Anthony Amoros Law Right to Know Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 6, 2026
Bottom line
The Anthony Amoros Law Right to Know Act aims to enhance consumer safety in the used car market by requiring clear disclosure of non-functional or missing airbag systems, backed by civil and criminal penalties.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that sellers of used motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1997, must either ensure the vehicle has a functional airbag system or clearly disclose in writing and physically on the windshield if the airbag system is missing or disabled. It establishes both civil penalties, enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission and State attorneys general, and new federal criminal penalties for knowing violations, with enhanced penalties for cases resulting in death or serious bodily injury. The criminal offense specifically targets vehicles lacking a functional airbag system AND an inflatable restraint system or containing a non-functioning inflatable restraint system.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a vital consumer protection measure, ensuring that buyers of used vehicles are fully aware of critical safety features like airbags. They contend that the 'right to know' about a vehicle's safety status is fundamental, preventing tragic accidents and empowering consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. The bill addresses a dangerous loophole where sellers might not disclose such deficiencies, putting lives at risk.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill places an undue burden on used car sellers, particularly individual sellers, who may not have the technical expertise or resources to verify airbag functionality or to comply with the stringent disclosure requirements. They may contend that existing consumer protection laws are sufficient and that adding new federal civil and criminal penalties could lead to increased costs for used vehicles, reduce market liquidity, or result in frivolous lawsuits.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a)
Airbag Resale Requirements and Disclosure
This provision requires that any used motor vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1997, sold through any resale channel (auction, dealership, individual) must either have a functional airbag system or the seller must clearly disclose if the system is missing or disabled. The disclosure must be a written statement in 10-point bold type on the sales contract and a conspicuous sign on the vehicle's windshield.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses a critical safety gap, ensuring consumers are not unknowingly purchasing vehicles with compromised safety features. The clear, dual-format disclosure minimizes ambiguity and maximizes consumer awareness.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that the disclosure requirements, particularly the physical sign on the windshield, are overly prescriptive and burdensome for sellers, especially individual sellers, and could be difficult to enforce consistently across diverse resale channels.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances consumer's right to safety information against the compliance burden on sellers. The tension lies in ensuring effective disclosure without creating excessive or impractical requirements for all types of used vehicle transactions.
Section 2(b)
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement
This section grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to enforce the airbag resale requirements. Violations are to be treated as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act, allowing the FTC to use its existing powers to investigate, prosecute, and impose penalties.
Section 2(c)
State Enforcement Actions
This provision allows State attorneys general or other State officials to bring civil actions in State or federal court on behalf of their residents if they believe an interest of the State's residents has been or is threatened by a violation. States can seek injunctions, enforce compliance, obtain damages or restitution, and other relief. States must notify the FTC before filing, and the FTC has the right to intervene. State actions are limited if a federal action is already pending against the same defendant for the same violation.
Section 2(d)
Additional Civil Penalty for Severe Outcomes
This section allows a court to award an additional civil penalty of up to $25,000 in cases where a violation of the airbag disclosure requirements results in death or paralysis. This penalty is in addition to any other penalties awarded under the civil enforcement provisions.
Section 3(a)
Criminal Penalty for Resale of Unsafe Motor Vehicles
This section creates a new federal criminal offense for anyone who knowingly sells a covered motor vehicle with a 'covered deficiency' without proper disclosure. A 'covered deficiency' is defined as the vehicle lacking a functional airbag system AND either lacking an inflatable restraint system or having a non-functioning one. Penalties range from fines and up to 10 years imprisonment for general violations, up to 20 years for serious bodily injury (including paralysis), and life imprisonment for death.
The criminal penalty in Section 3 applies only if a vehicle has a 'covered deficiency,' which is defined as lacking a functional airbag system AND either lacking an inflatable restraint system or containing a non-functioning inflatable restraint system. This is a more specific condition than the civil requirement in Section 2(a)(1), which broadly refers to a 'functional airbag system' being missing or disabled.
Section 3(b)(1) (definition of 'Covered deficiency')
Why it matters:This level of detail is standard legislative practice for defining terms precisely within specific sections, but it means a casual reader might miss the nuanced difference between the civil and criminal applicability criteria.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this precise definition for criminal liability ensures that only the most severe and clearly defined safety deficiencies, where both the airbag and its underlying restraint system are compromised, trigger federal criminal charges, preventing overreach.
Case against: Critics might argue that the distinction creates a loophole where a vehicle with a non-functional airbag but an otherwise intact (though non-deploying) inflatable restraint system might escape criminal liability, even if it poses a significant safety risk.
Estimated impact: This definition narrows the scope of criminal prosecution compared to civil enforcement, potentially reducing the number of cases that could lead to federal imprisonment.
Both the civil and criminal provisions of the bill apply only to 'covered motor vehicles,' which are defined as motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1997.
Section 2(f)(2) and Section 3(b)(2) (definition of 'Covered motor vehicle')
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining the scope of a bill's applicability. It's a technical detail that is crucial for understanding the bill's reach but not typically highlighted in summary language.
Case for: Proponents would argue that limiting the bill to vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1997, is practical, as it aligns with the widespread adoption of airbags and avoids imposing potentially impossible or overly burdensome requirements on sellers of very old vehicles where airbag systems might be less common or harder to assess.
Case against: Critics might argue that this limitation excludes a significant portion of the used car market, potentially leaving buyers of older vehicles (pre-1997) vulnerable to undisclosed airbag deficiencies, even though those vehicles may still be in active use.
Estimated impact: This limitation significantly narrows the universe of vehicles subject to the bill's requirements, focusing on more modern vehicles where airbags are standard equipment.