Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso delve into recent legislative changes affecting the auto finance industry in Connecticut and Oregon.
In this episode of Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast, Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso delve into recent legislative changes affecting the auto finance industry in Connecticut and Oregon. They discuss Connecticut's Senate Bill 1357, which introduces updates on automatic renewal provisions, dealer advertising requirements, and express warranties. The conversation highlights the compliance challenges these changes pose for dealers and finance companies. The hosts also explore Oregon's House Bill 3178, focusing on new disclosure requirements, the reduced timeline for finalizing financing, and the right to void contracts. This episode provides a comprehensive analysis of how these state laws impact operations and potential litigation risks for industry professionals.
Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast — State Law Roundup: A Focus on Connecticut and Oregon
Hosts: Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso
Recorded: October 1, 2025
Aired: October 14, 2025
Brooke Conkle (00:09):
Welcome to Moving the Metal, the premier legally focused podcast for the auto finance industry. I'm Brooke Conkle, a partner in Troutman Pepper Locke's consumer financial services practice group.
Chris Capurso (00:20):
And I'm Chris Capurso, an associate in Troutman Pepper Locke's consumer financial services practice group.
Brooke Conkle (00:25):
Today we'll be diving into recent legislative developments in Connecticut and Oregon along with their impact on dealers and auto finance companies. But before we jump in, let me remind you to please visit and subscribe to our blogs. We have two great ones that may be of interest to you, troutman financial services.com and consumer financial services law monitor.com. And also we have a bevy of other podcasts that you might find interesting. The Consumer Finance Podcast, which as you might guess is all things consumer finance related, The Crypto Exchange devoted to trends, challenges, and legal issues in Bitcoin, blockchain, FinTech and reg-tech, FCRA Focus, a podcast dedicated to all things credit reporting. And finally, Payments Pros, a great podcast focused exclusively on the payments industry. All of these insightful shows are available on your favorite podcast platform, so check 'em out. And speaking of those platforms, if you like what you hear, please leave us a review and let us know how we're doing.
We'd love to hear from you. Alternatively, please feel free to reach out to us directly. Our contact information can easily be found on the firm's website, troutman.com. If you enjoy reading our blogs and listening to our podcasts, please also check out our financial services mobile app to download. Simply go to your iOS or Android app store and search for Troutman Pepper Lock. Not only does our app have all of our blog content and podcast episodes in one handy place, it also has a listing of all of the firm's financially focused attorneys. Check it out and see what you think. For today, as I mentioned, we're starting a new segment here on Moving the Metal called State Law Roundup, where we discuss recent state laws and their impact on the auto finance industry. Chris, big few weeks in legal developments. We talked about the California cars rule. Now we're transitioning to two other states with new laws impacting auto finance companies. So Chris, what's going on in Connecticut?
Chris Capurso (02:19):
Yeah, we're going to go to each coast today. We're going to go on a nice little tour, but we're starting in Connecticut and we're going to talk about Connecticut Senate Bill 1357, which has the title of an act concerning the Department of Consumer Protection's recommendations regarding various statutes concerning consumer protection. And if that sounds random and like it could potentially include a hodgepodge of different things, you'd be right because this specific bill has enumerated 21 different types of provisions relating from anything to certified public accountants to contractors to even, I didn't read that part, that'll be interesting. But what I did do is check this law to see what might impact our listeners. And there are a couple provisions that are particularly important to dealers, to finance companies, and to those involved in add-on and vehicle protection products. So I'll just go on kind of a summary of those different types of provisions.
So the first one I'm going to talk about is related to automatic renewal provisions, which is something that we're seeing. Obviously a lot of states have these and they are starting to become more evolved as these types of products grow. And some of these provisions are specific to certain types of products or certain term products. I mean, generally you're going to see these things apply to the types of subscriptions you would expect, like your video subscription service. We're not going to name any of them to avoid any kind of favoritism, but any type of video streaming service you have or your favorite music streaming service. But obviously there are certain things that renew in different terms, whether it be monthly or over maybe yearly that may be impacted by some of these laws. And Connecticut's one such law. And I'm going to note early on that a lot of these laws have exceptions for, and I'll use the exact language from Connecticut, any agreement with any entity regulated by the insurance department or an affiliate of such entity.
