Auto Glass Disclosure Laws by State: Who Actually Has One, and What It Requires

Short answer: nine states can hold a glass shop to an ADAS disclosure duty, and none of them requires the recalibration it makes you disclose. The nine are Utah, Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Kentucky, Iowa, Louisiana, Virginia and New York. They are not the same law. The difference that matters most in what we read is not what they make you disclose but who comes after you when you do not: an Attorney General in Kentucky and Virginia, the insurance regulator in Iowa and Louisiana, a graduated penalty ladder in New York, a flat $2,500 in Arizona, the consumer-protection statute in Maryland, and in Florida explicitly nobody in private.

By Anthony Braswell for Quorum Industries LLC, The Autobody Directory · Updated 2026-08-17 · How this was written, and what the machine may not do

How this page was produced: Researched, drafted and checked with AI assistance under human direction, and signed off by the named author. How this site is written

The two oldest are the two nobody lists. Utah has had one since 2020 and Arizona since 2022: both predating Florida, both routinely missing from industry roundups, including from an earlier version of this page.

Fifteen further states have a glass statute with no ADAS in it. Most regulate the insurer, some regulate the shop, and five regulate the third-party administrator in between. Every one of those laws has the sentence about choosing your shop. The sentence that matters most is the one about what the insurer has to pay, which runs from a guaranteed floor in West Virginia and Montana to a lowest-estimate cap in Nebraska and Kansas.

Primary sources last verified: 2026-08-04, with Maryland's enacting bill added 2026-08-06 and Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Vermont and the District of Columbia re-read on 2026-08-17. That re-read moved Connecticut: it was filed here as a bill and it has had a glass statute since 2014. Everything below was read from the state's own code, bill-status page, or committee analysis. Where we could not reach a primary source we say so instead of filling the gap.

Next planned refresh: 2026-11-04, and sooner if a row moves. The rows most likely to change first are California SB 988 (sitting on the Assembly Appropriations suspense file), North Carolina HB 356 (conference committee appointed, glass article in and then out across editions) and Massachusetts S.2426. If you need a row re-read before then, say which one; we would rather re-read it than have you rely on a date.

Vehicle owners should start with the companion page instead: what anyone actually has to tell you about windshield recalibration. It answers the question this page does not (what you are owed, as opposed to what a shop owes), and the answer turns out to be narrower than most people assume.

We checked all fifty states and the District of Columbia. The full map is in the fifty-one-jurisdiction section below, and every row is marked with how strong the evidence behind it is; whether we read the statute ourselves, whether it is a lead we have not opened, or whether the state's website refused to serve us the page.

First, the thing almost nobody says out loud

These bills are not being written independently in each state. Most of them are one model act: and the model came out of one of the states on this page.

The California Senate Judiciary Committee's analysis of SB 988 says the bill "seeks to enact a National Council of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) model law", the Motor Vehicle Glass Model Act.⁵⁹¹⁰ NCOIL is a national body whose members are state legislators sitting on insurance committees.

Read NCOIL's own announcement and the direction reverses. The Model is sponsored by Rep. Michael Sarge Pollock of Kentucky, and he says why in one sentence: "it is based on a law we passed in Kentucky." The Property and Casualty Committee adopted it on 14 February 2025 and the Executive Committee ratified it at the Spring Meeting in Charleston that April.

So the order is not "states adopt a national model." It is:

1. Florida, May 2023: before any model existed.
2. Kentucky, April 2024: the law the model was then written from.
3. The NCOIL model, February and April 2025.
4. New York, Virginia, Illinois, South Carolina, California, after.

That explains almost everything else on this page: why New York's penalty ladder and California's proposed one are the same shape, and why nearly every bill here bans assignment of benefits and inducements in near-identical language.

Who was in the room. NCOIL's release names the parties it heard from while drafting: the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, the National Insurance Crime Bureau, and Safelite Auto Group. The same four turn up supporting California's bill. The Independent Glass Association filed a formal written rebuttal to the Model in March 2025 and opposes SB 988 in California.

None of that makes the model act wrong. Florida's version is credited by its supporters with an 80% drop in glass-related lawsuits in the year after enactment, and the disclosure duties in it are ones most shops would say they already follow. But if you are reading a "new consumer protection law" in your state, it is worth knowing it was drafted once, promoted nationally, and shaped with the people who pay the claims at the table, and that the glass trade's own association objected in writing.

Why enforcement is the thing that varies

We read the NCOIL model itself. Eleven sections, and Section 9, "Penalties", contains no penalty. It is a drafting note: "Legislators may wish to consider provisions that establish rules that allow for [regulatory body] to be responsible for the administration and enforcement, including penalties."

That is the single most useful fact on this page. Every state got the same notice duties, the same assignment-of-benefits ban, the same inducement ban, and a blank where the consequences go. So the consequences are the part each legislature invented for itself, and they are not close to each other:

South Carolina is the outlier because it is the one bill that did not take the blank as an invitation to be modest. It is also the one that has not moved since January.

And how closely a state followed the model varies just as much. California's SB 988 is the model nearly section for section: estimates, the prohibited-acts catalogue, the presumption clause, the same-font-size rule, the right-to-choose section. Virginia took only Section 4, the ADAS notice, and attached its own enforcement. New York is a different animal again: see below.

The one-line version

Ordered by date, which is not the order anyone tells it in.

Utah and Arizona are the two that get left out of every roundup, including an earlier version of this page. They matter for a reason beyond bragging rights about who was first: neither contains an assignment-of-benefits ban. They are calibration-disclosure laws and nothing else. Everything from Florida onward is a glass-claims law with a calibration-disclosure section inside it. If you are trying to work out what a new bill in your state will actually do to your paperwork, that is the fault line to look for.

Utah and Arizona: the two nobody counts

Utah, Code 41-6a-1645, enacted by Laws of Utah 2020, Chapter 267 and amended by S.B. 78 (2021 General Session), Chapter 220, which also created 41-6a-1646 for glass work generally. The section carries an effective date of 5 May 2021 and has not been amended since, so the text below is both the oldest ADAS glass disclosure law in the country and the current one. Before approving or performing the job the shop must tell the consumer, in electronic or hard-copy writing, whether recalibration is required or will be performed. If it performs one it must meet or exceed manufacturer specification. It must give an itemised description of the work and, where an insurer is paying, the amount the insurer has agreed to. If a recalibration was not performed or did not succeed, it must say so in writing and tell the consumer to take the vehicle to a certified dealership or a qualified facility. It may bill only for work performed and necessary. Violation is an infraction and a $500 civil penalty, the only ADAS disclosure law here that attaches a criminal classification. (Oregon's glazing-material rule is a Class A misdemeanour and so is more serious still, but it says nothing about ADAS.)

Utah also does something no other state does. Section 41-6a-1645(6) follows the vehicle to resale. Anyone with actual knowledge that a vehicle's ADAS is inoperable or has not been recalibrated may not sell, offer or display it for sale without written notice to the buyer, and the buyer gets a civil action for the greater of actual damages or $1,500. Auctions and vehicles titled to an insurer, on a salvage certificate or on a nonrepairable certificate are carved out. Every other law here stops at the repair transaction; Utah's reaches the next owner.

Arizona, A.R.S. 20-463.02, added by S.B. 1410, 55th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session, 2022. The same notice sequence, with three differences worth knowing:

• When a recalibration fails or is skipped, Arizona requires notice to the customer and the customer's insurer. Most of the others tell only the customer.
• The shop may not bill the customer or the insurer for glass or recalibration work not performed to manufacturer specification. That is a payment consequence, not just a disclosure duty.
• The civil penalty is $2,500, the highest flat figure in any enacted state here.

