Skip to main content
Independent and nonpartisan. SaveYourState is a civic information resource. It is not a government website and is not affiliated with any government agency, party, or campaign.

California · 2025–26 Regular Session · Senate Bill

SB 791: Vehicle dealers: document processing charge.

Vetoed Official data

  1. Introduced
  2. In committee
  3. Passed one chamber
  4. Passed both chambers
  5. Enacted
  6. Vetoed

Last official action: ·Record last updated:

Plain-language summary

SB 791 is a senate bill introduced in the California Senate on February 21, 2025. According to its official title, it concerns: Vehicle dealers: document processing charge. Primary sponsor: Dave Cortese (D). It lists 7 additional sponsors. Most recent recorded action (March 2, 2026): Veto sustained.

Generated automatically from the official title, sponsor list, and status record only. It does not characterize the bill’s purpose or effects. How summaries are written

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

Existing law authorizes a dealer to charge the purchaser or lessee of a vehicle a document processing charge for the preparation and processing of documents, disclosures, and titling, registration, and information security obligations imposed by state and federal law. Existing law authorizes a dealer that has a contractual agreement with the Department of Motor Vehicles to be a private industry partner to set the document processing charge at up to $85 and authorizes all other dealers to set the document processing charge at up to $70.

This bill would, until January 1, 2031, subject to specified requirements, authorize a dealer to charge a document processing charge that exceeds those amounts if the charge does not exceed 1% of the total price of the vehicle and does not exceed $260. The bill would exempt the sale of vehicles to the State of California and any local governmental entity from these provisions. The bill would make a conforming change.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 4 · Republican 4

NameRolePartyChamberDistrict
Dave CortesePrimary sponsorDemocraticSenate15
Bob ArchuletaCo-sponsorDemocraticSenate30
Angelique AshbyCo-sponsorDemocraticSenate8
Phillip ChenCo-sponsorRepublicanAssembly59
Megan DahleCo-sponsorRepublicanSenate1
Heath FloraCo-sponsorRepublicanAssembly9
Lena GonzalezCo-sponsorDemocraticSenate33
Tony StricklandCo-sponsorRepublicanSenate36

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

  1. Veto sustained.
  2. Stricken from file.
  3. In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
  4. Vetoed by the Governor.
  5. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 11 a.m.
  6. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 2830.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
  7. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
  8. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 60. Noes 3. Page 3010.) Ordered to the Senate.
  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
  10. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
  11. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (August 29).
  12. August 20 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

Sources

  1. California Legislative Information — pubinfo database export
  2. Official bill page