Now, you might be thinking add out products, gap waivers, those types of things could be offered by folks regulated by the insurance department. Ergo, if there's an exception for that, then this law isn't going to apply. But we remember what our Fred, Brian Casey said on an earlier podcast discussing how there was a definite push at the state level to try to get some of these products and some of these providers out of the purview of the insurance department. So some states don't necessarily regulate these products as insurance or they're not regulated by insurance departments. They may be regulated by departments of consumer protection. They may be regulated by attorneys general, they may be regulated by other types of things that are not in the purview of insurance. So this exception would not apply. And it goes to Brian's point of be careful what you wish for because now that you've avoided characterization as insurance, you could be subject to other things.
Obviously every state is different. Connecticut may be different. You want to consult with legal counsel to figure out whether these types of things apply and if so, what they do. But for our purposes, we're going to discuss what it does. So this new law, there was already an automatic renewal provision in place in Connecticut, but this new law specifically defines the term clearly and conspicuously, which you see that term in the definition. And there's going to be something about disclosures coming up clearly. And conspicuously disclosed means one of two things. First, for a disclosure that is made electronically or in writing to make that disclosure, one in a manner that may be retained by the consumer. And two in text that is larger than the size of any surrounding text or the same size as the surrounding text. But in a typeface, font or color that contrasts with such surrounding text or a set off from such surrounding text by symbols or other marks that draw the consumer's attention to such disclosure.
So very typical clear and conspicuous disclosure there with electronic or in writing disclosures. The second type is a verbal or telephonic disclosure. And in that case, it's clear and conspicuous if it is made in a volume and cadence that is readily audible to and understandable by the consumer. So we have this definition, what does it mean? The new law now requires that required disclosures under the law. Some examples of those include the disclosure before automatic renewal of actions that can be taken to prevent auto renewal, recurring charges, things like that. The typical notice you would see before automatic renewal would kick in requires that those disclosures be given in the medium the product or service is offered or entered into. So for example, if you enter into the automatic renewal electronically, you need to give these notices electronically. If you do it in writing by paper, you're going to need to get those disclosures to folks in writing or in paper if you did it by the telephone.
You see where I'm getting. So essentially this law is saying that, okay, kind of in the same manner that the click to cancel rule RIP, the FTC one I should say, because there are state ones out there in the same way, the click to cancel rule required that the cancellation mechanism be, it's just as easy to cancel as it is to sign up. Kind of takes that idea as, okay, in whatever way you signed up, the disclosures have to come to you that way. And that's important for folks offering month-to-month products. I mean, we know that there are month-to-month vehicle service contracts out there, like these types of things could apply potentially if you're not subject to an exception. So something important in this law for providers of add-on products. Next we're going to go to dealer advertising requirements, which is a big one as everybody who listens, knows.
Now again, like the prior one, there was already a dealer advertising law in place, and that law had previously stated the stated price and an advertisement of a motor vehicle must include federal tax delivery costs and dealer preparation charges. Well, now effective October 1st, it needs to include any fee charge or cost imposed for any add-on consumer good or consumer service. So we're talking those same types of products. We're talking gap waivers, we're talking vehicle service contracts, add-on products or services. And the advertisement must also separately state in at least eight point bold type immediately next to the phrase additional fees, charges and costs, the amount of any fee charge or cost imposed for any add-on consumer good or consumer service. So we've got a twofold dealer advertising update here. First, that the stated price needs to include these costs in them, the stated price and the advertisement.
And then separately, the ad must state what those costs are under a distinct headline. So those are some pretty big requirements, obviously something that is going to have to be implemented and like I said, effective October 1st. So it's a new requirement out there in Connecticut. We also have updates to the buyer's order law. That law now requires that the selling price quoted by any dealer to a prospective buyer in a buyer's order must A include any fee, charge or cost imposed for any optional add-on consumer good or service. And B, separately state the amount of each such fee, charge or cost, and that such fee charge or cost is negotiable. So we've got something very similar to the advertisement where you have to have a distinct disclosure of these add-on products and costs, but that the selling price must also include it. That's very similar to the advertisement, but you have the separate little bit that those fees must be negotiable.