Arizona did not start from nothing in 2022. A.R.S. 20-463.01 already made it unlawful for a glass seller to submit a false claim, advise a policyholder to falsify the date of damage, falsely sign a work order or insurance assignment form, misrepresent price or insurer approval, add to the damage, or perform work substantially beyond what a safe repair needs, which is very nearly the NCOIL model's "prohibited acts" catalogue, in Arizona statute years before the model existed. Glass fraud against an insurer is a class 6 felony under 20-466.01.

A warning that generalises. Arizona's Senate fact sheet of 7 February 2022 states a $500 civil penalty. The enacted statute says $2,500. The number was raised during passage. Fact sheets describe bills as introduced and then sit on the web forever; cite the codified section.

What both lack: no assignment-of-benefits ban, no inducement or rebate ban, no claim-or-referral-number gate, no reasonable-and-customary cap, no free-choice-of-shop section, no knowing-violation presumption. And both expressly provide that a shop is not limited to glass, tooling or equipment dictated by the manufacturer while still requiring calibration to manufacturer specification, Utah 41-6a-1645(4)(a), Arizona 20-463.02(E)(1). The NCOIL model has no equivalent clause. The two oldest statutes are the two most favourable to aftermarket parts.

Iowa: the model, adopted whole, enforced by the insurance regulator

Iowa Code chapter 321B, enacted by 2025 Acts, chapter 58, applying to insurance policies issued or renewed on or after 1 July 2025. Eight sections, and they map onto the NCOIL model almost one for one: definitions (321B.1), the post-loss assignment ban (321B.2), ADAS notice before and after (321B.3), claims and practices including the claim-or-referral-number gate and the good-faith estimate (321B.4), prohibited acts (321B.5), right to choose a shop with no private cause of action (321B.6), the knowing-violation presumption (321B.7), and the penalty (321B.8).

Two details a shop will feel:

321B.4(3)(c). If the calibration did not succeed, the shop must give notice advising the customer not to rely on the ADAS until it has been successfully calibrated by a certified dealership or qualified specialist. That is stronger than "we could not do it"; it is an instruction about how to drive the car.

321B.5(5). Any notice or invoice required by the chapter must use the same font and size of font as the invoice, estimate or receipt. The same clause appears in the model, and it tells you what the drafters had actually seen: disclosures set in type nobody reads.

The enforcement choice is the distinctive part. A violation is an unfair trade practice under Iowa Code chapter 507B, the insurance trade-practices chapter. Not the consumer-protection act, not a schedule of fines in the glass chapter itself, and not a private right of action. Iowa routes glass-shop misconduct to the insurance regulator, which is a different forum, a different standard of proof and a different set of incentives from Virginia's Attorney General or South Carolina's proposed private suit.

Iowa also defines ADAS by reference to SAE J3016 as revised on 30 April 2021, a dated external standard. That is the tightest definition in any of these statutes, and it means Iowa's scope moves only if the legislature moves it.

Louisiana: the newest one, and the one with the strangest enforcement hook

HB 929 (2026 Regular Session), Representatives Firment and Green. Signed by the governor 22 May 2026, Act No. 327, effective the same day. It passed 98-0 in the House, 34-0 in the Senate, and 98-0 again on concurrence. Not one recorded no vote at any stage.

It enacts R.S. 22:1964.1, the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Glass Law, and it is the model in substance: inducement ban, reasonable-and-customary cap, the full prohibited-acts catalogue, the claim-or-referral-number gate, ADAS notice before and after, good-faith estimate and itemised invoice, free choice of shop, and an assignment-of-benefits ban covering both before and after a claim.

Three things make it worth reading.

The enforcement hook is unlike any other state's. Louisiana did two things at once. R.S. 22:1964(31) makes a violation an unfair trade practice in the business of insurance, that much matches Iowa. But it also amended R.S. 22:1902(A)(12), the section defining what counts as transacting a business of insurance by an unauthorized insurer, to include glass repair done in a manner that violates 1964.1. Read plainly, a glass shop that breaches this law is not merely committing a trade-practice violation; it is deemed to be transacting insurance business in Louisiana without authority. No other state in this guide reaches for that.

The ADAS notice is a precondition to contracting, not a free-standing duty. Look at where it sits: subsection B(10) prohibits a shop from contracting for first-party-insurance-paid work until the customer has made a claim, the shop holds a claim or referral number, and the ADAS written notifications are done. So in Louisiana the disclosure is not something you owe alongside the job; it is something that has to happen before there is a job. Subsection B(11) then separately bars calibrating at all without written notice on completion of whether it succeeded.

The ADAS definition moves. Louisiana ties it to "the applicable version of SAE International's SAE J3016 Levels of Driving Automation, or its relevant successor." Iowa pins the same standard to the version "as revised on April 30, 2021". Louisiana's scope therefore tracks whatever SAE publishes next; Iowa's does not move unless the legislature moves it. Two states, one standard, opposite drafting choices, and if SAE revises J3016, only one of them changes.

Two smaller notes. Louisiana's free-choice provision protects your right to choose a "motor vehicle glass repair shop or recalibration facility", the same widening that Illinois added by Senate amendment, and which the NCOIL model does not contain. And Louisiana has no same-font-size clause, which Iowa and the model both carry.

Florida: the first of the claims-fraud laws, and the one with a discount attached

CS/SB 1002 (2023), chapter 2023-136, effective on becoming law, 25 May 2023. Senate 40-0, House 103-16.

Florida did it before the NCOIL model was adopted, and it is the version supporters point at: they credit it with an 80% fall in glass-related lawsuits in the year after enactment.

What it does:

• Revises the definitions in the Motor Vehicle Repair Act so that businesses calibrating ADAS associated with windshields are regulated under that Act at all.
• Notice: electronic or written: of whether calibration is required to make the system operable, and the work must meet or exceed the manufacturer's specification.
• No inducements to a customer in exchange for making a glass claim.
• Assignment of post-loss benefits prohibited, including for calibration. Any such agreement is void and unenforceable.
• Anti-steering: no one may require a claimant to use a particular company for replacement, repair or calibration.

The provision with no equivalent anywhere else on this page: if an insurer offers a policy containing a managed repair arrangement for glass work, it must give the insured an actuarially sound discount for it. Florida priced the trade-off instead of just permitting it.

And, as in California's bill, these requirements do not create a private cause of action.

Kentucky: enforcement handed to the Attorney General

SB 29 (2024 Regular Session), signed 2 April 2024 as 2024 Acts ch. 27, with an emergency clause. Senate 29-0, House 87-1, Senate concurrence 37-0, not a single vote against it in either chamber.

It works through several statutes at once: a new section of Subtitle 20 of KRS ch. 304 prohibiting assignments under a property or casualty policy; amendments to KRS 304.20-060 inserting ADAS definitions, modifying the coverage required for glass repair or replacement, and prohibiting anyone requiring an insured to use a particular glass shop; and a new section of KRS ch. 367 regulating glass-shop trade practices, establishing remedies, and authorising enforcement by the Attorney General.

It applies to policies issued or renewed on or after the effective date, so a policy written before April 2024 was not swept in mid-term.

A citation warning, because we nearly repeated it. The California Senate Judiciary analysis cites this as "KY SB 27; Ch. 29." It is the other way round: Senate Bill 29, enacted as chapter 27. The bill number and the chapter number are transposed. We caught it only because we opened the Kentucky record instead of copying the citation, which is the entire argument of this page in one sentence.

Virginia: the newest one, and the one with no penalty schedule

Virginia's Motor Vehicle Glass Act is a new chapter of the Code: Title 59.1, Chapter 17.1:1, from 2026 chapters 1027 and 1045. Two bills, SB 767 and HB 312, carrying the same text.

Before you touch the glass, section 59.1-207.6:3(A) requires you to tell the customer three things:

1. whether the vehicle has an ADAS at all;
2. whether calibration or recalibration is needed after the repair or replacement as recommended by the vehicle manufacturer; and
3. whether you intend to perform it to manufacturer specification, and if you do not intend to, or cannot, that the vehicle should go to the manufacturer's certified dealership or a qualified specialist.

