealers Get the Bigger Picture on the Policy and Political Landscape By Enrique Gutierrez, Director of Public Affairs, NADA On Sept. 15, after canvassing the halls of both the House and Senate office buildings and educating their elected representatives on the major policy issues of the day, Washington Conference attendees gathered for a reception in the Library of Congress’ Thomas Jefferson Building — hailed by many as the most beautiful building in Washington. But by daybreak, dealers were back to the business at hand. Building on the momentum of day one, day two opened with a message from NADA Chairman Rob Cochran, who underscored why dealer advocacy matters — and why showing up in Washington makes a difference: “For more than half a century, this conference has demonstrated the power of dealers coming together in Washington. There is simply no substitute for policymakers hearing directly from you — the men and women who run dealerships, employ people in your communities and serve customers every day.” This message was reinforced during a fireside chat-style conversation between Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) and Cochran. Moreno updated attendees on key legislation, including the bipartisan Connected Vehicle Security Act he introduced. He also shared his insights on current events in Washington and shared his perspective on what lies ahead. 10
Sen. Moreno offered advice to the dealers ahead of their prospective congressional meetings, telling attendees to “make [your] arguments simple, crisp and digestible.” On the regulatory front, dealers heard from Chris Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, who updated them on the agency’s renewed focus on advertising transparency. Mufarrige’s speech came on the heels of the FTC’s release of its long-awaited price transparency FAQs the day before. NADA released the following statement in response: “The FTC’s FAQs are an important step toward providing dealers with clear guidance about the agency’s advertising compliance expectations. NADA worked closely with dealers and the FTC to address questions raised following the warning letters, and we appreciate the agency’s effort to further educate the industry on this important topic.” Of course, no trip to Washington would be complete without a little political discussion. Dealers got an exclusive preview of the 2026 midterm elections from political analyst David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, who offered an inside look at the current political landscape and what the results could mean for dealers and their issues. Attendees took advantage of his expertise and asked several astute questions regarding upcoming races and the reliability of polling. The conference wrapped up with another round of Capitol Hill meetings on Wednesday afternoon, giving dealers another window of opportunity to engage directly with their elected representatives. In total, this year’s attendees scheduled more than 200 meetings, emphasizing dealers’ commitment to making their voice heard in Washington. By coming together and building relationships, dealers are actively influencing the policies that affect auto retailers and their customers. 11
MANNING LEAVER LEGAL LANE The California CARS Act: Dealer Litigation Ahead What Dealers May See When the New Rules Hit the Courtroom By Daniel F. Berberich, Esq., Partner, Manning, Leaver, Bruder & Berberich LLP On Oct. 1, the California Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Act became operative, bringing significant changes to the way California dealers advertise, sell, finance and lease vehicles. By now, dealers have received considerable information about what the new law requires. Policies have been updated. Forms have changed. Sales and finance personnel have been trained. Dealerships have been preparing for new requirements involving advertised prices, add-on products, customer communications, used-vehicle cancellation rights and record retention. But compliance is only part of the picture. Dealers should also consider the CARS Act from another perspective: How will these new requirements translate into future consumer litigation? What Will a CARS Act Case Look Like Two Years From Now? From a litigation perspective, new regulatory requirements should be viewed not only as compliance obligations, but also as potential sources of future claims. Today’s compliance requirement can become tomorrow’s allegation in a demand letter, lawsuit, document request or deposition. The CARS Act is unlikely to be an exception. Dealer advocacy successfully removed one of the most concerning provisions from the original legislation — an enhanced private right of action that would have made essentially every violation a deceptive practice under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The enacted CARS Act contains no express private right of action. That is significant, but it does not mean that CARS Act issues will be excluded from litigation. Plaintiffs’ attorneys can be expected to pursue conduct allegedly violating the Act through existing statutes, including California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL) and, where independently applicable, the CLRA. “That Wasn’t the Price I Saw Online” One area likely to receive considerable attention is the CARS Act’s new “Total Price” requirement. When a dealer advertises a specific vehicle, the advertised price generally must be the Total Price at which the dealer will sell that vehicle, subject to the exclusions permitted by law. From a litigation standpoint, the allegation practically writes itself: “The vehicle was advertised online for $32,995. When I got to the dealership, they told me it was actually $34,990 because it already had $1,995 in dealer-installed window tint, wheel locks and door edge guards.” That scenario