Existing law prohibits a person from engaging in the business of soliciting or receiving an application for the registration, renewal of registration, or transfer of registration or ownership of a vehicle that is required to be registered, for compensation, without a license or temporary permit issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. In order to obtain a license to be a registration service, existing law requires the applicant to submit an application to the Department of Motor Vehicles that includes, among other things, a bond and nonrefundable application fee. Existing law requires every registration service to keep accurate business records containing specified information and provide a disclosure to each customer that certain services may be provided by the department without an additional fee.

This bill would require, for any service that is also provided by the department, that the additional fee imposed by the registration service be limited to 5 % above the fee that the department would charge to the consumer for that same service.

Date of Hearing: May 6, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2629

Author:(Chen) – As Introduced Ver:February 20, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

For any service provided by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), this bill limits the amount of an additional charge levied by a registration service to no more than 5% greater than the fee DMV charges to consumers when providing that service directly through DMV’s website or field office.

FISCAL EFFECT:

While this bill makes no explicit requirement of DMV, it creates costs for DMV (Motor Vehicle Account (MVA)), nonetheless. Cost drivers to DMV are modification of DMV’s website and publications, issuing memos and promulgating regulations. DMV estimates the average cost of developing new regulations at approximately $115,000 one time and anticipates the regulations required by this bill to be relatively simple.  

In addition, DMV notes it may experience an increase in complaints that require investigation, at a cost of roughly $60,000 annually (MVA). 

In addition, as the bill is written, the effect will be to prevent a registration service from charging a fee of more than $0 to a customer for a service provided by DMV. (See below for discussion and rationale.) A DMV transaction completed by a business partner includes a transaction fee, currently set at $6, deposited to the MVA.  Additionally, existing law requires DMV’s industry partners to pay a $1 transaction fee to fund DMV’s ongoing IT modernization. To the extent this bill reduces the amount of DMV transactions completed by DMV business partners—and this analysis assumes the reduction will be substantial—the MVA will forgo revenue of an unknown, but significant amount. 

The MVA faces insolvency. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) advises, “Until a plan is put in place to address MVA’s structural deficit, we recommend the Legislature set a high bar for considering approval of any proposals that create additional MVA cost pressures and accelerate the risk of insolvency.”

COMMENTS:

State law authorizes DMV to join with qualified private industry partners to provide services that include processing and payment programs for vehicle registration and titling transactions. DMV has several thousand such private industry partners today. Unlike its industry partners, DMV does not charge fees for these services.

Current law (see Vehicle Code section 1685) authorizes DMV to cap the fees charged by its industry partners, and DMV limits by regulation the fees that a DMV business partner may charge a new car dealer to register a vehicle on a customer’s behalf. Currently, DMV limits such a registration fee to $30, though the fee is adjusted annually to account for inflation. However, DMV has not capped the fees its industry partners may charge a customer directly for registration services.

The author describes this bill as targeting “deceptive fees” that “too many” Californians have been “tricked” into paying, and describes those fees as, in some cases, “exorbitant” and “gouging.” While the bill does not target deceptive practices, it, instead, limits fees. According to the author:

AB 2629 will prohibit business partners that provide online vehicle registration services from charging excessive fees for the same services offered directly by the DMV by establishing a reasonable cap to prevent Californians from being price gouged. Too many Californians have been unknowingly tricked into paying exorbitant fees for the same service that is currently provided by the DMV at no additional cost. This bill strengthens consumer protections by ensuring Californians are not subjected to deceptive fees when accessing basic vehicle registration services.

The bill achieves the author’s goal by capping the additional fee charged by a registration service at 5% above the fee that DMV charges to consumers when providing that service directly through the DMV website. So, if DMV charges a customer a $0 fee for vehicle registration services through its website, then a private registration service, under this bill, could charge up to $0 (5% x $0 = $0) for the same service.