After, subsection B requires written notice of whether the calibration succeeded, and if it did not, the same referral.

That third pre-service item is the one worth noticing. Virginia asks you to disclose your intent, not just your capability. A shop that can calibrate but is not going to on this job has to say so up front.

Now the part shops keep missing. Section 59.1-207.6:4 contains no fine, no penalty ladder, and no per-violation figure. It routes every violation to the Attorney General, under the authority and procedures of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. If you are looking for a dollar amount to price the risk, the chapter does not give you one, the exposure is whatever the VCPA supplies, which is a different and less predictable kind of risk than a capped fine.

New York: broader duties, and an actual penalty ladder

General Business Law 392-k covers more ground than Virginia's does.

The notice duties are similar in shape: before the contract is finalised, tell the customer whether the vehicle has ADAS, whether recalibration is required to make the system operable and to meet manufacturer specification, and whether you can do it. If you cannot, refer them onward.

But 392-k also does four things Virginia's chapter does not:

• You may not charge the consumer or the insurer for a recalibration that was not performed or was not successful, and you must notify both the consumer and the insurer in that case.
• Assignment-of-benefits clauses are banned outright in glass work. A contract containing one is void and unenforceable.
• Inducements are banned: no rebate, gift card, cash, coupon, prize or "anything of value" to get someone to file a glass claim.
• Insurers may not require you to install glass that cannot be calibrated to the vehicle manufacturer's specification.

Penalties are graduated: a written warning for a first violation, up to $500 for a second, up to $2,000 for each one after that.

New York is not the NCOIL model, whatever the California analysis says. That analysis states the model "has been passed by the Legislature in New York." We put the two texts side by side. They share the ADAS notice core, the assignment-of-benefits ban and the inducement ban, and then diverge badly. 392-k has none of the model's Section 6 prohibited-acts catalogue, none of its good-faith-estimate and updated-estimate structure, no reasonable-and-customary fee cap, no presumption clause, no right-to-choose section, and not the same-font-size rule.

It also carries two things the model does not: shops may not charge for an unsuccessful recalibration, where the model only says to advise the customer not to rely on the system; and insurers may not require glass that cannot be calibrated to specification. Plus the penalty ladder, which the model leaves blank.

New York belongs to the same wave. It is not the same document, and anyone citing it as the model's New York enactment is repeating a claim the texts do not support.

A caution on that figure, because it caught us. Section 392-k has been amended twice since it took effect, the Senate's own revision history shows 26 December 2025, 27 February 2026 and 19 June 2026. Figures published about this law early in its life may describe a version that no longer exists. We had a wrong number on our own ADAS page for exactly this reason and have corrected it.

Maryland: enacted the same year as Florida, and it is not an OEM mandate

Commercial Law 14-1327 was added by House Bill 920 of the 2023 Regular Session, sponsored by Delegate Watson, passed the House 119-18 and the Senate 47-0, approved by the Governor on 8 May 2023 as Chapter 561, effective 1 October 2023.¹³ We read the statute text,¹² the bill record¹³ and the General Assembly's own statutes-affected index.¹⁴ An earlier version of this page said Maryland "predates this wave" and could not name the enacting bill. Both statements are now retired: Maryland arrived four months after Florida, in the same year, and the bill has a number.

What the section requires. Before the work, if the vehicle has ADAS, the facility must inform the customer if recalibration is required and give a written statement that the work will meet or exceed OEM specifications. Afterwards it must inform the customer if a required recalibration was not performed or not successfully completed. It may not charge for services that are not performed or successfully completed. Violation is an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under Title 13 of the same article, carrying Title 13's enforcement and penalty provisions.

Subsection (c)(1) is the part worth reading twice, because it runs the other way from what people assume a glass law does. The facility "is not limited to motor vehicle glass, tooling, equipment, or repair procedures provided by the vehicle manufacturer", subject only to the recalibration meeting or exceeding the manufacturer's specification. Maryland does not mandate OEM glass. It mandates an outcome and leaves the parts and procedure open. Anyone citing Maryland as an OEM-glass requirement has the register backwards: the duty binds the result, not the supplier.

One thing changed between the version that failed and the version that passed, and it is the money. The same delegate filed this in 2022 as HB 1460, which died at first reading in House Rules. That bill's synopsis carried a clause the enacted one does not: it would have prohibited an insurer from being charged more than "a fair and competitive value for the local market" for recalibration. The 2023 synopsis is consumer protections and the UDAP hook, with no insurer-price provision. Maryland ended up with a disclosure law, not a price law, the same fault line this page draws between Utah/Arizona and everything from Florida onward. Recorded as a comparison of the two bills' synopses on the General Assembly's own pages; we did not diff the two full texts.

Illinois: passed the House unanimously, then ran out of clock

HB 4373, 104th General Assembly, "INS-MOTOR VEHICLE GLASS ACT". It creates a new Act.

The record, read from the General Assembly's own bill-status page:

• Filed 12 January 2026, first reading 14 January.
• House Insurance Committee, Do Pass 14-0, 18 March.
• Third Reading passed the House 110-0-0 on 14 April.
• Senate Insurance, Do Pass as Amended 10-0-0, 6 May.
• Second reading 14 May. Third-reading deadline set at 31 May under Rule 2-10.
• 1 June: Rule 3-9(a), re-referred to Assignments.

That last line is how an Illinois bill dies quietly without anyone voting against it. Nobody opposed this bill anywhere in the record (it went 14-0, then 110-0, then 10-0), and it still did not become law, because it missed a calendar deadline. The 104th General Assembly runs into 2027, so it can be revived.

Substantively it is an anti-steering and assignment-of-benefits bill: an insured cannot assign policy rights or duties to anyone, a contract that tries is void, and there are notice duties, prohibited acts, and a right to choose your own shop. Senate Committee Amendment 1 extended that free choice from "repair shop" to "repair shop or recalibration facility", which is the ADAS hook.

It is not a licensing bill, and it does not require anyone to be certified to calibrate.

California: the model act in its purest form

SB 988 (Grayson), the California Motor Vehicle Glass Act.

Where it is, read from the Legislature's own history on 4 August 2026. Introduced 5 February. Out of Senate Judiciary 11-0, then held on the Senate Appropriations suspense file from 27 April before clearing it 5-0 on 14 May. Passed the Senate 35-0 on 19 May. Out of Assembly Judiciary 12-0 on 9 June. Set for its Assembly Appropriations hearing on 24 June and placed on the suspense file, where it has sat since.

Not one recorded no vote at any stage, in either chamber, the same pattern as Illinois and Kentucky. The suspense file is where California parks fiscal bills, and plenty die there.

It is not an insurance bill. SB 988 adds Title 1.5C (commencing with Section 1784.50) to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, "relating to civil law."⁶¹ Every other enacted law on this page sits in an insurance code or a consumer-protection/repair statute; California put its version in the Civil Code, alongside consumer contract law. That placement is not decorative, and it is the deepest difference between this bill and the model it otherwise tracks.

We re-read the current text on 6 August 2026: the 4 June Assembly amendment, section by section.⁶¹ Note there were two June amendments, 3 June and 4 June; the 4 June print is the operative one. What the April committee round actually did:

• The shop definition narrowed as the author proposed. §1784.51(e): "a person or business primarily engaged in automotive glass replacement, including the cutting, fabrication, repair, and installation of vehicle windows and windshields." A body shop that occasionally does glass is outside it; a glass specialist is inside.
• The pricing change was an ADDITION, not a replacement, and an earlier version of this page had it wrong. Both tests are in the bill, in different sections doing different jobs. §1784.54(b)(3) keeps the affirmative duty not to charge "more than the reasonable and customary fees and costs." §1784.55(b)(1) separately makes it a prohibited act to charge more than "a reasonable price... charged by a motor vehicle glass repair shop within a specific geographic area." A shop can therefore be inside the customary range and still outside the geographic one.
• The assignment-of-benefits ban bites only on contracts entered on and after 1 January 2027 (§1784.52(b)), so existing agreements are not voided retroactively.
• The notice duties run to "the person" (§1784.53(a)), not only to an insured. The disclosure obligation does not depend on the job going through insurance at all.
• ADAS is defined by reference to SAE J3016 (§1784.51(a)), so the definition moves when the standard does.