illustrates why Total Price is likely to receive considerable attention from plaintiffs’ attorneys. Preinstalled products are likely to be a particular area of risk. Dealers commonly install items such as wheel locks, window tint, upgraded wheels, bed liners, running boards, protection packages and other equipment before a vehicle is sold. The CARS Act does not prohibit dealers from selling vehicles with dealer-installed equipment. But if the equipment is installed before the vehicle is advertised or before the dealer’s first written price communication regarding the specific vehicle, its cost generally must be included in the Total Price. The issue ultimately comes down to whether the advertised figure is a price at which the dealership was actually willing to sell that particular vehicle. Suppose a dealership advertises a vehicle for $42,000 but has already installed a $1,995 product on every vehicle of that model, and dealership personnel routinely tell customers that the product cannot be 12
removed. In litigation, plaintiff’s counsel will likely focus on whether the customer could actually purchase that particular vehicle for the advertised $42,000 price, whether the product was already installed when the vehicle was advertised, whether its $1,995 cost was included in the advertised Total Price and whether customers genuinely had the option to decline the product. If the advertised vehicle could not actually be purchased for the advertised price, expect that advertisement to become Exhibit 1 to the complaint. Whether customers genuinely had the option to decline the product could become particularly important. Federal regulators have already shown interest in high “penetration rates” for supposedly optional products. If virtually every customer purchases the same “optional” product, a plaintiff may use that pattern to argue that customers were not being given a meaningful choice. The strongest litigation file will be the one in which the advertisement, the physical configuration of the vehicle, the customer presentation and the sale contract all tell the same story. “They Told Me the Add-On Was Required” Optional products will remain another obvious area for litigation. Service contracts, GAP waivers, theft-deterrent devices and other add-ons already generate consumer claims involving familiar allegations: the customer was told the product was required by the lender, was led to believe the vehicle could not be purchased without it, expressly declined the product but was charged for it anyway, or did not understand that the product carried an additional charge. The CARS Act requires written disclosures regarding optional add-ons and prohibits certain misrepresentations concerning their costs, benefits, limitations and other material terms. It also prohibits charging for an add-on that the customer would not benefit from. Some applications of that prohibition are straightforward. An oil-change product for an electric vehicle presents an obvious problem. So does catalytic-converter marking for a vehicle without a catalytic converter. Other situations will be less obvious. That is where litigation tends to occur. Dealers should expect discovery not only about what the customer signed, but also about how the product was presented, whether the customer was eligible for its benefits, what the dealership’s penetration rate was and whether customers genuinely could decline it. Advertising MSRP or “See Dealer for Details” Is Not Enough Dealers also should be careful about relying on MSRP. Under the CARS Act, MSRP is not a substitute for the dealer’s Total Price for a specific vehicle. Suppose the manufacturer’s suggested retail price is $38,500, but the dealership has already installed $1,485 in required accessories. An advertisement that prominently states only “MSRP $38,500” does not disclose the dealer’s Total Price. The dealership may identify MSRP separately, but it must also provide the actual Total Price. Dealers should also be mindful that FTC staff recently stated that the actual price a consumer can pay should be the most prominent amount in the advertisement, with MSRP or other reference prices displayed less prominently. The same principle applies to familiar phrases such as “see dealer for details” or “call for price.” The CARS Act is designed to require the price itself to be communicated, not merely provide a starting point that the customer must visit the dealership to understand. This issue is particularly important because advertisements are no longer confined to a dealership’s own website. Vehicles appear on manufacturer sites, third-party platforms and syndicated listings. Dealers will need to know not merely what price they send to those platforms, but what customers actually see. In future litigation, a dealer may hear: “Our system sent the correct price.” Plaintiff ’s counsel may respond: “That isn’t what your customer saw.” The Document Processing Charge Presents a Different Problem The document processing charge (DPC) illustrates how dealers sometimes must navigate overlapping state and federal requirements. Under California law, including the CARS Act, the DPC may be excluded from the vehicle’s advertised Total Price if the required disclosure language is used. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), however, has taken a more aggressive position. In March 2026, the FTC sent warning letters to 97 dealer groups stating that advertised prices must include mandatory fees and charges and may exclude only required government charges. More recently, FTC staff issued FAQs expressly stating that the advertised price must include the full DPC if the dealer requires the consumer to pay it, as well as any other dealer-required charges. Per the FAQs, only charges that the government requires the consumer to pay may be excluded. The FAQs further state that the actual price, including the dealer-required charges, should be the most prominent price in the advertisement. That position differs from California law, which expressly permits the DPC to be separately disclosed. Based on the recent position by FTC staff, dealers should include the DPC and other dealer-required charges in the advertised price. From a litigation perspective, this is important for another reason. A plaintiff’s attorney challenging an advertisement may not limit the case to the four corners of the CARS Act. Federal advertising principles, the CLRA, the UCL and other theories may also enter the case. A technically defensible interpretation of one statute does not necessarily prevent litigation under another. Rebates Can Still Be Advertised — But They Are Not the Total Price The CARS Act does not prohibit dealers from separately advertising rebates or incentives, but a rebate may not be deducted in calculating the vehicle’s advertised Total Price. For example, assume a vehicle’s Total Price is $30,000, and a $2,000 13
factory rebate is available. The dealer may separately identify the $2,000 rebate and show a $28,000 “net cost,” assuming existing advertising requirements are satisfied. But the dealer’s Total Price remains $30,000. Conditional rebates create additional risk. A rebate available only to military members, recent college graduates, first responders or another limited group cannot be used to reduce the vehicle’s advertised Total Price as though every customer qualifies. Although a dealer may separately advertise a net price reflecting the rebate, applicable qualifications and limitations must be properly disclosed. From a litigation standpoint, the danger is obvious: “They advertised the vehicle for $28,000, but when I arrived, they told me that price was only available if I qualified for rebates that did not apply to me.”The more conditions necessary to obtain the number prominently displayed in an advertisement, the easier it becomes for a plaintiff to argue that the advertised number was never really the vehicle’s price. The First Email or Text Can Matter Too The Total Price rules do not stop with formal advertisements. The CARS Act also requires disclosure of the Total Price in the dealer’s first written communication with a specific consumer that references either a specific vehicle or a monetary amount or financing term for a specific vehicle. That means an internet lead response, email or text message can become important evidence. Imagine a customer asking: “What’s your best price on the blue Tahoe?” A salesperson responds from a personal cell phone: “We can do $61,500.” If that figure does not meet the Total Price requirements, the issue may have arisen before the customer entered the showroom. This also creates a record-retention issue. The Act requires dealers to retain first written communications for at least two years, even where the consumer never ultimately purchases or leases a vehicle. Dealers should therefore think carefully about employees communicating with customers outside systems that the dealership can preserve and retrieve. The salesperson’s personal text message may seem convenient today. Two years from now, it may be the missing piece of evidence everyone wishes the dealership had retained. The Three-Day Right to Cancel Will Create Entirely New Fact Patterns Beginning Oct. 1, qualifying used vehicles priced at $50,000 or less generally will carry a three-day right to cancel, subject to specific statutory conditions. This will create disputes that California dealers largely have not had to litigate before. Imagine a customer returning on the third day, saying, “I’m canceling the deal.” The dealership believes the customer has driven 425 miles, while the customer contends that the vehicle already had 40 of those miles at delivery, making the mileage recorded at delivery critical. Other disputes may arise over whether the customer attempted to cancel within the three-day period, whether the vehicle was returned with new damage, whether all items provided with the vehicle were returned or how the customer’s trade-in was handled. Even the mechanics of processing the cancellation can create problems. For example, if dealership personnel incorrectly require the customer to pay the restocking fee separately before processing the cancellation, rather than deducting the fee from the refund as generally required by the statute. These are not theoretical compliance questions; they are future factual disputes. The best defense will be contemporaneous documentation: mileage at delivery, the exact cancellation deadline provided to the customer, mileage upon attempted return, photographs of the vehicle’s condition, documentation concerning the trade-in and a written record explaining any legitimate basis for declining the cancellation. The Records May Become the Dealer’s Best Defense The CARS Act requires dealers to create and retain for two years records sufficient to demonstrate compliance. Those records include information concerning Total Price advertising, signed transaction documents and written customer communications, add-on products, cancellation requests and refunds, and certain customer complaints and inquiries. From a litigation perspective, this may be one of the most valuable parts of the Act. A lawsuit filed in 2028 concerning a 2026 14
