Oregon Extends Privacy Law to Specifically List Auto Makers
In ongoing tweaks to state privacy laws, Oregon has amended its state privacy law to cover auto manufacturers. Specifically, those that process or control personal information that they get from a person’s use of a car. As most are aware, the law requires disclosures when collecting personal information, provision of rights to consumers (including the ability to delete and port personal information), and limits on profiling among other things. While the Oregon law, like most state “comprehensive” laws, includes applicability thresholds, there are no thresholds for this new applicability to car manufacturers. The law is slated to go into effect in September of this year.
Putting It Into Practice: This amendment demonstrates a growing concern by law makers and regulators around data collected in motor vehicles. We anticipate seeing similar developments in coming months.
Listen to this post
Understanding Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
If you are involved in a car accident in Michigan, one of the first things you will likely deal with is Personal Injury Protection (PIP), which is a central part of the state’s no-fault auto insurance system. PIP coverage plays a big role in how your medical bills and other costs are handled after a crash. Here is what you need to know about PIP.
What Is PIP?
Michigan is a no-fault state, which means your car insurance pays for certain accident-related expenses, regardless of who was at fault. This includes coverage for medical bills, lost wages, and replacement services if you are injured in an auto accident. It applies whether you were driving, riding as a passenger, walking, or biking. PIP is your safety net after an accident.
What Does PIP Cover?
A standard PIP policy typically includes:
Medical Expenses: Coverage for hospital stays, doctor visits, surgery, physical therapy, medications, and other necessary treatments.
Lost Wages: Up to 85% of your income for up to three years if you cannot work due to your injuries.
Replacement Services: Up to $20 per day for services, such as housekeeping or childcare, if your injuries prevent you from performing daily tasks.
Funeral & Survivor Benefits: If an accident results in a fatality, PIP may pay for funeral costs and provide financial support to dependents.
Who Pays First?
If you were injured in a crash, your own auto insurance will typically pay your PIP benefits, even if the accident was not your fault or if you were a passenger. If you do not have your own policy, you may be covered by a family member’s insurance or, if no coverage is available, by the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, which provides limited benefits in certain cases.
What Happens If Your Bills Go Over Your PIP Coverage?
If your medical costs exceed your PIP limit, you may need to rely on:
Health insurance
Out-of-pocket payments
A lawsuit against the at-fault driver for additional damages like excess medical bills, long-term lost wages, and pain and suffering
To sue for these damages, your injuries must meet Michigan’s legal standard of a “serious impairment of body function.” This refers to significant injuries that affect your ability to live a normal life, including broken bones, herniated discs, traumatic brain injuries, or permanent scarring and disfigurement.
Final Thoughts
Personal Injury Protection is one of the most important aspects of auto insurance in Michigan. With the ability to choose your level of coverage, it is important to understand what you are buying and what it may mean for your health and finances if you are ever in a crash.
USPTO Discontinuing the Accelerated Examination Program for Utility Applications
On 10 June 2025, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Final Rule announcing the discontinuation of the Accelerated Examination program for utility applications beginning 10 July 2025. The change affects the avenues available for applicants to receive expedited examination and modifies the grounds upon which a petition to make special is granted.
Legal Background
The Accelerated Examination program allows for an application to be advanced out of turn for examination if the applicant files a petition to make special under the program. To be granted accelerated examination status, an applicant must meet several requirements, including completing a pre-examination search and limiting his or her invention to 20 total claims.1 Under current rules, all other petitions to make special, except those based on an applicant’s health or age, must fulfill these same requirements.2 Petitions to make special based on an invention enhancing the quality of the environment, contributing to the development or conservation of energy resources, or countering terrorism do not require an additional fee under the program.3
Alternative avenues for expedited examination outside of the Accelerated Examination program include the Patent Prosecution Highway program and the Prioritized Examination Program, often referred to as “Track One.”