Penalties are unchanged at $500 first, $2,000 each subsequent, and the bill still expressly does not "create a private cause of action."

The notice duties are, almost word for word, Virginia's: before service, tell the insured whether the vehicle has ADAS; if it does, whether calibration is needed as the manufacturer recommends, whether you intend to do it to specification, and if not, that the vehicle should go to a certified dealership or qualified specialist. Afterwards, written notice of whether it succeeded.

Around that it stacks the rest of the model act:

• Assignment of benefits prohibited, before or after a loss. Contracts in violation are void, but as amended, only for contracts entered on and after 1 January 2027, so existing agreements are not voided retroactively.
• No contracting on a first-party job until the customer has actually made the claim, you have a claim or referral number, and the disclosures are done.
• Good faith estimate, then an updated estimate before the work.
• Two price tests, not one. An affirmative duty not to exceed "reasonable and customary" fees (§1784.54(b)(3)), and a separate prohibited act of charging above "a reasonable price... within a specific geographic area" (§1784.55(b)(1)). The model has one price rule; California has two, and they can disagree with each other.
• Free choice of shop, with networks preserved. §1784.56(a) bars requiring a particular shop or recalibration facility as a condition of claim payment; §1784.56(b)(2) expressly preserves the insurer's right to maintain a network. Both, in the same section.
• Inducements banned: and here the ban is wider than New York's, reaching gifts to an insurance producer as well as to the customer.
• A long list of prohibited acts: falsifying the date of damage, claiming work happened in a different geographic area, falsely signing a work order, saying the insurer approved the job without verifying it in writing.
• Notices must be in the same size font as the invoice. A small provision that tells you what problem they were actually looking at.

Penalties: first violation up to $500, each subsequent up to $2,000, brought by a city attorney, district attorney, county counsel or the Attorney General. The bill explicitly does not create a private cause of action, which is the single clearest difference from South Carolina's bill below.

How it compares to the model, as amended. The comparison above is against the 4 June Assembly amendment, the current text, not the introduced bill. On the model's core it is still the closest match of any state: the notice sequence is Virginia's almost word for word, and the AOB ban, the first-party contracting bar, the estimate duties, the inducement ban and the prohibited-acts catalogue all track the NCOIL Motor Vehicle Glass Model Act. Where it now departs from the model is where California narrowed it: a glass-specialist-only definition of who is covered, a geographic rather than statewide price test, an AOB ban that is prospective from 1 January 2027, and notice duties owed to "the person" rather than only to an insured, which takes the disclosure obligation out of the insurance context that the model assumes throughout. That last one is the most consequential divergence, and the Civil Code placement is what makes it stick: the NCOIL model is an insurance act with a disclosure section, and California's version is a consumer-protection act that reaches insurance.

One drafting defect, which we flag without resolving it. §1784.57 says it may be presumed a repair shop is acting knowingly in violation of §1784.56 where it shows a regular pattern of the prohibited activity. But §1784.56 does not bind repair shops: it bars requiring a particular shop, preserves the insurer's network, and states there is no private cause of action. The prohibited acts a shop can actually commit are in §1784.55. On its face the presumption points at a section a glass shop cannot violate.⁶¹ We are not going to assert what the drafters meant; we are noting that anyone relying on §1784.57 should read it before quoting it, and that this is the kind of cross-reference that gets fixed in a later print.

South Carolina: the most aggressive text in the country, going nowhere

S. 767, Senator Ott. Introduced 13 January 2026, referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance the same day. As of 4 August 2026 the bill page shows no further action, two entries, both dated 13 January.

That is worth stating plainly because the text itself is far-reaching. It would amend S.C. Code 38-57-75 to:

• require accreditation under a nationally recognised standard (ANSI, AGSC, AGRSS 005-2022 or equivalent) before any shop may do glass or ADAS recalibration work reimbursed under an auto policy;
• prohibit reimbursement tied solely to a single benchmark such as the National Auto Glass Specifications list price, and require insurers to publish their reimbursement methodology on request;
• create a private right of action with statutory damages of not less than $2,500 per violation, plus actual damages, attorney's fees, and treble damages for wilful misconduct;
• make individuals who direct or carry out violations personally liable;
• impose criminal penalties and an annual compliance fee on insurers and third-party administrators.

If S. 767 ever moves, it is the most consequential glass bill in the country. It has not moved in nearly seven months.

The trap in the aftermarket-parts rules: they exclude glass on purpose

This is the single most useful thing on this page, and it is not in any statute we started from.

Most states have a rule protecting you from insurer-specified aftermarket parts, written consent, or at minimum a disclosure in the estimate. Read it and you would reasonably assume it covers a windshield. It does not. The rules define the protected part class in a way that leaves glass outside, and one state says so in words:

Wyoming, Insurance Dept. Ch. 19: "'Part' means parts which generally constitute the exterior of a motor vehicle, including inner and outer panels. 'Part' does not mean tires, windshields, or windows."

The others reach the same result by definition:

• Georgia 120-2-52-.05(2): "aftermarket crash part" means "non-mechanical sheet metal or plastic parts"
• Missouri 20 CSR 100-1.050(2)(D)3.B, "sheet metal or plastic parts which generally constitute the exterior"
• Nevada NAC 686A.240(3): "body part" means "a sheet metal, plastic, or composite part"
• Hawaii HRS 437B-1: "crash parts" means replacement parts "either sheet metal or plastic, which constitute the visible exterior of the vehicle"

Glass is none of those things. So the consent step in Wyoming, the disclosure legend in Missouri and Nevada, Georgia's ban on requiring aftermarket authorisation, and Hawaii's invoice duty all stop at the windshield.

Hawaii is worth pausing on, because it shows this is not an insurance-law quirk. The other four are insurance regulations, binding the carrier. Hawaii's is a repair-licensing statute binding the shop, written by a different agency for a different purpose in a different decade, and it lands on the identical formula. Four words, "either sheet metal or plastic", doing the same exclusionary work in both registers. That is why we now treat the carve-out as the rule: when a legislature or a regulator sits down to define a replaceable body part, glass is not what they picture.

The anti-steering rules are the opposite. They are written about repairing "a motor vehicle" generally, with no parts definition to narrow them, so they do reach glass work. That asymmetry is the practical takeaway: in most states you can choose who replaces your windshield, but the parts-consent protections you have for a fender do not follow you there.

Anyone citing a state's aftermarket-parts rule for a glass claim is quoting real law and getting the register wrong.

All fifty states, and the District of Columbia

We swept every state on 2026-08-04. On 2026-08-17 we re-read Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Mississippi and Vermont, and added the District of Columbia, which this table had never covered. Two of those five moved: Connecticut turned out to have a glass statute we had filed as a bill, and Mississippi turned out to have a codified section we had filed as department guidance. Below is the whole map, and the important column is the last one, because it says how much weight each row can take.

READ means the state's own statute, rule or agency document was opened and its text read, not a summary of it, and not a trade report about it. All fifty-one rows carry that tier.

