ADAS Calibration Laws by State: What the Record Actually Shows
Short answer: there is no wave of ADAS calibration licensing. One state is doing something genuinely new, and it is doing it by regulation. Of the bills that we read this year, the one that went furthest was stripped of every operative provision and then died, which is why the coverage we have found is still pointed at the bill rather than at the regulation. And a lot of what you have read about this is out of date.
Session statuses verified 2026-08-04; the national picture below re-verified 2026-08-05. Every status was read from the legislature's or the agency's own website, not from a trade summary. Where we could not reach a primary source we say so rather than filling the gap, and where we later did reach it, we say that too rather than editing the gap out.
The whole answer, in one table
| State | Where it stands | What to do about it |
|---|---|---|
| Maryland | The licensing bill died. What passed was a study | Nothing now. The MVA report is due 1 January 2027 |
| Rhode Island | Two proposed regulations, not bills. Comment closed 25 June, no final filing | Watch the Secretary of State's promulgation page, not a bill tracker |
| New York | Enacted. Glass disclosure, General Business Law 392-k | Comply now if you do glass |
| Illinois | Passed the House 110-0, then missed a deadline | Can return before the 104th GA ends in 2027 |
| Utah | The bill is not an ADAS law, but the state already had one. H.B. 119 is about aftermarket crash parts, so the roundups citing it are wrong. They are wrong in an odd direction: Utah Code 41-6a-1645, enacted 2020 and amended by S.B. 78 in 2021, is a full ADAS disclosure duty and predates Florida by three years | Comply now if you do glass in Utah. The duty is five years old |
| Federal | H.R. 6688 introduced. Guidelines, not a standard, and aimed at manufacturers | No shop obligation |
This table is about the 2026 legislative session; it is not the national map. When we first published it, states not listed here simply had not been checked. That is no longer true: we have since read all fifty-one jurisdictions' own statutes and rules, and nine states can hold a glass shop to an ADAS disclosure duty today: Utah (2020), Arizona (2022), Florida (2023), Kentucky (2024), Iowa (2025), Louisiana (2026), Virginia, New York and Maryland. The two oldest are missing from every industry roundup we have seen, including, until this correction, our own table above.
The full fifty-state map, with the evidence tier for every row, is in the auto glass disclosure guide. Read that for "does my state have a law". Read this page for "what moved this session, and what the trackers are getting wrong".
Why we wrote this as a correction
While checking, we found three separate published claims that do not survive contact with the record:
- A widely cited industry legislation tracker still displays 2022-session content under a 2025 timestamp. It lists a Maryland bill from 2022 as pending. That bill died in committee four years ago.
- Multiple outlets describe Maryland SB 789 by the licensing text it was introduced with. The Senate had already replaced that text with a study before passing it.
- At least one roundup credits Utah H.B. 119 (2026) with ADAS provisions. The enrolled bill amends Utah Code 31A-22-317 and 31A-22-319 and is about disclosure of non-OEM aftermarket crash parts. It is not an ADAS bill.
None of that is anyone acting in bad faith. Legislative tracking is tedious, bills change late, and a page that was right in 2022 does not announce when it stops being right. But if you are making an equipment or training decision on the strength of "licensing is coming", the record matters.
Maryland: the real attempt, and it is dead
SB 789 (2026 Regular Session), Senator Jennings. No cross-file.
As introduced on 6 February, it was a full licensing regime, a new subtitle of the Transportation Article creating Motor Vehicle Administration licensure for ADAS recalibration:
- "A person may not perform a recalibration on an advanced driver assistance system unless the person is licensed by the Administration." Civil penalty up to $5,000 per violation from 1 November 2027.
- Facility standards: a controlled environment meeting OEM specification, OEM-specified tools, access to OEM repair procedures and position statements, post-repair scan, recordkeeping.
- Consumer disclosure before and after the repair, including the safety implications of not performing a required recalibration.
- Insurer obligations: may not deny coverage for a repair or recalibration recommended by the repair procedure or position statement, and may not treat a repair as complete until all necessary recalibrations are done.
None of that survived. The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee reported it favourable with amendments, and the amended bill is titled Motor Vehicle Administration - Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Repairs - Study. The Senate then passed the study 46-0. The House referred it to Rules and Executive Nominations on 8 April, and the session adjourned sine die on 13 April 2026. Maryland bills do not carry over. There is no chapter number.
What remains is a report. The MVA must study ADAS repair and training requirements, review laws in other states, and consult the insurance administration, the dealers association, AAA, the property and casualty industry, a national highway safety organisation, a glass repair company, an auto body trade association, and ADAS training and parts companies. It reports to two committees by 1 January 2027.
That date is the thing to watch. A study delivered in January is the usual precursor to a bill in the session that follows.