Rule Change
The Final Rule takes the position that the Accelerated Examination program is unnecessary for utility applications considering the availability of the Track One program. Track One provides the ability to advance any utility or plant application, regardless of subject matter, by paying a fee and without an applicant having to meet several of the requirements of the Accelerated Examination program, such as the pre-examination search.
After the Accelerated Examination program is discontinued, applicants can still receive expedited examination of their applications with the Track One program. If an applicant seeks to petition to make special on a basis other than age or health, the applicant must now comply with the Track One requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(e) instead of the Accelerated Examination program. To reflect this change, the Final Rule removes 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(c)(2) to indicate that the advancement of an examination on the grounds of environmental quality enhancement, conservation of energy resources, or countering terrorism is no longer available without a fee.
Age and health will remain grounds for a petition to make special. However, the Final Rule amends the language of 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(c) to state that the inventor’s or joint inventor’s age or health may be a ground to file a petition to make special without a fee. Previously, the rule stated that a petition to make special may be filed without a fee based on the applicant’s age or health.
This change clarifies that it is the inventor’s age or health that is relevant to receiving expedited examination, not the applicant’s.
Looking Forward
The Final Rule will take effect 10 July 2025. Any petition or request for reconsideration of a petition to make special under the Accelerated Examination program filed with a utility patent on or after this date will not be granted, irrespective of the filing date and time of any prior Accelerated Examination petition and without regard to the USPTO’s determination that an applicant was afforded an opportunity to correct a prior deficient Accelerated Examination petition under the program.
We acknowledge the contributions to this publication from our summer associate Nav Murthy.
Footnotes
1 MPEP 708.02(a).
2 Id.
3 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(c)(2).
Foley Automotive Update- June 11, 2025
Trump Administration Trade and Tariff Policies
Foley & Lardner provided an update on the current Trump tariff proposals, as well as the implications of recent court decisions striking down tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
President Trump on June 11 stated a trade agreement with China is “done, subject to final approval with President Xi and me.” The deal is said to include a framework for China to supply “any necessary magnets and rare earths.” [This breaking news story has frequent updates.]
MEMA and a number of major automakers urged immediate action to address the risk of parts shortages and production disruptions resulting from policies in China that have restricted or delayed export licenses for certain rare earths, minerals and magnets.
The European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA) on June 4 stated that “approximately one-quarter” of the rare earths export license applications submitted to Chinese authorities since April have been approved. Chinese exports of rare earths rose 23% in May from the previous month, according to customs data published June 9.
President Trump signed an executive order to double Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to 50%, effective June 4. The governments of Canada, Mexico and Brazil are reported to be seeking exemptions to the steel import tariffs. Aluminum prices are projected to increase more than 20% to reach over $3,000 a ton by the end of 2026 due to the expectation of supply constraints and the effects of higher U.S. demand from Trump administration trade policies.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative extended Section 301 tariff exclusions for certain products from China to August 31, 2025, from a previous expiration of May 31, 2025. The duties were originally implemented in 2018 and target products that include certain batteries, critical minerals, and semiconductors. The exemptions could be further extended or modified, per the notice.
Automotive Key Developments
S&P Global Mobility and Automotive News provided overviews of the potential effects of higher steel and aluminum tariffs on automakers and suppliers. S&P noted the effects of various tariffs could cause U.S. new light-vehicle inventory to fall to 2 million units industrywide by this December, from current levels of roughly 2.7 million units.
During a presentation at AutoTech 2025, S&P Global Mobility estimated automakers and suppliers are losing up to eighteen months of product planning due to the volatility of tariff policies.
Predictions in Bank of America’s annual “Car Wars” report include ongoing multi-billion-dollar write-downs for EVs, an emphasis on “core” products to generate cash, and the potential for “mass consolidation” of the automotive industry in China resulting from extreme price wars and excess capacity. Automakers are expected to launch 159 models over the next four years, from typical levels of over 200, and the report noted the “next four+ years will be the most uncertain and volatile time in product strategy ever.”