This bill is sponsored by the Consumer Federation of California, which, similar to the author, describes the bill as addressing “scams” and “deceptive websites” and describes the bill as “imposing reasonable limits on what online businesses can charge for their registration services.” It seems the outcome of this bill—in effect, prohibiting registration service fees—is not the effect intended by either the author or the sponsor.

According to the author, the author’s intent is to limit the fees charged to a customer to, for example, the dollar amount DMV collects when a customer renews their vehicle registration. As a more specific example, according to the author, if a customer is required to pay $324 to renew the customer’s vehicle registration, which DMV collects, the author intends this bill to limit to $16.20 (5% of $324) the service fee a registration service may charge to the customer for the registration service. However, according to DMV, DMV does not charge customers service fees for the services it provides. Rather, it collects fees due on behalf of the state of California as directed by state law. The author may want to consider amendments to the bill to ensure it achieves the author’s desired outcome.

This bill is opposed by private registration services that operate, primarily or exclusively, online. One such entity that provides these services, Samba Safety, opposes the bill and describes the fee cap as “not economically viable.”

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 6, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Lori D. Wilson, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2629 (

Author:Chen) – As Introduced Ver:February 20, 2026

SUBJECT: Vehicles: registration services

SUMMARY: Prohibits a registration service from charging a fee that exceeds 5% of the fee that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) charges consumers when providing the service directly through the department’s internet website or field office.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes DMV to establish contracts for electronic programs that allow qualified private industry partners to join the DMV in providing services that include processing and payment programs for vehicle registration and titling transactions, and services related to reporting vehicle sales and producing temporary license plates. (Vehicle Code section (VEH) 1685)
2. Defines “registration service” as a person engaged in the business of soliciting or receiving any application for the registration, renewal of registration, or transfer of registration or ownership, of any vehicle of a type subject to registration under this code, or of soliciting or receiving an application for a motor carrier permit or of transmitting or presenting any of those documents to the department, when any compensation is solicited or received for the service. “Registration service” includes, but is not limited to, a person who, for compensation, processes registration documents, conducts lien sales, or processes vehicle dismantling documents. (VEH 505.2)
3. Provides that a registration service is not a person performing registration service on a vehicle acquired by that person for his or her own personal use or for use in the regulator course of that persons business, a person who solicits applications for or sells, for compensation, nonresident permits for the operation of vehicles within the state, an employee of one or more dealers or dismantlers, who performs registration services for vehicles acquired by, consigned to, or sold by the employing dealers or dismantlers, a motor club, or a common carrier acting in the regular course of its business in transmitting applications.
4. Defines a “first line business partner” as an industry partner that receives data directly from DMV and uses it to complete registration and titling activities for that partner’s own business. (VEH 1685)
5. A second-line business partner is a partner that receives information from a first-line business partner. (VEH 1685)
6. Authorizes the DMV director to establish, through the adoption of regulations, the maximum amount that a qualified private industry partner may charge its customers. (VEH 1685)
7. Requires DMV to adjust the amount determined to the California Consumer Price Index and to round the amount to the nearest dollar. (VEH 1685)
8. Authorizes DMV to charge a $3 transaction fee for the information and services provided and authorizes the private industry partner to pass the transaction fee to the customer. (VEH 1685)
9. Prohibits a person from acting as a registration service, engaging in he business of soliciting or receiving any application for the registration, renewal, or transfer of registration without a license or temporary permit issued by DMV (VEH 11400)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: The DMV is authorized to partner with qualified private businesses to provide vehicle registration and titling services, including processing and payment programs. Private industry partners support the DMV in several ways:

• Provide nightly updates to the DMV database with new vehicle owner information.
• Allow faster issuance of license plates to car buyers.
• Offer alternative options for DMV services.
• Reduce workload at DMV field offices.
• Eliminate state costs related to failed payments (partners assume this risk).
• Enable the DMV to collect interest sooner on electronic fund transfers.

