House Bill 931 would overhaul North Carolina’s towing-fee rules by renaming the relevant chapter heading to include towing fees and practices and by adding a new statutory section regulating how towing companies charge and operate. The bill requires towing fees to be reasonable, not excessive, and clearly disclosed to the vehicle operator before towing when possible. It also bars towing companies from taking vehicles to locations where recovery is not available within 24 hours, and limits storage charges so that companies cannot bill for days when they are not open for vehicle recovery during standard business hours.
The bill further requires towing companies to accept cash, debit cards, and credit cards during operating hours, including at the time of towing, and restricts payment-processing fees to actual costs if they exceed 2% of the amount owed. It authorizes the Utilities Commission to adopt implementing rules, allows the Public Staff to investigate compliance, and gives the Commission authority to impose civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, issue cease-and-desist orders, and treat violations as unfair and deceptive trade practices. The act would take effect October 1, 2025.
HB931 would amend Chapter 20 of the North Carolina General Statutes, Article 7B, by adding a new section governing towing fees and practices and by expanding enforcement authority for the Utilities Commission. It would directly affect towing companies, vehicle owners, and operators of tow yards or storage facilities, while also creating a potential private-law consequence through the designation of violations as unfair and deceptive trade practices under G.S. 75-1.1. The bill would also route civil penalty proceeds to the Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund.
The available context suggests generally favorable intent toward consumer protection, with the bill framed as an effort to end “predatory” towing fees and practices. No committee transcript or recorded vote information is available, so there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the provided materials. The bill’s structure indicates a policy focus on transparency, access to vehicle recovery, and limits on charges that can accumulate quickly after a tow.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the bill’s limits on towing-company pricing and storage practices, especially the requirement that fees be reasonable and not excessive, the restriction on charging storage fees when a company is closed, and the requirement to accept multiple forms of payment. Towing companies may view these provisions as burdensome or as interfering with business operations and pricing discretion, while consumer advocates are likely to support them as protections against excessive charges and difficult vehicle retrieval. The enforcement provisions, including civil penalties and unfair-and-deceptive-trade-practice treatment, may also be a point of debate.