transaction may involve a salesperson who has left the dealership and a finance manager who has handled hundreds of transactions since then. The customer may remember the alleged conversation perfectly. The dealership employees may remember nothing. But the records can establish what was advertised, what products were installed, what disclosures were provided, what the customer purchased and what happened if the customer later attempted to cancel. Those records effectively become witnesses. No Express Private Right of Action Does Not Mean No Lawsuits Dealer advocacy substantially improved the CARS Act prior to its enactment. Importantly, the final statute does not contain the enhanced private right of action included in earlier versions. However, existing California law already provides plaintiffs’ attorneys with potential avenues to challenge conduct addressed by the Act. One particularly important avenue is California’s 2024 “hidden fees” law, SB 478. Civil Code § 1770(a)(29) amended the CLRA to prohibit advertising, displaying or offering a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges, subject to specified exceptions. Automobile dealers obtained an exemption from that provision, but the exemption applies only when the dealer’s advertisement complies with Vehicle Code § 11713.1(b). See Vehicle Code § 11713.27. California law permits dealers to separately disclose certain specified charges, as reflected in the familiar Vehicle Code § 11713.1(c)(2) advertising disclosure: “Plus government fees and taxes, any finance charges, any dealer document processing charge, any electronic filing charge, and any emission testing charge.” As previously discussed, although California law permits the DPC to be disclosed separately, FTC staff have now expressly stated that, under federal law, the advertised price must include the full DPC if the dealer requires the consumer to pay it, and that this actual price should be the most prominent amount in the advertisement. A required dealer-added product, however, is not one of the charges that California law permits a dealer to exclude from the advertised price. That creates an important overlap with the CARS Act’s Total Price requirement. Consider a dealer that advertises a vehicle for $30,000 but has already installed $3,000 in dealer-added products that the customer must purchase. Failing to include those products in the advertised price may implicate not only the CARS Act’s Total Price requirement, but also existing Vehicle Code advertising requirements and the CLRA’s prohibition against hidden mandatory fees. As a result, conduct that violates the CARS Act may also provide the basis for a private consumer claim under existing law, even though the CARS Act itself contains no express private right of action. That is why the Total Price issue may become one of the Act’s greatest litigation risks. Train for the Deposition, Not Just Oct. 1 Much of the work at dealerships has understandably been directed toward Oct. 1, 2026. Dealerships have been busy updating forms, websites and systems. But consider another date: Oct. 1, 2028. Imagine a salesperson, an internet manager or a finance manager sitting for a deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel may ask whether the customer could actually purchase the vehicle for the advertised price, why a preinstalled product was not included in that price, whether the document processing charge was included, and what rebates or incentives were necessary to obtain the price displayed online. The questioning may then turn to whether the customer was told the product was optional, whether the customer could genuinely decline it, and, if the customer attempted to exercise the three-day cancellation right, why the request was rejected. And when counsel asks for the salesperson’s first email or text message to the customer, will the dealership still have it? The strongest answers will come from dealerships whose practices and records consistently answer those questions. Today’s Compliance Issue Is Tomorrow’s Exhibit The CARS Act will create substantial operational changes for California dealers. Inevitably, there will be a learning curve. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will be watching that learning curve. Of all the new requirements, Total Price may deserve the greatest attention. A dealer should be able to answer a simple question about every specific vehicle it advertises: Can any customer actually buy this vehicle at the price we are advertising without being required to purchase anything not already included in that price? If the answer is no, there is a problem worth fixing. Dealers should likewise pay careful attention to optional products, rebate advertising, written customer communications, cancellation procedures and the records necessary to prove compliance. These were previously compliance issues. As of Oct. 1, they are also litigation issues. When the CARS Act reaches the courtroom, it will not be enough to say the dealership complied. The question will be: “Can you prove it?” Two years after the transaction, when memories have faded and employees may have moved on, the dealership’s records will provide the best answer. Manning, Leaver, Bruder & Berberich LLP is a Los Angeles law firm that practices throughout California and has been in existence for over 100 years. It has a strong automobile dealer practice covering all areas of the automobile dealer industry, including dealership buy-sells, real estate transactions, business and consumer litigation, regulatory compliance, dealer association law, new motor vehicle board matters and franchise law. See manningleaver.com for more information and areas of practice. Nothing in this article may be considered as legal advice. Contact legal counsel for legal advice. 15