Three honest qualifications on the word, because a page that stakes itself on primary sources cannot be loose about what "read" means:

1. Some rows were opened by research agents working to a fixed protocol, not by the editor personally. Every rule they surfaced was then opened and read here before it went on the page, and one was re-read against the agent's report word for word and matched. But "READ" across the table means read from primary text, not read by one particular pair of eyes.
2. Two items on this page are explicitly weaker than that, and are labelled where they appear. Wyoming's carve-out quotation comes from the research pass, rules.wyo.gov is a JavaScript application we could not drive, across three separate attempts. Tennessee's adopted 2017 rule text was supplied to us rather than retrieved, because no client here could render that PDF.
3. A negative is a weaker claim than a citation, always. Where a row says a state has no glass law, that rests on searches run with a positive control, a term that must return hits, proving the search filters before a zero is trusted. Twenty rows are negatives. Nineteen of them are negatives of that kind, a controlled search returning zero. The twentieth is Arkansas, where we did not have to establish the absence ourselves: the Insurance Department names the statute that does apply, and it is not a glass statute. They are the rows most likely to be overturned by a corpus nobody thought to check, which is exactly how Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Mississippi and Indiana moved off this list once, and Hawaii and South Dakota moved off it again.

That distinction was put to us as a fair criticism of an earlier version of this page, which asserted all fifty were READ while also admitting elsewhere that some rested on agents and one on a secondary quote. Both statements were true and the pair of them was misleading. This is the fix.

NONE FOUND used to mean we searched and found nothing. No row carries it any more. All fifty-one are now READ; we opened the jurisdiction's own text in every case, including the twenty where the answer turned out to be "no glass or ADAS law here". Those eighteen are not blanks: most of them carry a repair or claims rule that a reader would reasonably expect to cover glass, and the row explains why it does not. Where a state's own search could be driven we ran a control term first, to prove the search actually filters before trusting a zero, because an untested search returns the same zero whether or not it is working.

That last point is not pedantry. Every mistake this page has had to correct was a confident zero, a search that returned nothing because it was aimed at the wrong body of law, or because it was quietly broken. None was ever a bad source.

Two earlier markers are gone. BLOCKED covered Connecticut, Michigan and Oklahoma, whose sites would not serve us a page; all three were later opened, and one turned out to be the only state in the country to name the national model in a bill. LEAD covered eleven statutes and bills we had a URL for but had not read; all eleven have since been read, and three of them were filed wrongly on this page as a result, see the note below the table.

The count, stated carefully

Nine states have an enacted law imposing an ADAS disclosure duty on the glass shop itself: Utah, Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Kentucky, Iowa, Louisiana, Virginia and New York. We read all nine.

And fifteen more states have auto glass statutes that say nothing about calibration. Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, West Virginia, Washington, South Carolina, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, Connecticut and Mississippi. Not one mentions ADAS. Connecticut is the newest addition to that list and the oldest miss: § 38a-354a took effect on 1 January 2014 and an earlier version of this page filed the state as having nothing but a 2026 study bill.

A correction we owe the reader, because it ran on this page for two weeks: Mississippi. An earlier version counted Mississippi separately, on the ground that its glass price rule "comes from an Insurance Department statement rather than a codified section". It is codified. Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-501 sits in an article of the insurance title called Repairs to Damaged Vehicles and names glass twice, and the Department was quoting its own statute. We had read the quotation and not gone looking for the section behind it, which is the same mistake this page warns other people about three paragraphs further down. Mississippi is now counted with the rest.

An earlier version of this page said "none found" for six of those fifteen, and the reason is worth stating because it will trip up anyone researching this themselves. We searched for "auto glass". Nebraska's statute says "motor vehicle glass". Montana's and New Hampshire's say "automobile glass". Three real laws returned zero on a search that looked thorough. If you are checking your own state, run all three phrasings (and "glass repair", and "glass replacement"), before you conclude there is nothing.

They are also not all the same kind of law, and an earlier version filed them all as "insurer-side". Having now read them, the split is:

Anti-steering, binding the insurer. Kansas 40-2,155 (1994), Wisconsin 632.37 (1991), Michigan MCL 500.2110b (2004), West Virginia 33-6D-1 (1992). The carrier may not require you to use its chosen shop. Wisconsin and West Virginia are the broadest, both protect a third-party claimant as well as the policyholder, where most cover only the insured.

The price sentence is where these laws actually differ, and it runs from a floor to a cap. Every anti-steering statute says you may choose your shop. What varies: enormously: is what the insurer then has to pay. Read in order, most shop-favourable to least:

Kansas and West Virginia use almost the same words to mean opposite things. If you are ever arguing a short-pay, that one sentence is the whole argument, and it is worth knowing which side of it your state sits on before you start.

A category the roundups miss entirely: the intermediary. Five states regulate not the insurer and not the shop but the thing in between, the third-party administrator or glass network. Montana is the only state that defines a "glass broker" and bans an insurer using one to set the price a shop must meet or to force billing through it. Maine attacks the same model from the compensation end: an insurer may not pay a glass manager a share of the spread between list price and what the shop actually receives. Washington requires an insurer-owned shop to post its ownership in 18-point type. South Carolina scripts what the administrator may say on the call, and Connecticut scripts what it must say: § 38a-354a(c) requires the glass claims representative or third-party administrator, on the initial contact, to tell the insured "You have the right to choose a licensed glass shop where the damage to your motor vehicle will be repaired. If you have a preference, please let us know." South Carolina limits the pitch; Connecticut compels the sentence. If your state is debating a glass bill, whether it touches the intermediary is a better predictor of its effect on your business than anything in the disclosure sections.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure, binding insurer-owned shops. Washington RCW 48.30.340 (2007) is its own category. If an insurer or its third-party administrator owns a glass shop, that shop must post a notice in no smaller than 18-point type saying who owns it and that you may go elsewhere. Mobile operations must say it out loud before starting. There is no private right of action.

Inducement bans, binding the shop. Minnesota 325F.783 (2000, amended 2002) is a shop-conduct statute, not an insurer one: a glass provider may not waive, forgive or pay any part of your deductible, nor offer a rebate, gift, prize, coupon, credit, referral fee or trade-in to win the claim. The Attorney General enforces it. West Virginia's 33-6D-3(d) does the same in one sentence, with a remedy worth noting: an insurer may cut a violating shop down to the lowest competitive price, and the shop may not bill the customer the difference. So in West Virginia the penalty for a deductible giveaway lands on the shop's margin, not on the customer.

And one state that does nearly everything except calibration. South Carolina 38-57-75 (2012) is the most detailed glass statute in the country that has no ADAS in it. It scripts the claim call: the administrator must say it acts for the insurer, must ask whether you have a preferred shop, must not comment on that shop's warranty. Then subsection (G) turns on the shop: no coercing a customer into filing, no inducing a claim where the damage does not warrant one, no "free windshield" advertising, and no performing the work under a policy without first obtaining insurer approval. Subsection (H) stops a glass shop acting as the customer's designee on first notice of loss. Read it before assuming your state's "anti-steering law" leaves you alone.

Michigan's is the oldest of the lot at 2004, and Wisconsin's 1991 is older still, a reminder that "my state has an auto glass law" has been true in places for thirty years without any of it touching calibration.

And one state is doing something nobody else is. Connecticut's Raised HB 5262 (2026) would require the Insurance Commissioner to conduct a review of the motor vehicle glass repair national model: naming the thing directly, in an omnibus insurance bill, and asking a regulator to study it before the legislature adopts anything. It got a public hearing on 24 February and has not moved since. What makes it interesting is what Connecticut already has: a glass statute since 2014 that reaches the administrator and scripts the first call. This is the state with the most developed intermediary rule in the country asking whether the national model would improve on it. Whatever happens to that bill, it is the clearest evidence in any state record that legislators know exactly what they are being handed.

This distinction is the single most common error in the roundups, and it matters in both directions. A shop reading "my state has a glass law" and assuming a notice obligation may be inventing paperwork it does not owe. A shop in Utah or Arizona assuming the opposite is exposed; those two have been live for years and are almost never listed.