And that's important because another requirement that this law handed down was that the form used for a buyer's order must not be printed in advance of discussions with a prospective buyer to include the amount of any fee charge or cost imposed for any other optional add-on consumer good or service. So I mean, it makes sense logically in terms of how the statute is written. If the fee is negotiable, then you can't pre-print the form because then it wouldn't be negotiable. But still now you can't have pre-printed forms with those types of fees in them because they are negotiable. In Connecticut, this is another October 1st, 2025 requirement. The final set of requirements I'm going to go over are related to express warranties also effective October 1st, 2025. And this applies to both goods sold and leased goods. And these specific provisions basically say that any affirmation of fact or promise made by a seller or a lessor to repair or replace defective goods creates an express warranty that the defective goods shall be repaired or replaced in conformance with the affirmation of promise of the seller or the lessor.
And separately that it is not necessary to the assertion of a claim for breach of an express warranty for the buyer, the lessor or their successor and interest to have bought or leased the goods directly from or entered into a contract directly with the seller. So if you make any kind of information that the seller, the lessor is able to repair or replace effective goods that creates an express warranty and that express warranty and any other express warranty made under that law can extend to the buyer's successor and interest. And they don't necessarily have to have privity or have the contract with the seller of the lessor to be able to maintain those claims. So like I said, a hodgepodge at the beginning, and we didn't talk about the bakeries, we didn't talk about any of the other things that this law touches on. But even in respect to the types of things that our listeners would be interested in, it's a bit of a hodgepodge. Brooke, does anything that I just said sound interesting from a litigation perspective?
Brooke Conkle (11:56):
When I heard you describing the requirements for the stated price rule, I can't help but think about the car's rule because a lot of these requirements, again, they didn't get it done at the federal level, but here we see the states really picking up the mantle of the FTC and including a lot of the requirements of the car's role in new state legislation. And so the offering price seems to be baked in to this new statute in Connecticut. And then on the other hand, extending the warranty claims explicitly against holders, that's a serious extension. So both of those areas seem to be, I won't say ripe for litigation, but certainly areas that auto finance companies want to be aware of, especially the stated price rules, disclosing in advertisements, any fee charge or cost imposed for any add-on and separately itemizing out each of those also in the advertisement. That's going to be a challenge, frankly, for dealers, but we'll see where this goes when it comes to litigation. Chris, are there any sort of compliance areas that you see?
Chris Capurso (13:04):
Yeah, I mean, just going from the top down, I noted initially that these automatic renewal provisions are on the rise, even if they've already existed. They're being expanded both in terms of scope, but also in terms of the types of things that they require. And a lot of them seem to be getting at this idea of the medium you came in with is the medium you get the disclosures in is medium. You potentially come out with cancellation and companies not just in this area, but any type of area that has something that has an automatic renewal provision really need to be mindful of that idea that you can't go in one way and then give these disclosures and provide cancellation rights in a completely different way that may not align with the initial process. So that's something that's becoming very commonplace. As you noted, the dealer advertising, obviously that's going to have its own compliance concerns.
You've got to make sure all of your advertisements have all of these things spelled out. And this is going to be tricky for finance companies too. I mean, we discussed the holder rule over and over again, and I know that goes into a little bit more of a litigation context, but there needs to be oversight, at least to some extent, what dealers are advertising their vehicles at and making sure that in these types of states where there's very stringent advertising requirements that they're meeting that standard. And same with the buyer's order, just having to have another disclosure or piece of paper, have additional items in it. And in this case, you can't hard code a fee in there if you've been hard coding in a gap amount or a fee amount or something like that. Can't do that anymore, which creates operational headaches because you're going to have to figure out how to code those things if you're on an electronic system.
And I admit that I fall victim to this sometimes, thinking that people can code things immediately. And I know that it's a process that takes a very long time. Even the slightest change takes a very long time because there are so many different moving parts. So again, just another change to a form that's going to require some kind of operational burden to try to figure out how to make it work. But like I said, litigation concerns, compliance concerns, all in this hodgepodge of a bill that if you read the first 20 sections of it, you might not realize these things are in there.
