Towing firms must accept cash and cards

Summary#

A-11670 would amend New York’s General Business Law sections on payments to commercial towing companies and storage lot operators. Its stated goal, reflected in the bill title, is to require acceptance of more payment cards and increase fines for violations. The bill is at the introduced stage, so it is not law; if enacted, it would take effect 90 days later.

  • Towing companies and storage lot operators that require payment before releasing a towed vehicle would have to accept cash and at least two major credit cards or debit cards.
  • Commercial towers responding to calls for inoperable or unsafe vehicles would have to accept cash and at least two major credit cards or debit cards for towing and repair charges. Existing limits and duties in this section—including the exception for vehicles lawfully parked at the owner’s or operator’s home—would remain.
  • For violations of the vehicle-release payment rule, the court-ordered civil penalty would rise from $50–$1,000 to $1,000–$2,500 per violation.
  • The text also provides for injunctions and restitution, and allows local governments to enforce the sections concurrently. It does not establish a new agency.

What it means for you#

  • People whose vehicles are towed: If an operator covered by the bill requires payment before releasing your vehicle, it would have to accept cash and the required card options. The bill does not set towing or storage prices or require every customer to pay by card.
  • People requesting roadside towing or repairs: A covered commercial tower responding to a call would have to accept cash and the required card options for towing and repair charges. The bill retains the rule that the tower need not transport more occupants than it can safely carry.
  • Towing companies and storage lot operators: They would need to meet the payment-acceptance rules. The bill does not set rules for card fees or specify how businesses must show which cards they accept.
  • The Attorney General and local governments: The bill keeps enforcement through court action and allows local enforcement; money collected under local enforcement stays with that municipality or local government.

Money#

No cost estimate is available in the supplied material.

  • The bill does not appropriate money or set a new fee.
  • Businesses may face costs to accept additional cards; that is a possible effect, not a cost estimated in the bill.
  • The bill would increase the penalty range for violations of the vehicle-release payment rule. The text does not show a change to the penalty range for the roadside towing and repair section.

What is unclear#

  • The wording does not clearly say whether the two required card options can be any combination of credit and debit cards, or how many debit-card networks must be accepted.
  • The bill does not set a process for showing compliance or handling disputes about payment acceptance.
  • The parent General Business Law provisions were not supplied, so the current law could not be independently checked against the bill text. The bill text does include some existing wording it would replace.
  • No estimate is given for business costs, enforcement costs, or how many businesses or violations may be affected.
  • The bill has not passed. Its final wording, passage, and start date are therefore uncertain.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that customers facing towing, storage, or roadside charges would have more card-payment options.
  • Requiring cash as well as card acceptance would preserve cash as a payment option while setting a minimum card-acceptance rule.
  • A higher minimum penalty for the vehicle-release payment rule could give the rule more force.

Case against#

  • One concern is that requiring additional card acceptance could impose equipment or processing costs on businesses, with no cost information or adjustment for business size in the bill.
  • The card requirement is not fully clear, especially for debit cards, which could make compliance uncertain.
  • The minimum penalty for violations of the vehicle-release payment rule would rise substantially, but the bill does not explain how a “violation” would be counted.