California Dealership Transactions Jump 52% Why Buyers Continue to Pay Up for the Right Store By Haig Partners LLC Real estate is expensive, labor costs are high, and competition is intense. Yet sophisticated buyers continue to pursue the state. The number of dealerships bought or sold in the state increased 76% during the first half of 2026. More important is why buyers remain willing to deploy significant capital into California, and what that says about dealership value. Blue sky multiples get enormous attention in dealership M&A, but a multiple is still a market opinion. It reflects buyer sentiment, scarcity and deal flow as much as underlying economics. The Franchise Horsepower Index in the Q2 2026 Haig Report looks beneath the multiple by measuring new vehicle throughput multiplied by average transaction price. New vehicle sales feed the dealership. More throughput creates trade-ins, F&I opportunities and vehicles that return to fixed operations. Higher transaction prices increase the revenue opportunity. California adds another dimension. The state ranks first nationally in retail vehicles in operation and third in new retail sales per franchise. California dealerships therefore operate with substantial volume per rooftop while serving the largest installed base of retail vehicles in the country. Throughput powers the engine. Vehicles in operation help stabilize it. Nationally, Lexus, BMW, Toyota and Mercedes-Benz lead the Franchise Horsepower Index at 2.55x, 2.15x, 2.03x and 1.75x the market average, respectively. Toyota represents 19.4% of LA County new retail registrations compared with 14.6% nationally. Lexus represents 5.1% locally versus 2.6% nationally, BMW 5.1% versus 2.4%, and Mercedes-Benz 5.6% versus 2.9%. A franchise with strong economics nationally can become even more valuable where the brand materially over-indexes with consumers. That is one reason Toyota remains, in our view, the most desirable franchise in California. Lexus, BMW and Mercedes-Benz hold exceptional buyer demand; Honda is an undervalued/high-conviction opportunity; and Kia is a brand to watch. But this is not a sales ranking. It reflects franchise economics, consumer demand, scarcity, product direction and buyer appetite. Honda represents 13.1% of LA County registrations compared with 9.7% nationally, demonstrating how well the franchise fits Southern California. Honda possesses many Toyota-like characteristics: high throughput, loyal customers, dependable products and strong fixed operations. The average Honda dealership sold 1,241 new vehicles on an LTM basis through Q2 2026, compared with a 774-unit average for the brands tracked in the Haig Report. Yet Honda’s average blue sky multiple remains almost 20% below Toyota’s, making Honda one of the most undervalued franchises in auto retail today. Its hybrid strategy is improving, core products remain strong, and the economics are attractive. Kia represents 5.2% of LA County registrations, and its product portfolio and hybrid strategy continue to strengthen. In M&A, buyers purchase future cash flows. Improving franchises can become especially interesting before that progress is reflected in acquisition multiples. California is not a dealership market. Los Angeles, Orange County and the Inland Empire can produce materially different economics. Real estate, demographics, franchise performance and buyer appetite change considerably across short distances. That is why asking, “What are California dealerships trading for?” is rarely the best valuation question. A better question is: “What will qualified buyers pay for this franchise, in this market, with these earnings, this real estate and these strategic characteristics?” For owners, increased transaction activity means this is an important time to understand what they own. Knowing the value of the franchise, the depth of the buyer universe and the factors that enhance value creates strategic optionality, whether the decision is to sell, acquire, reinvest or continue operating. The multiple tells you what the market may pay today. The underlying horsepower helps explain why. 16
,
By Christian J. Scali, Managing Shareholder, Scali Rasmussen What California Businesses Should Know After the SB 1130 Veto Privacy and Wearable Recording Devices Smart glasses and other wearable recording devices are moving into California workplaces. This year the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1130 to regulate them, and Gov. Newsom vetoed it on Sept. 30, 2026. The practical question for employers remains: How should a business respond when employees, customers, vendors or visitors wear devices that record audio or video on its premises? Wearable recording devices add new layers to privacy, operational and compliance concerns. Until California enacts a wearable-specific law, existing privacy statutes and court decisions govern, and businesses should continue to follow them. What SB 1130 Proposed SB 1130 would have expanded the California Invasion of Privacy Act to address wearable recording devices such as smart glasses and body-worn technology. As passed by the Legislature, the bill would have prohibited a person from using a wearable recording device to capture sound or video of another person in an area within a place of business where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless that person explicitly consents. The bill would also have made it a separate violation to disable a light or other indicator showing that the device is recording. Beginning Jan. 1, 2028, the bill also required wearable recording devices sold in California to carry a recording indicator prominent enough to alert a reasonable person nearby. The bill exempted, among others, peace officer body-worn cameras, employer-provided communication devices used in normal work duties (with a customer notice requirement if the employer intentionally records a customer), hearing aids and assistive technology. The bill would have been enforced by prosecutors and public enforcers. As reported, a violation of the new section would have been a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,500, up to one year in county jail, or both. A knowing violation of the manufacturer requirements would have carried a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per violation. The bill reportedly created no private right of action. 18