The Federal Communications Commission extended the public comment period by 18 days to June 27, 2025 on a proposal that could expand the list of vehicle connectivity technologies banned from Russian and Chinese manufacturers.
The White House budget office instructed the Department of Transportation to disregard a Government Accountability Office decision that the DOT violated the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) by suspending the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program created by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The ICA limits a president’s ability to hold back funds appropriated by Congress.
Last week, sixteen states and the District of Columbia urged a Washington federal judge to grant their request for a preliminary injunction to stop the federal government from withholding NEVI funds.
The DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on June 6 published a final rule, Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program, describing the agency’s legal foundation for its authority to revise CAFE and medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (MDHD) standards. An upcoming separate rule will revise the standards. This follows a proposal in the Senate’s pending tax and budget bill to eliminate fines for failures to meet CAFE rules.
U.S. new light-vehicle sales in May increased 1.4% year-over-year to a SAAR of 15.6 million units.
OEMs/Suppliers
As part of a $4 billion plan to increase U.S. manufacturing over the next two years, GM will expand finished vehicle production at Orion Assembly in Michigan, Fairfax Assembly in Kansas, and Spring Hill Manufacturing in Tennessee. This investment will support the ability to assemble up to two million vehicles annually in the U.S.
Automakers shipped 72% fewer vehicles to the U.S. in May 2025 compared to the same period last year, according to maritime import data from Descartes Datamyne.
Canadian exports of motor vehicles and parts fell 17% in April, according to data from Statistics Canada published on June 5.
Aftermarket auto parts dealer Detroit Axle stated it could go out of business “within weeks” due to a Trump administration policy that ended the “de minimis” tariff exemption for small-value packages from China.
A number of global suppliers are exploring opportunities to support Chinese automakers’ overseas expansions.
The Chinese government is reported to have told the nation’s automakers to “self-regulate,” amid rising concerns the ongoing price wars among domestic EV makers could result in diminished profitability and significant industry consolidation.
Market Trends and Regulatory
Kelley Blue Book estimated the average new-vehicle transaction price (ATP) in May 2025 was $48,799, largely flat with the April ATP but up 1% YOY. The average manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) in May rose 2% YOY to $50,968.
The auto industry is the most likely sector to experience financial distress this year, according to two-thirds of respondents in AlixPartners’ 20th Annual Turnaround and Transformation Survey.
The National Association of Manufacturers Q2 2025 Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey found 55.4% of respondents reported a positive outlook for their companies, representing a nearly 15 percentage point drop from Q1 and the lowest level since Q2 of 2020.
Eighty-three percent of CEOs across all industries expect a recession in the next 12 to 18 months, according to the Conference Board‘s CEO confidence index.
The fire on the car carrier Morning Midas started on a deck containing electric vehicles. However, the cause of the incident has not been confirmed. This marked the third serious fire in 2025 and the thirteenth in the past decade on “large ro-ro type ships.”
Autonomous Technologies and Vehicle Software
Tesla could debut robotaxi rides in limited parts of Austin, Texas in the coming weeks.
Alphabet unit Waymo has achieved 10 million paid driverless rides on a cumulative basis, and it books an average of over 250,000 weekly rides. The autonomous driving company offers paid rides in parts of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, and the company recently expanded to Austin and Atlanta in partnership with Uber.
Uber Technologies, Inc. and self-driving startup Wayve plan to launch public-road trials of Level 4 (L4) autonomous vehicles in London in spring 2026.
Autonomous truck-driving software company Plus Automation plans to go public in the U.S. through a $1.2 billion merger with special-purpose acquisition company Churchill Capital Corp. The combined entity will operate as PlusAI.
China is developing national safety requirements for driver-assistance systems.
Electric Vehicles and Low-Emissions Technology
Ford stated its plan to produce EV batteries at a new plant in Marshall, Michigan would be at risk if Congress eliminates federal tax credits for clean energy.