Brooke Conkle (15:25):
Yeah. Chris, I think your point about the expectation that everything is delivered kind of in a uniform medium is tough because as we know, there are so many auto transactions that are kind of hybrid transactions that start off on the web and then it moves into a brick and mortar store. And how you sort of navigate all of those disclosures and making sure that a consumer who gets a face-to-face disclosure or a written disclosure at the dealer then gets a follow-up that is in the exact same format, that's going to be much more difficult in practice than it is on paper.
Chris Capurso (16:01):
So I think there's a way to say K Connecticut out. We are fresh out of things to talk about with Connecticut. Now, let's go to the other side of the country in Oregon. What is the legislation there?
Brooke Conkle (16:15):
Well, Chris, we've been talking about disclosures and the folks in Oregon have been talking about disclosures as well, along with sort of the gray area between finalizing a retail installment sales contract and that contract being sold from a dealer to an auto finance company kind of regulating that gray area. Oregon governor has signed House Law Bill 31 78 into law, which will go into effect January 1st, 2026. And the key provisions of this law, really, they're at five main areas. The first deals was disclosures. Auto dealers are required to provide disclosures in plain language, and that includes detailing consumer rights in relation to retail, installment sales contracts and lease agreements. And particularly with these disclosures, Oregon is requiring dealers to provide them in six separate languages. And those languages include English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Russian, and Korean. So the disclosures must be available so that buyers can understand the terms of their transactions.
So those are the disclosures. And then as far as the timeline for finalizing financing, the bill reduces the timeframe for dealers to finalize retail installment sales contracts or lease agreements from 14 days. Now we're down to 10 days, and according to Oregon lawmakers, this change will result in a more efficient process for approvals and requires dealers to adjust their operations to meet that 10 day timeframe. Third, we have the right to void so buyers have a right to void a transaction. If a lender, and I'm using my air quotes, which you can't see a lender defined as a person who purchases a retail installment sales contract or a lease agreement. If the lender does not agree to purchase that contract on the exact negotiated terms within that 10 calendar day timeline, if the lender does not, buyers have the right to void the contract and then fourths notification of those voided contracts.
If a retail installment sales contract or lease agreement is voided, the dealer must notify consumers within two days. So we've got that sort of 10 day window and then a two day window tacked on to notify the consumers. Finally, a model disclosure form, the Oregon Attorney General will provide a model form for the required disclosures, which dealers must use, and that form will be available in the six languages and can be downloaded from the Attorney General's website. And Chris, I will say last night I checked the Oregon Attorney General's website. I do not think these model disclosures are available yet, but we'll keep checking. What is the upshot of these new provisions in Oregon law? Well, violations of the requirements are considered unlawful trade practices under the Oregon U DAP statute and subject to enforcement and penalties. So for dealers, we've got the new disclosures including notification and return requirements for retail installment sales contracts for lenders. We've got that final approval window of 10 days or the transaction could be voided. And then finally, the violations are subject to the Oregon UDAP statute. And for any litigator listening, we all know that a UDAP statute provides for attorney's fees. So Chris, when you hear about all of these new requirements, what kind of pops up onto your radar for compliance?
Chris Capurso (19:50):
Well, the first thing is this model form. It sounds very similar for anybody out there who has to deal with co-signers in California. California has a strict co-signer form and similarly has this other language requirement where it says the regulator is going to come up with model forms in these different languages. And it sounds great that it is good that the attorney general does it, and you don't have to translate it, but it's also a low hanging fruit if you're not doing it because it is a model form. You need to provide it with a transaction. And if you don't have it, it's just a straight violation. So I mean, that's the first thought. Obviously we'll be looking out for when the ag actually releases these forms. But that's the first thing right off the bat is anytime there's any kind of model form, like, okay, obviously follow it to the T, we always recommended following form to a T. And especially the ag is going to provide you the form in the other languages. Don't be messing with that. But it's also something that is very easy for a regulator coming in or a consumer suing to say, you didn't provide this, and it's so easy to like, oh, you didn't provide it to 100 plus of my closest friends.