Two Maryland facts worth carrying separately. Maryland already has an enacted ADAS glass-disclosure law at Commercial Law 14-1327: a glass facility must tell the customer if recalibration is required, must provide a written statement that the work meets or exceeds OEM specification, may not charge for services not performed, and must tell the customer if a required recalibration was not completed. And SB 789 proposed to create a new subtitle, which means Maryland does not license body shops generally today. A licensing regime there would start from zero.
Rhode Island: not a bill, and the most interesting thing happening
Rhode Island is where the genuinely novel proposal is, and it is invisible to bill trackers because it is not a bill. The Department of Business Regulation has two regulations in proposed status:
| Regulation | What it would do |
|---|---|
| 230-RICR-30-05-2 (body and salvage repair) | Adds an ADAS definition, and adds ADAS as a category in which technicians must be certified, taking the required categories from seven to eight. Carve-outs for the Limited Heavy Truck and Limited Paint, Restoration and Customization licences. |
| 230-RICR-30-05-3 (glass repair) | A licensee must notify the consumer if it is not ADAS-calibration certified and will sublet the work, and must be certified or hold an arrangement with a certified entity as a condition of licensure. |
Filing notice 26 May 2026. Public comment ran to 25 June and is closed. No final filing has been posted, so neither is in force, the active rules remain the 2022 versions.
The comment record is thin enough to be worth stating: the body shop rule drew zero comments. The glass rule drew one, from LKQ Corporation.
Why this matters more than the bills: no legislature has made ADAS a mandatory technician certification category. Rhode Island's DBR is proposing exactly that, for every licensed collision shop except two limited classes. That is a more consequential mechanism than any of the disclosure bills, and it can be adopted any week without a floor vote.
If you operate in Rhode Island, watch the Secretary of State's promulgation page for those two part numbers rather than a trade article.
The activity that is real: auto glass, not licensing
The wave people are describing does exist. It is just in a different lane: consumer disclosure law for auto glass, with calibration attached.
| State | Status | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| New York | ENACTED and in force. General Business Law 392-k, read on the Senate's own site 4 August 2026. Amended twice since it took effect: revisions dated 26 December 2025, 27 February 2026 and 19 June 2026 | Consumer notice before the contract is finalised: whether the vehicle has ADAS, whether recalibration is required, and whether the shop can do it to manufacturer specification. Written notice to consumer and insurer if a recalibration was not performed or not successful, and no charge for an unsuccessful one. Bans assignment-of-benefits clauses and inducements. Insurers may not require glass that cannot be calibrated to specification. Penalty is graduated: written warning first, then up to $500, then up to $2,000 for each subsequent violation, not a flat sum. |
| Illinois | Alive but parked | HB 4373 passed the House 110-0 on 14 April 2026 and cleared Senate Insurance, then missed the 31 May third-reading deadline and was re-referred to Assignments on 1 June. The 104th General Assembly runs into 2027, so it can be revived. Substantively an anti-steering and assignment-of-benefits glass bill; ADAS enters through notice provisions and an amendment extending free choice of shop to a recalibration facility. Not a licensing bill. |
| Maryland | Already law | Commercial Law 14-1327, glass disclosure, as above. |
Since we wrote this we have gone through the glass lane properly, including two states missing from the table above: Virginia, whose Motor Vehicle Glass Act is in force and carries no penalty schedule at all, and South Carolina, whose bill is the most aggressive text in the country and has not moved since January. That is a separate page: auto glass disclosure laws by state.
Federal
H.R. 6688, "ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act." Introduced 12 December 2025 by Representative Harshbarger and referred to Energy and Commerce.
It would require the Department of Transportation, through NHTSA, to publish guidelines, not a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, within 24 months, covering model year 2028 and later vehicles. The parts a shop would care about: allowable modification tolerances, a process requiring manufacturers to disclose tolerance and sensitivity data, proper calibration procedures following repair, modification or component replacement, and confirmatory test protocols that let owners, service providers and independent repair facilities verify ADAS integrity after calibration.
Enforcement runs against vehicle manufacturers. There is no shop licensing and no shop-facing penalty.
We verified the bill text on the Government Publishing Office's own site. We could not verify its status past introduction, congress.gov returned nothing usable on the day we checked. Trade reports of subcommittee action are unconfirmed here. We also did not check NHTSA's rulemaking docket, so treat any claim of active federal rulemaking on calibration as unverified.
Nevada already requires manufacturer procedures, and almost nobody cites it
While checking Nevada's salvage-title law for an unrelated reason, we read the whole of NRS chapter 487 and found something that belongs in this guide.
NRS 487.688, in full:
"If a body shop or garage performs repairs on a motor vehicle, the body shop or garage shall perform the repairs in accordance with any specifications of the manufacturer of the motor vehicle and the written estimate or statement of the cost of the repairs that is most recently agreed upon by the body shop or garage and the person authorizing repairs."