A registration service is a business that, for compensation, processes vehicle registration and related documents, including transmitting them to DMV. DMV licenses and regulates vehicle registration services. For a business to act as a registration service, it must obtain a license or temporary permit from DMV by filing an application, submitting to a background check and inspection of its place of business, posting a surety bond, and paying a one-time fee to DMV.

A registration service is not an individual handling their own personal or business vehicles, nor is it a person who solely sells nonresident permits. It also excludes employees of auto dealers or dismantlers who process paperwork for their employer's inventory, as well as motor clubs (like AAA) and common carriers (like shipping companies) performing these tasks as part of their standard business operations.

As of June 2024, the DMV had one first-line business partner, seven first-line service providers and 6,429 second-line business partners. A second-line business partner receives information from a first-line service provider. This includes but is not limited to websites other than the DMV website that provide registration services, car dealers, and payday lenders. In fiscal year 2023–2024, these partners completed 7.5 million transactions and collected $3.4 billion on the DMV’s behalf. About one-third of that revenue came from new car registrations; the rest came from title transfers and registration renewals.

The Director of the DMV has the authority to cap transaction fees charged by private partners. Currently, licensed vehicle dealers and dismantlers are limited to charging consumers $29 per transaction. This transaction cap is adjusted annually for inflation. The DMV has not imposed a fee cap on its other partners.

The Legislature has expressed skepticism of online registration services, particularly now that all of these functions are offered at the DMV website at no cost to the consumer. AB 1627 (Gomez) Chapter 128, Statutes of 2014, required registration services to provide a disclosure to each customer that the DMV also provides the same services without an additional fee.

Even with this disclosure, constituents have continued to use registration service websites without understanding they are not, in fact, the DMV. In November 2024, a Bay Area news outlet reported on a DMV business partner charging an extra $72 for vehicle registration. The company’s website closely mimicked the DMV’s official site and appeared at the top of search results for registration payments.

According to the author, “AB 2629 will prohibit business partners that provide online vehicle registration services from charging excessive fees for the same services offered directly by the DMV by establishing a reasonable cap to prevent Californians from being price gouged. Too many Californians have been unknowingly tricked into paying exorbitant fees for the same service that is currently provided by the DMV at no additional cost. This bill strengthens consumer protections by ensuring Californians are not subjected to deceptive fees when accessing basic vehicle registration services.”

The sponsor of this bill, the Consumer Federation of California, argues “Many Californians are being scammed and overcharged by unregulated, deceptive websites, some of which impersonate or “spoof” the look and feel of the DMV’s website, and shockingly some of these websites are literally “partners” of the DMV, a status some abuse when interacting with consumers.. These businesses intentionally mislead consumers, making them believe they are either on the DMV website or, more confusingly, having consumers pay the same DMV fees when, in reality, consumers are being hit with hidden, excessive charges—sometimes double or triple the DMV’s cost to consumers who go directly to the California DMV’s website. The worst-hit victims are seniors, families, low-income individuals, and communities of color who unknowingly fall into these predatory traps. Some of these “trusted partners” are actually predatory payday lenders who in 2023 and 2024 were found to have charged consumers up to a 460% annual percentage rate for single-payment payday loans.

AB 2629 shuts down these exploitative practices by imposing reasonable limits on what online businesses can charge for their registration services, capping fees at just 5% above DMV’s standard rates. This ensures that Californians are no longer gouged by deceptive websites masquerading as official DMV services or abusing their “partner” status to mislead consumers.”

Previous legislation. AB 1627 (Gomez) Chapter 128, Statutes of 2014, required registration services required to provide a disclosure to each customer that the services they provide may be provided by DMV without an additional fee.

AB 1190 (Haney) of 2025 would have required the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to limit the amount any qualified second-line business partner may charge their customers to no more than the maximum amount a first-line service provider may charge its customers. This bill also strengthens disclosure requirements on all qualified second-line business partners’ internet websites. That bill died in Senate Appropriations Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Consumer Federation of California (sponsor)

Opposition

CarRegistration

Samba Safety

Analysis Prepared by: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093