And then all of a sudden they're all having a party against you. So you always want to make sure you satisfy these types of low hanging fruit. The other thing that's interesting to me is the drop in the deadline from 14 days to 10 calendar days, obviously they said it'll improve efficiency. Seems to be let's improve efficiency with a hammer, because if you don't do it, it's void. Sure, of course it will make things speed up because if it doesn't speed up at its 11 days, then the transaction can be void. Folks involved in the process are going to have to make sure that their processes are aligned to this new requirement starting in January. And make sure any finance companies, if it's taken you longer than 10 days in Oregon to approve the deals dealers, if any of your finance companies are taking longer than that, I'd flag those types of things ahead of time. This is not legal advice, but just basic advice. Flag those things ahead of time so that you're not surprised in January when lo and behold you could have a transaction voided because it took 11 days, which was fine before, but is not fine now in 2026. But did anything stand out in this book from a litigation standpoint?
Brooke Conkle (22:20):
From a litigation standpoint, as we've talked about making these subject to the Oregon UAP statute does suggest attorney's fees are going to be recoverable for any of these from a litigation standpoint. The other thing that really kind of sticks out to me is according to the legislative history, the law is designed to kind of shed light on that gray area in between finalizing the retail installment sales contract and that retail installment sales contract being picked up by a lender. And I think there's kind of some assumptions baked into the law that dealers always have a very clear line of sight on what is happening with the auto finance company with regard to a specific contract. And I think that may be a false assumption, and especially this two day notification period after a retail installment sales contract or lease agreement is voided, that the onus is on the dealer to notify customers within two days. That could be a tough timeline, especially if say you get a notification late on a Friday that the autofinance company hasn't picked up the loan and you've got two days to get in touch with a consumer who may or may not be available in that two day window. That's tough. And it also assumes that the dealer is always going to have a line of sight on what's going on with every retail installment sales contract. That's tough.
Chris Capurso (23:49):
It is. And you mentioning the two day period just led into one of my frustrations with statutory drafting, where in one area they use calendar days, but then for that notice they use days.
Brooke Conkle (24:03):
Yep.
Chris Capurso (24:04):
Why?
Brooke Conkle (24:05):
That's right.
Chris Capurso (24:06):
Be specific.
Brooke Conkle (24:07):
That's right. We know you know how to do it.
Chris Capurso (24:08):
Because then you're just questioning what does days mean?
Brooke Conkle (24:12):
That's right.
Chris Capurso (24:12):
So unnecessary, especially when they added the calendar in this specific bill. That's right. Sloppy. Sloppy. But with that, we're going to wrap up our first of these types of state law Roundup podcasts. As Brooke mentioned, we're not saying this is the complete state law digest. Obviously, states have passed more than two laws in Connecticut and Oregon, but every so often we're going to dig into some laws that we're seeing around the country. Obviously like California CARS rule - its own thing, but trying to dig into some of these laws around the country trying to see some different compliance issues, some different litigation issues that are arising. And the legislative season is not far away. It's the new year. So it's coming up and you'll probably be seeing more of these roundups. But with that, we'll wrap it up for today's podcast. Thank you to our audience for tuning in.
Don't forget to check out our blogs where you can subscribe to the entire blog or just the specific content you find most helpful. That's the ConsumerFinancialServicesLawMonitor.com and the TroutmanFinancialServices.com blogs. And while you're at it, why don't you head on over to Troutman.com and sign up for our consumer financial services mailing list so you can stay abreast of current issues with our insightful alerts and advisories, and receive invitations to our Industry Insider webinars. And of course, please mark your calendars for this podcast Moving the Metal, which we will be releasing every two weeks in 2025. That will be generally on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. And as always, if you have any questions or if we can help in any way, please reach out to us. Until next time!
Copyright, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP. These recorded materials are designed for educational purposes only. This podcast is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are solely those of the individual participants. Troutman does not make any representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the contents of this podcast. Information on previous case results does not guarantee a similar future result. Users of this podcast may save and use the podcast only for personal or other non-commercial, educational purposes. No other use, including, without limitation, reproduction, retransmission or editing of this podcast may be made without the prior written permission of Troutman Pepper Locke. If you have any questions, please contact us at troutman.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This transcript was generated using artificial intelligence technology and may contain inaccuracies or errors. The transcript is provided “as is,” with no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability. Please listen to the podcast for complete and accurate content. You may contact us to ask questions or to provide feedback if you believe that something is inaccurately transcribed.