That is a statutory duty to follow OEM repair procedures. Not a position statement, not an argument from custom, not an I-CAR recommendation, a statute, enforceable against a licensed Nevada body shop.
Two companions sit beside it. NRS 487.520(3) requires that where a vehicle has been in a crash and a shop takes control of it, a deployed airbag be replaced "in a manner that complies with the standards set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 571.208" and a seatbelt assembly requiring work be repaired or replaced to 49 C.F.R. § 571.209; subsection 4 requires a written record of that work, including identifying information for the parts used. NRS 487.564 and 487.650 make an improper, careless or negligent salvage inspection, or a false certification of mechanical fitness, grounds to suspend or revoke the registration or licence.
Enforcement is real but modest: violation of the body-shop provisions is a misdemeanour under NRS 487.690, with a civil penalty up to $500 under 487.6897 and an administrative fine up to $10,000 where the conduct is a deceptive trade practice under 487.6891.
The limit on this claim, stated plainly. We found NRS 487.688 while reading Nevada for a different purpose. We have not searched the other fifty jurisdictions for an equivalent OEM-procedures mandate, so this is the only one we have found, not the only one that exists. If you know of another, we would like to hear about it.
What this means for a shop
Nobody is about to require you to be licensed to calibrate. No state has enacted ADAS calibration licensure. The one bill that tried is dead, and its replacement is a report due in 2027.
Rhode Island shops are the exception and should be watching a regulation, not a bill.
If you do glass, the disclosure rules are the live ones. New York is enforceable now: a written warning on a first violation, then up to $500, then up to $2,000 each time after. Maryland's has been in force for years, and Illinois may return in 2027. All three turn on the same two duties: tell the customer when recalibration is required, and do not charge for a calibration you did not perform.
A note on that penalty, because it is the kind of thing this guide exists to catch. An earlier version of this page said New York carried a flat $2,500 civil penalty, and we repeated that figure elsewhere. It is wrong against the section as it reads today. Section 392-k has been amended twice since it took effect, and we could not retrieve the December 2025 text to establish whether the higher figure was ever correct, so we are not going to claim it was. The lesson is the one this page opens with: a number that was right once does not announce when it stops being right, and that applies to us.
Nothing here changes what the OEM procedure says. Every one of these laws points back to manufacturer specification as the standard. The legal requirement, where it exists, is disclosure, not a different repair.
What we could not verify
We would rather list these than quietly leave them out.
- H.R. 6688 status past introduction. Text verified; status not.
- ~~California SB 988 and Arizona SB 1410.~~ Both since resolved and struck from this list. Arizona S.B. 1410 (2022) was read from the state's own session-law chapter and is codified at A.R.S. 20-463.02: a real ADAS notice duty with a $2,500 civil penalty, not the $500 the Senate fact sheet describes, because the figure was raised during passage. California SB 988 was re-checked once leginfo was reachable. Kept visible rather than deleted, because a list of unverified items is only honest if you can see what came off it.
- The lineage of Maryland Commercial Law 14-1327. It is confirmed as current law by the SB 789 fiscal note. Which bill and year enacted it, we did not establish. It was not SB 428 of 2022, which died in Finance.
- New York's chapter number, signing date and Senate vote. An earlier version of this page gave these as chapter 659, 19 December 2025 and 58-1. We have verified the statute: General Business Law 392-k, read in full on the Senate's own site, but not those three facts, so they are removed rather than repeated. The section's revision history shows dates of 26 December 2025, 27 February 2026 and 19 June 2026.
- The December 2025 text of 392-k. The Senate site lists the historical revision but did not serve it to us on 4 August 2026, so we cannot say what the penalty provision looked like as enacted, only what it says now.
- An exhaustive search of the Rhode Island General Assembly. The status server would not return results to us, so "no RI ADAS bill exists" is our assessment from searching bill text and the agency record, not a verified negative. Note that a bill numbered S 3039 ranks highly in web search for "Rhode Island ADAS bill" and is a Coastal Resources Management Council bill, unrelated to vehicles.
Sources
- Maryland General Assembly, SB 789 (2026 RS) bill page, Third Reader text, and fiscal note
- Maryland General Assembly 2026 session dates (sine die, 13 April 2026)
- Rhode Island Secretary of State promulgation records, parts 230-RICR-30-05-2 and 230-RICR-30-05-3, and the proposed rule texts
- Rhode Island DBR approved technician certification class list
- New York Senate, General Business Law 392-k, full text and revision history (read 4 August 2026)
- Illinois General Assembly, HB 4373 (104th GA) bill status
- Utah Legislature, H.B. 119 (2026) enrolled text
- U.S. Government Publishing Office, H.R. 6688 introduced text
- How our data is verified
- ADAS calibration explained
- Auto body shops by state
- Nationwide licensing statistics
General consumer information: not legal, insurance, or financial advice. Requirements, coverage, and practices vary by state, policy, and manufacturer.