Three bad citations we found, so you do not repeat them

• Texas SB 1429. Several auto glass sites state it is law effective 1 January 2026 and requires OEM glass and ADAS recalibration. Every part of that is wrong, and the introduced text on the Legislature's own site shows how the myth was built. SB 1429 is a general OEM parts bill amending Insurance Code 1952.301 for vehicles owned 36 months or less, with an opt-out disclosure. It contains zero occurrences of glass, windshield, calibration or driver assistance.⁵⁸ It did not pass: filed 19 February 2025, referred to Business and Commerce 6 March 2025, and left in committee. The "1 January 2026" date is the bill's own policy-applicability date, in a bill that died. "OEM glass" is a corruption of "OEM parts".
• Washington HB 2109. Reported in trade press as a companion glass bill. The Washington legislature's own summary shows HB 2109 (2025-26) is about vehicle loads on public highways. The glass bill was SB 5871, and it died.
• Maryland's enacting bill, attributed two different wrong ways. One trade outlet reports the law as HB 1460 and dates it to 2022; another attributes it to SB 793. Neither became law. HB 1460 died at first reading in House Rules in 2022 and would have amended 14-1001 and 14-1009, not 14-1327.¹⁵ SB 793 was the 2023 cross-file and carries no chapter number. The General Assembly's statutes-affected index for 2023 lists six bills that would have added 14-1327 and exactly one of them, HB 920, has a chapter beside it.¹⁴ When several bills would create the same section, the chapter number is the one field that tells you which one actually did.

What this means for a shop

If you work in Virginia or New York, the duty is live now. Both turn on the same core: say whether the vehicle has ADAS, say whether recalibration is required, say whether you are going to do it, and say afterwards whether it worked.

Price the risk differently in each. New York caps a single violation at $2,000 and starts you with a warning. Virginia hands it to the Attorney General under consumer-protection authority with no schedule in the chapter. A capped fine and an AG enforcement action are not the same exposure.

New York reaches your paperwork, not just your disclosures. The assignment-of-benefits ban and the inducement ban are contract-level rules. A form that was fine in 2024 may be void now.

Nothing here requires a licence to calibrate. No state on this page licenses ADAS calibration. If you want the licensing picture, that is a separate question with a different answer.

The compliance checklist

Built to be usable at a counter. It is a reading aid for the statutes above, not legal advice, and it does not replace reading your own state's section, every row on this page links to it.

Print it: one-page checklist (PDF): the same items with tick boxes, generated from this section, so it cannot quietly disagree with the page you are reading.

Each block names who the rule binds. That is the single most common way these laws get misread: a rule that binds the insurer gets quoted at a shop, or a payment rule gets treated as a disclosure duty. They are different registers and they have different consequences.

Before you touch the glass: binds the shop

• Establish whether the vehicle is ADAS-equipped, and record how you established it. Every duty below is triggered by this fact, and no statute on this page tells you how to determine it. VIN decode, build sheet, OEM portal, visual, the method is yours and the exposure is yours. This is the weakest link in the whole chain and the one place the laws are silent.
• Tell the customer, in writing, whether recalibration is required. This is the common core of all nine enacted states. Electronic or hard copy both count in Utah; the others do not all specify.
• Say whether you are going to perform it, or refer it out. Utah requires the "will be performed" half explicitly, not just the "is required" half.
• Give the written statement that the work will meet or exceed OEM specification. Maryland 14-1327(b)(2) and Utah both require this before the work, not after.
• Itemise the work, and where an insurer is paying, state the amount the insurer has agreed to. Utah is the state that puts the insurer's agreed figure on the customer's paperwork.

After the work: binds the shop

• If the recalibration was not performed, or was performed and did not succeed, say so in writing. Utah, Arizona and Maryland all reach the unsuccessful case, not just the skipped one. "We tried" is a disclosure event.
• Arizona: tell the customer and the customer's insurer. Most of the others tell only the customer. If you run one notification template across states, this is the row it fails on.
• Utah: tell the consumer to take the vehicle to a certified dealership or a qualified facility. The duty does not end at disclosing the failure.
• Bill only for what was performed and successfully completed. Maryland 14-1327(c)(3), Utah, Arizona and New York all attach a payment consequence to a failed calibration. Arizona extends it to what you may bill the insurer, not just the customer.
• Utah only, and it outlives the repair order: the resale notice. Anyone with actual knowledge that a vehicle's ADAS is inoperable or un-recalibrated may not sell or display it for sale without written notice to the buyer, who gets a private action with a $1,500 floor. If you sell vehicles as well as fix them, this is a second duty in a different chapter of your business.

The contract audit: binds your paperwork, and in places the insurer

• Assignment of benefits. New York bans it. Utah and Arizona contain no AOB provision at all. A form that is perfectly good in the two oldest states can be void in New York. Audit the form per state, not per company.
• Inducement. New York's ban is contract-level, not a disclosure rule. A rebate or waiver practice that predates the law is the kind of thing that survives quietly until someone reads it.
• Glass that cannot be calibrated to specification. New York bars the insurer from requiring it. This binds the carrier. It is a defence for you, not a duty on you, worth knowing precisely because it is the one rule here you would want to cite.
• What the insurer has to pay is a separate register from what you have to disclose. The thirteen no-ADAS glass states differ mainly on price: a guaranteed floor in West Virginia and Montana, a lowest-estimate cap in Nebraska and Kansas. None of those price rules imposes a disclosure duty on you, and none of the nine disclosure laws sets your price. Quoting one at the other is the error this page exists to prevent.
• One state on this page reaches the third-party administrator in between, and it is South Carolina. S.C. Code 38-57-75 (2012) binds insurers, third-party administrators and shops, and subsection (G) scripts what the administrator may say on the call. If your dispute is with a network, that is the only glass statute in this register that names the network directly.

Three ways to read this wrong

• Treating any of it as an OEM-parts mandate. Maryland says the opposite in as many words: the facility "is not limited to motor vehicle glass, tooling, equipment, or repair procedures provided by the vehicle manufacturer." The duty binds the outcome, meet or exceed specification, not the supplier. The widely repeated "Texas requires OEM glass" claim is a corruption of an unrelated OEM parts bill that died.
• Assuming one disclosure form clears all nine states. It does not. Arizona adds the insurer, Utah adds the referral instruction and the agreed insurer figure, New York reaches the contract.
• Assuming a calibration licence exists somewhere. It does not, in any state on this page.

