Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection Auto Sales topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montana committee hears bill requiring pre‑litigation notice for car-buying disputes
Summary
A bill that would require car buyers to send dealers a detailed written notice before filing Montana Consumer Protection Act claims drew questions about timing and legal risk but no opposing testimony; the committee later tabled the bill during executive action.
Helena — The House Business and Labor Committee on Thursday heard testimony on House Bill 781, a bill sponsored by Representative Grama Gregg that would require buyers who allege unfair or deceptive acts in a motor-vehicle sale to send a written pre‑litigation notice to the dealer before filing claims under the Montana Consumer Protection Act.
The bill would require the notice to identify the buyer and dealer, list the vehicle make, model, year and VIN, and include a “detailed description of the complaint.” Dealers would then have 28 days from receipt to respond; if no resolution is reached within that period the buyer could proceed to court, Gregg said.
The measure’s sponsor argued the step would encourage communication, reduce unnecessary lawsuits and produce cost savings for consumers, dealers and courts. Representative Gregg said the bill is aimed at disputes under the Consumer Protection Act rather than ordinary breach‑of‑contract claims.
Committee members pressed the sponsor on practical effects. Representative Sprunger asked whether a 28‑day delay could harm a buyer who cannot afford to be without a vehicle; Gregg said the intent was not to leave buyers stranded and she would “find some better answers.” Representative Carter asked who requested the bill; Gregg said it would help local small dealerships but did not identify a specific requester. Representative Carlin asked whether a consumer’s written notice could be used against them in later litigation; Gregg said she believed Montana’s Consumer Protection Act provides protections but agreed to research an answer.
No proponents or opponents appeared in opposition during the hearing. After public testimony concluded, committee executive action recorded a motion to table HB 781; the committee voted to table the bill (motion passed, recorded in committee as 17 yes, 3 no). The bill remains on the committee table for further work.
Why it matters: The bill would create a mandatory step before consumers may file statutory consumer‑protection claims in vehicle purchases, changing the pre‑litigation process in an area that often produces high‑stakes claims. Opponents and proponents might later seek clarifying language on notice content, protections for consumers who disclose details, and whether the requirement could slow remedies for buyers with urgent needs.
Looking ahead: Committee action placed the bill on the table during executive action. If sponsors seek to revive HB 781, they may return with amendments addressing consumer notice disclosure, protections against self‑incrimination in the notice, or alternatives for buyers without secondary transportation.
