HB1395 creates a new Maryland law, the Agricultural Equipment Warranty Enforcement Act, to give purchasers of new agricultural equipment a specific warranty-enforcement process. The bill applies to self-propelled equipment used primarily in farming, while excluding off-road vehicles, ATVs, special mobile equipment, low-horsepower equipment, lawn tractors, and lawn mowers. It applies only to equipment sold on or after January 1, 2026.
Under the bill, a consumer who believes agricultural equipment does not conform to its warranty must give written notice by certified mail to the manufacturer or factory branch during the warranty period, and the dealer must pass that notice along. The consumer must also give the manufacturer or dealer an opportunity to repair the problem. The manufacturer, factory branch, or authorized dealer must then correct the defect at no charge, even if repairs occur after the warranty period ends, and generally within 30 days of receiving notice. If the defect substantially impairs the equipment’s use and market value and cannot be fixed after a reasonable number of attempts, the consumer may choose either a replacement or a refund, subject to a reasonable allowance for use and non-warranty damage.
The bill also establishes when a “reasonable number of attempts” is presumed to have occurred, including four failed repair attempts for the same defect or 30 cumulative days out of service during the season of use. It extends warranty-related time periods when repairs are unavailable because of war, invasion, strike, fire, flood, or other natural disaster. Consumers may bring a civil action for violations, but only within specified time limits tied to operating hours, warranty expiration, and delivery date. The bill preserves other remedies available under law and makes clear that violations are unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
HB1395’s main legal impact is to add a new consumer-protection remedy and enforcement framework to the Commercial Law Article, while also tying violations to the state’s existing unfair trade practice penalties. It gives farmers and other purchasers of covered equipment a statutory right to repair, replacement, or refund in warranty disputes, and it authorizes additional damages of up to $5,000 for bad-faith conduct by a manufacturer, factory branch, agent, or authorized distributor. The bill also amends related statutory definitions in the Criminal Law and Transportation Articles to clarify what is excluded from the new agricultural-equipment category.
The bill appears to have had broad support and little visible controversy in the recorded votes, passing the House 128-0 and the Senate 43-0 before being signed into law. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate opposition. Based on the text, any contention would likely have centered on the scope of covered equipment, the notice-and-repair prerequisites, and the liability exposure for manufacturers and dealers, but the unanimous votes suggest those issues were not politically divisive.
HB1395 adds Subtitle 15A to the Commercial Law Article, creating a new Agricultural Equipment Warranty Enforcement Act and making violations of that subtitle unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices enforceable under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. It establishes notice, repair, replacement, refund, timing, and civil-action rules for warranty disputes involving covered agricultural equipment, and it authorizes additional damages for bad-faith violations. The bill also makes conforming references in the Criminal Law and Transportation Articles to exclude certain vehicle categories from the definition of agricultural equipment.
The bill’s overall sentiment appears strongly favorable. It passed both chambers unanimously, indicating broad bipartisan support and little to no recorded opposition. The absence of committee transcript material suggests no significant public controversy was captured in the available record.
No specific contention is documented in the provided materials. Based on the statutory structure, the most likely areas of debate would have been the required certified-mail notice process, the mandatory repair timeline, the replacement-or-refund remedy, and the potential exposure of manufacturers and dealers to consumer claims and enhanced damages. However, the unanimous votes suggest these issues were either resolved in drafting or not politically contentious.