What we could not verify

• Whether any state other than South Carolina reaches the third-party administrator. An earlier version of this page said four did, and named none of them. Going back to the register behind it, the field recording who each law binds contains only "shop" and "insurer", and South Carolina is the single row whose text mentions an administrator at all. We could not substantiate the other three and have removed the number. This is a failure to substantiate our own earlier claim, not a finding that no other state does it.
• What the Assembly Appropriations suspense file does next. SB 988 has sat there since 24 June. Suspense outcomes are decided in bulk at a single hearing and are not predictable from the record, so we are not going to guess whether it moves.
• California's SB 988: re-read 6 August 2026, and it corrected us twice. The full 4 June text was read section by section. Two errors on this page did not survive it. First, we had said the pricing test was narrowed from "reasonable and customary" to a geographic "reasonable price". It was not narrowed: the geographic test was ADDED as a separate prohibited act and the reasonable-and-customary duty remains, in a different section. Second, we had described the bill as sitting in the insurance code. It does not: it adds Title 1.5C to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code. Both corrected above. The earlier contradiction: amendments described as adopted in one paragraph and merely proposed in the next, is also gone.
• Provenance of that read, stated plainly. leginfo.legislature.ca.gov served no content on 6 August to a direct fetch or to a browser, so we did not retrieve the text ourselves. It was supplied to us and checked line by line against every claim in this section, the same tier as Tennessee's 2017 rule elsewhere on this page. Section numbers are quoted so anyone can verify them against the Legislature's own print. Re-confirmed 6 August 2026 from leginfo directly, which was serving again later the same day: the 4 June Assembly amendment is still the current text. And this is now watched, five live bills on this page are checked weekly against the markers that would show they moved, and a run that cannot reach a statehouse site reports UNREACHABLE rather than quietly passing.
• A note on citations, since this page keeps finding them. The California analysis's link to the NCOIL model returns 404, the real filename carries a hyphen the citation omits. That is the second citation defect in the same document, after the Kentucky bill and chapter numbers being transposed. Neither is consequential on its own. Both are reasons to open the source.
• Whether Virginia's chapter has been amended since enactment. The Code page we read is current as of 4 August 2026 and cites only the two 2026 chapters, but we did not separately check the 2027 session.
• North Carolina HB 356 is not finished. A conference committee was appointed on 30 June 2026. The glass article was in the 3rd edition and is not in the 6th, but a conference report can carry text neither chamber last voted on, so this row will need re-reading.
• Massachusetts S.2426 is alive, in Senate Ways and Means since 31 December 2025. We read the bill page and its history, not the bill text, so what it does is described from its title and docket entry.
• How the negatives were run, and by whom. Every NONE FOUND row was run with a positive control, a term that must return results, proving the search filters before a zero is trusted. Some searches were executed by research agents working to a fixed protocol; every rule they surfaced was opened and read here before it went on this page. We personally re-read Ohio's OAC 3901-1-54 against the agent's report and it matched verbatim. The controlled zeros themselves we have not each re-run by hand.
• Wyoming's carve-out is the one quote here we did not read ourselves. rules.wyo.gov is a JavaScript application whose search would not apply a keyword and whose form has no submit target we could reach. The quoted definition comes from our research pass. We did read Georgia's parallel definition directly (120-2-52-.05(2), "non-mechanical sheet metal or plastic parts"), so the structural finding stands on our own read even without Wyoming, and Missouri's and Nevada's definitions say the same thing.
• Idaho and New Mexico were the last two negatives we had not personally re-run. Both are now re-run, and both got stronger. The obstacle in each case was a broken index, not a missing rule, and the fix in each case was to stop using the index. Idaho's adminrules.idaho.gov carries a site-wide notice that document search and listings are affected by a technical issue, and its chapter URL returns a 404 page; but that 404 page itself links to the Department of Insurance's own rules index, which lists every chapter of IDAPA 18 with a direct PDF link that serves normally. New Mexico's srca.nm.gov chapter pages serve navigation only and its directory listing returns 403, but individual part files are addressable, so we enumerated the parts directly instead of asking the site for a list. Neither state's negative now rests on a search box.
• Tennessee's 2017 rule was the one document no client here could fetch, and it did not have to be. We first read chapter 0780-01-05 from the 2016 rulemaking filing and flagged that a 2017 revision existed which we could not retrieve. The adopted text was supplied to us and checked line by line: the two provisions survive verbatim, and the revision history resolves the worry entirely, every section is an original 2017 filing, so there was no earlier version for them to have drifted from. Recorded here because the gap was real and the resolution was not our own retrieval.
• The four states we could not clear at code level are now cleared: from the regulations instead. An earlier version of this page said Tennessee, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and Indiana could not be checked because none publishes a searchable Code on a government domain. That was true and beside the point. Insurance claim-handling rules usually live in a state's administrative code or its insurance department's bulletins, not in its statutes, and all four publish those. Every one turned out to have a repair rule, and Mississippi's names glass explicitly. If you are researching your own state and the statute search comes up empty, that is the next place to look and we should have looked there first.
• Some state engines silently ignore quotes and OR the words. Alabama, Nebraska, Nevada, Montana and Texas all do this, which makes a phrase count meaningless. Where that was true the negative was established by enumerating single-word hits instead, not by a phrase zero.
• The controlled zeros are gone, and the last two produced the best material on this page. Hawaii and South Dakota were the final rows resting on "we found no rule of that kind". Both had been searched in the insurance corpus only. Searched in the other corpus, both turned into reads: South Dakota's entire insurance title contains the word glass exactly once (a 1966 definition of glass insurance as a line of casualty business, regulating nobody), and Hawaii's repair statute turned out to carry the sheet-metal-or-plastic exclusion that is the central finding of this guide, in a register we had not thought to look in. A negative is worth re-running, because the corpus you reach for second is often the one that answers the question.
• Louisiana's Act text as distinct from the enrolled text. We read the enrolled bill in full and confirmed on the legislature's own bill page that it was signed on 22 May 2026 and became Act 327, with no action recorded between enrollment and signature. We did not separately open the Act-numbered document.
• Colorado's exact glass position. The Division of Insurance points to C.R.S. § 10-4-120 for the right to choose a repair shop, which is general repair, and we did not read 10-4-120 itself; Colorado does not publish per-section statute pages. We found no glass-specific Colorado statute. An earlier version of this page cited C.R.S. 10-4-613, which rested on secondary sources alone and which the state's own insurance regulator does not cite. It has been removed.