The Veto The governor vetoed SB 1130 on Sept. 30, 2026. In the veto message, the governor stated that the bill defines several terms too broadly or imprecisely, noted that its definition of a wearable recording device could reach certain smartwatches and other worn devices, and observed that existing California law already prohibits recording people where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. He also acknowledged that reports of invasive conduct using wearable technology demand a legislative response. An override requires a two-thirds vote in each house, which the Legislature rarely attempts, so any successor proposal would likely arrive as a new bill in the next legislative session. The veto leaves in place existing law governing recording in the workplace. For instance, Penal Code section 632 prohibits intentionally recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties. Penal Code section 637.2 allows an injured person to sue for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages. Also, Labor Code section 435 separately prohibits an employer from recording employees by audio or video in a restroom, locker room or room designated for changing clothes without a court order. Why This Matters for Businesses For employers, the exposure extends beyond just recorded conversations. A workplace may include reception areas, retail floors, open offices, conference rooms, HR offices, break rooms, healthcare settings, customer service counters and private offices where sensitive information is regularly discussed, displayed and processed. A wearable recording device can capture not only what is said but also what is seen in the surrounding environment. That distinction matters under California privacy law. California courts have repeatedly made clear that privacy is not an all-or-nothing concept. In Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 20 Cal. 4th 907 (1999), an undercover reporter secretly videotaped conversations at a telepsychic call center. The California Supreme Court held that employees in a nonpublic workplace may still have a limited but legitimate expectation that their interactions will not be secretly videotaped, even if coworkers could have overheard them. In Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 47 Cal. 4th 272 (2009), the Court explained that workplace privacy depends on context, including the nature of the intrusion, the setting and the employee’s reasonable expectations under the circumstances. The Court ruled for the employer in Hernandez because the video surveillance was limited in scope and tied to a legitimate purpose, a point that supports documented, narrowly tailored recording policies. Because SB 1130 did not become law, these common-law privacy decisions continue to provide the governing framework for wearable-device disputes in the workplace. Public Areas vs. Sensitive Areas For businesses, that framework is more useful than a simple “public versus private” label. A retail floor, lobby or reception area is generally more open than an HR office, manager’s office, conference room, finance office or other restricted-access area. But even in more public-facing areas, recording can create a privacy risk when it captures sensitive information that is visible or audible in the background. Consider a smart-glasses recording made during an ordinary customer interaction. The device may capture a driver’s license on a desk, payment information on a monitor, another customer’s account discussion nearby, employee records, confidential business materials or proprietary information visible during the interaction. In that situation, the concern extends beyond the conversation itself. The surrounding data environment may be the greater problem. Why Wearables Are Different Wearable devices present a different challenge than an ordinary phone camera. They may be less noticeable, operate hands-free and make it harder for others to tell whether recording is taking place. That uncertainty alone can create tension in settings where sensitive information is routinely handled. California law does not currently require a visible recording indicator on smart glasses, because the indicator mandate in SB 1130 did not survive the veto. Staff and visitors therefore cannot rely on a light to show whether a device is recording, which strengthens the case for clear written policies and designated no-wearable areas. The issue can arise on both the employee and visitor sides. For employees, wearable devices create concerns in HR settings, management meetings, healthcare environments, finance functions, confidential project discussions and other spaces where personnel, compensation, customer or strategic information is discussed. Even where no improper recording occurs, uncertainty over whether an employee is recording can create immediate operational concerns. For customers, clients, vendors and visitors, the concern takes a different form. A wearer may believe the device documents only the meeting, transaction or service interaction at hand. But the device may also capture another person’s information, documents left in view or screens displaying private data. Depending on the location and circumstances, that may raise privacy concerns independent of the wearer’s original intent. A Courtroom Example: The Meta Glasses Incident On Feb. 18, 2026, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl reportedly ordered members of Mark Zuckerberg’s team to remove Meta AI glasses they wore into her courtroom at a social media addiction trial. She warned that she would hold them in contempt if they had recorded anything and did not delete it, 19
mbr-connect.comRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTg3NDExNQ==