HB7372, the “Safety is Not For Sale Act,” would require motor vehicle manufacturers and sellers to offer certain optional safety features independently from unrelated convenience or luxury features, or else include those safety features as standard equipment. The bill is aimed at preventing safety technology from being bundled into higher-priced packages in a way that makes it harder for consumers to buy lifesaving features without paying for extras they may not want. It also requires clear disclosure of the separate cost of the safety feature when it is offered for sale or lease.
The bill defines “optional safety feature” broadly to include technologies such as collision warnings, lane-keeping alerts, driver-monitoring alerts, roadway illumination enhancements, improved driver visibility, automatic crash notification, and other safety functions the FTC may later designate. It applies to first purchasers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and it takes effect 180 days after enactment. Enforcement would be treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act, with the FTC given primary enforcement authority.
HB7372 would also authorize state attorneys general to bring civil actions on behalf of residents for violations, seek injunctions, penalties, restitution, damages, and other relief, and recover costs and attorney fees if they prevail. The bill preserves state investigatory powers and allows state enforcement unless a federal action is already pending against the same defendant for the same conduct. In practical terms, the measure would affect auto manufacturers, dealers, and sellers by changing how safety-related vehicle options are packaged, priced, and marketed.
The available discussion and voting history suggest generally favorable treatment of the bill, as it was forwarded by subcommittee to the full committee by voice vote. That indicates no recorded opposition in the available history and a likely consensus that the bill addresses consumer transparency and safety access. Because no committee transcript is provided, there is little direct evidence of debate, but the structure of the bill suggests its main policy goal is to make safety features easier to obtain without forcing consumers into bundled luxury packages.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on how broadly the bill defines safety features, whether manufacturers should be required to unbundle features that are integrated into broader technology packages, and how much compliance burden the disclosure and pricing rules would impose. Automakers and dealers may be concerned about product packaging flexibility, pricing strategy, and federal-state enforcement overlap, while consumer advocates are likely to support the bill’s emphasis on affordability, transparency, and access to vehicle safety technology.
The bill would create a new federal consumer-protection rule governing the sale and lease of optional motor vehicle safety features, effectively prohibiting bundling those features with non-safety convenience or luxury options unless the safety feature is also offered separately or as standard trim equipment. It would amend the enforcement landscape by making violations actionable as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the FTC Act and by authorizing parallel state attorney general enforcement, including civil penalties, restitution, and injunctive relief. The measure would directly affect manufacturers, dealers, and other sellers of motor vehicles and equipment, and it could influence how safety technologies are packaged across vehicle models and trims.
The available legislative history shows a positive or at least noncontroversial initial reception: the bill was forwarded by subcommittee to the full committee by voice vote, with no recorded roll-call opposition in the provided history. That suggests broad agreement on the consumer-safety and transparency goals of the measure. Because no transcript excerpts are available, there is no direct evidence of detailed debate, but the bill’s framing indicates support from lawmakers concerned about affordability and access to lifesaving vehicle technology.
The main likely points of contention are between consumer advocates and the auto industry. Supporters would favor requiring safety features to be sold separately or as standard equipment so buyers are not forced to purchase expensive bundles to obtain basic protections. Opponents may argue that the bill interferes with vehicle packaging and pricing, could increase compliance costs, and may be difficult to apply to advanced driver-assistance systems that are integrated into broader software or trim packages. There may also be concern about the breadth of the FTC’s authority to designate additional safety functions and about overlapping federal and state enforcement.