Sources

1. Code of Virginia, Title 59.1 Chapter 17.1:1 (Motor Vehicle Glass Act), sections 59.1-207.6:1 through 59.1-207.6:4, read 2026-08-04
2. New York Senate, General Business Law 392-k, full text and revision history, read 2026-08-04
3. Illinois General Assembly, HB 4373 (104th GA) bill status and Senate Committee Amendment 1, read 2026-08-04
4. South Carolina Legislature, S. 767 (126th Session) bill page and full text, read 2026-08-04
5. California Senate Judiciary Committee, analysis of SB 988 (Grayson), version of 23 March 2026, hearing 14 April 2026, read 2026-08-04
6. Florida Senate, CS/SB 1002 (2023) Banking and Insurance Committee bill summary and vote record, read 2026-08-04
7. Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, SB 29 (2024 RS) bill record, enacted-version summary and action history, read 2026-08-04
8. California Legislature, SB 988 full bill history and version list, read 2026-08-04
9. NCOIL, "Property & Casualty Insurance Committee Adopts Motor Vehicle Glass Model Act", 24 February 2025, read 2026-08-04
10. NCOIL Motor Vehicle Glass Model Act, full adopted text, 11 sections, sponsored by Rep. Michael Sarge Pollock (KY), adopted 14 February and 27 April 2025, read 2026-08-04
11. Maryland General Assembly, SB 789 (2026 RS) fiscal note
12. Maryland General Assembly, Commercial Law 14-1327 full statute text, all five subsections, read 2026-08-06
13. Maryland General Assembly, HB 920 (2023 RS) bill record: title, sponsor, full action history, House 119-18, Senate 47-0, "Approved by the Governor - Chapter 561" 8 May 2023, effective 1 October 2023, statutes affected 13-301 and 14-1327, read 2026-08-06
14. Maryland General Assembly, Statutes Affected index for Commercial Law, 2023 Regular Session: six bills listed against 14-1327 "added", chapter number on HB 920 alone, read 2026-08-06
15. Maryland General Assembly, HB 1460 (2022 RS) bill record: status "First Reading House Rules and Executive Nominations", statutes affected 14-1001 and 14-1009, synopsis including the insurer fair-and-competitive-value clause, read 2026-08-06
16. Utah State Legislature, S.B. 78 (2021 General Session) enrolled copy, full text, read 2026-08-04, which records 41-6a-1645 as enacted by Laws of Utah 2020, Chapter 267
17. Arizona State Legislature, A.R.S. 20-463.02 codified text, read 2026-08-04
18. Arizona State Legislature, session law Chapter 147, Laws 2022 (S.B. 1410, Fifty-fifth Legislature, Second Regular Session), approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State 14 April 2022, read 2026-08-04
19. Arizona State Senate, Fact Sheet for S.B. 1410, prepared by Senate Research 7 February 2022, read 2026-08-04
20. North Carolina General Assembly, HB 356 bill lookup, editions 1-6 and full action history, read 2026-08-04
21. Arkansas State Legislature, SB 602 (2025 Regular Session) bill detail and status history, read 2026-08-04
22. North Dakota Legislative Branch, HB 1240 (69th Assembly) bill overview and measure status, read 2026-08-04
23. Massachusetts General Court, Bill S.2426 (194th) page and bill history, read 2026-08-04
24. West Virginia Code, sections 33-6D-1 and 33-6D-3 full text, read 2026-08-04
25. Colorado Division of Insurance (DORA), Auto Insurance consumer FAQ citing C.R.S. 10-4-120, read 2026-08-04
26. Georgia General Assembly legislation search, full-text queries with a control term, run 2026-08-04
27. Vermont General Assembly, all 1,287 bills of the 2025-2026 session scanned with control terms, and H.525 bill status page, read 2026-08-04
28. Iowa Legislature, Iowa Code chapter 321B (2026 edition), all eight sections with 2025 Acts ch. 58 annotations, read 2026-08-04
29. Louisiana Legislature, HB 929 (2026 RS) enrolled text and bill history page showing "Signed by the Governor. Becomes Act No. 327", effective 22 May 2026, read 2026-08-04
30. Connecticut General Assembly, Raised H.B. No. 5262 (2026) bill status and statement of purpose, read 2026-08-04
31. Michigan Legislature, MCL 500.2110b (Insurance Code of 1956, added by 2004 Act 190), read 2026-08-04
32. Oklahoma Legislature, HB 4488 (2026 RS) bill information and history, read 2026-08-04
33. Utah State Legislature, current Code section 41-6a-1645, "Effective 5/5/2021 ... Amended by Chapter 220, 2021 General Session", read 2026-08-04, confirming no amendment since 2021
34. Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes, K.S.A. 40-2,155 (L. 1994, ch. 302, s. 11), read 2026-08-04
35. Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes, Minn. Stat. 325F.783 (2000 c 342 s 3; 2002 c 283 s 2), read 2026-08-04
36. West Virginia Code, Chapter 33 Article 6D section headings, read 2026-08-04
37. Washington State Legislature, RCW 48.30.340 (2007 c 74 s 1), read 2026-08-04
38. South Carolina Legislature, S.C. Code 38-57-75 (2012 Act No. 236 s 1, eff 1 January 2013), full section read 2026-08-04
39. Wisconsin Legislature, Wis. Stat. 632.37 (1991 a. 269), 632.375 (2015 a. 93) and 632.38 (1991 a. 176), current version published 5 August 2026, read 2026-08-04
40. Maine Revised Statutes, 24-A M.R.S. 2164-C (PL 2005, c. 101), read 2026-08-05
41. Montana Code Annotated 2025, MCA 33-18-223 (En. Sec. 3, Ch. 554, L. 1993; amd. through Ch. 192, L. 2009), read 2026-08-05
42. Nebraska Legislature, Neb. Rev. Stat. 44-1540 full section (Laws 1991 LB 234 s 22 through Laws 2011 LB72 s 5), read 2026-08-05
43. New Hampshire General Court, RSA 417:4 paragraph XX, read 2026-08-05
44. Oklahoma State Courts Network, 36 O.S. 1250.8 subsection (H), read 2026-08-05
45. Oregon Legislature, ORS 815.090 operative text and penalty grading, read in full 2026-08-05
46. Pennsylvania Code, 31 Pa. Code s 146.8 (Unfair Insurance Practices; automobile settlement standards), read 2026-08-05
47. Tennessee Secretary of State, Rules of the Department of Commerce and Insurance, chapter 0780-01-05 (Unfair Claims Settlement Practices), rules .08 and .09, read 2026-08-05; checked against the adopted chapter text, original rules filed 11 July 2017, effective 9 October 2017
48. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 437B, Regulation of Motor Vehicle Repairs, all nineteen sections read 2026-08-05, definitions at 437B-1 and invoice duty at 437B-13: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol10_Ch0436-0474/HRS0437B/HRS_0437B-.htm
49. Hawaii DCCA, Regulated Industries Complaints Office, "Automobile Repairs" consumer guidance on chapter 437B, read 2026-08-05: https://cca.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/MVI-190718-Automobile-Repair.pdf
50. South Dakota Codified Laws Title 58 (Insurance), full title read 2026-08-05, sole glass provision at 58-9-17: https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/58-9-17
51. Idaho Department of Insurance, Administrative Rules index, all 41 chapters of IDAPA 18 enumerated 2026-08-05: https://doi.idaho.gov/information/regulation/rules/
52. IDAPA 18.02.02, Automobile Insurance Policies, read in full 2026-08-05: https://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/18/180202.pdf
53. New Mexico Administrative Code, Title 13 Chapter 7 parts 2-5 and Chapter 12 parts 3-4, fetched and scanned 2026-08-05, e.g. https://www.srca.nm.gov/parts/title13/13.012.0003.html and https://www.srca.nm.gov/parts/title13/13.007.0005.html
54. Mississippi Insurance Department, "Automobile Physical Damage Claims" consumer guidance, sections on Steering and Amounts to be Paid, read 2026-08-05
55. Indiana Department of Insurance, Bulletin 71 (7 June 1991) on HB 1024, codified at Ind. Code s 27-4-1.5-1 et seq., read 2026-08-05
56. Massachusetts General Court, full text of S.2426 inserting Chapter 90 section 9E, read 2026-08-05
57. Louisiana Legislature, HB 929 Act 327 document, read 2026-08-05 and confirmed identical in substance to the enrolled text
58. Texas Legislature, SB 1429 (89R) introduced text and bill history, read 2026-08-05
59. Ohio Revised Code search, "motor vehicle glass" zero against a "glass" control of 76 sections, run 2026-08-05
60. Fifty-state sweep conducted 2026-08-04 and 2026-08-05. Rows marked READ were opened and read here
61. California Legislature, SB 988 (Grayson) as amended in Assembly 4 June 2026: full bill text, Civil Code Title 1.5C sections 1784.50 through 1784.58, and the Legislative Counsel's Digest. Supplied to us and checked line by line 2026-08-06; leginfo served no content to our own fetch or browser that day

• Windshield recalibration: what anyone actually has to tell you, the plain-language companion to this page, for vehicle owners
• ADAS calibration laws by state
• ADAS calibration explained
• Florida tort reform and your collision claim: the 2023 act that voided glass assignments, banned steering, and added the calibration-disclosure duty
• How our data is verified

General consumer information: not legal, insurance, or financial advice. Requirements, coverage, and practices vary by state, policy, and manufacturer.

Cite this dataset

This dataset is published under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. You may republish it, including commercially, in whole or in part. The licence asks one thing in return: credit the source and link to it. Copy the line below.

"Auto glass disclosure and ADAS calibration laws by US state", The Autobody Directory (Quorum Industries LLC), 2026. Licensed CC BY 4.0. https://theautobodydirectory.com/guides/auto-glass-disclosure-laws-by-state

• Page to cite and link: https://theautobodydirectory.com/guides/auto-glass-disclosure-laws-by-state
• Machine-readable copy: https://theautobodydirectory.com/api/glass-laws.json
• Questions, corrections, or a figure you want checked before you publish it: see Press. We would rather be corrected than cited wrongly.

Where this fits

Each link says what it is for. We add one only when a reader on this page has a real reason to need that page next.

• Windshield Recalibration: What Anyone Actually Has to Tell You (what you are owed after the glass is replaced)
• Your State's Aftermarket Parts Law Almost Certainly Does Not Cover Your Windshield (the gap these disclosure laws are filling)
• The Model Bill Behind Your State's New Glass Law, and the Section It Leaves Blank (the model act several of these states are tracking)
• Utah and Arizona Passed ADAS Glass Laws Before Florida, and Almost Nobody Counts Them (the two states that legislated the calibration question first)