Automotive Energy Supply Corp. (AESC) halted construction of an EV batteryplant in South Carolina due to “policy and market uncertainty”
The majority of workers at a Stellantis – Samsung SDI battery joint venture plant in Indiana signed cards to join the UAW.
Lucid Group signed its third agreement for U.S.-processed graphite, in an effort to strengthen its domestic supply chain for EV batteries.
The advertised ranges of many EVs can vary significantly from the number of miles covered during Consumer Reports’ tests of 30 EVs driven at a constant highway speed of 70 mph. Over half of the tested vehicles missed targets in the advertised range, by anywhere from one mile to up to 50 miles. However, some models exceeded range by two miles to 67 miles. Unlike gas-powered cars, EVs are typically less efficient on highways than in cities.
A recent AAA survey of 1,128 consumers found only 16% of respondents were “very likely” or “likely” to purchase a fully electric vehicle as their next car, representing the lowest level since 2019.
Leading the Charge: How TVA’s SMR Application Signals Industry-Wide Change
On May 20, 2025, the Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) announced that it is the first American utility to submit a small modular reactor (“SMR”) construction permit application (“CPA”) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”). This announcement comes as a concrete response to the increased focus on adding new nuclear generation to U.S. energy resources.
As part of our ongoing series of articles regarding nuclear energy developments, the following provides a brief overview of the TVA application and recent federal and state law surrounding nuclear energy.
1. TVA Application
The TVA views its application as having broader implications beyond receipt of this individual permit. According to Don Moul, TVA President and CEO, “[t]his is a significant milestone for TVA, our region and our nation because we are accelerating the development of new nuclear technology, its supply chain and delivery model to unleash American energy…creating a path for other utilities who choose to build the same technology.”
The NRC previously approved an early site permit for the construction of SMRs at the Clinch River site in 2019, which included a certification that the site was usable for the construction of a nuclear plant from a safety, environmental and emergency planning perspective, but without identifying a specific technology. With this CPA, the TVA seeks specific approval for the construction of a GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy BWRX-300 reactor at the Clinch River site. The TVA has a targeted goal of generating nuclear energy by the 2030s. While this is the first application for approval of the BWRX-300 reactor in the U.S., GE Vernova recently announced that the BWRX-300 reactor has been approved for construction in Ontario.
Although it would not be generating energy for public consumption, chemical firm Dow, in partnership with engineering firm X-Energy, has also announced submission of a CPA to the NRC in Spring 2025, which has been accepted for review. According to the Office of Nuclear Energy’s announcement of the acceptance, the SMR would be used to power the Dow manufacturing facility in Seadrift, Texas as part of a demonstration project supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”).
The TVA is similarly seeking strong financial support for its projects through the DOE’s Generation III+ Small Modular Reactor Program with a coalition of over a dozen other energy industry partners. This coalition is applying for the $800 million grant available through the DOE program.
2. Federal Developments
At the federal level, support for and removal of barriers to new nuclear generation has been a focal point of recent legislation and executive orders. The below provides a brief overview of key developments, which will be evaluated on an ongoing basis, including assessments of industry implications.
Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (“NEIMA”): Signed by President Trump in 2019, the NEIMA was intended to promote advances in nuclear power plant designs, signaling an early focus on nuclear generation. The NEIMA required the NRC to establish a staged licensing process for advanced nuclear reactors and to create a technology-inclusive regulatory framework for licensing of commercial advanced reactors. The NRC was also given two years to develop and implement strategies within the existing regulatory framework for licensing research and test reactors. In connection with each of the above, the NRC was further required to provide intermittent progress reports.
Advance Act: Signed by President Biden in 2024, the Advance Act focuses on incentivizing competition through DOE-awarded prizes (including the grant under the Generation III+ Small Modular Reactor Program that the TVA coalition is applying for) and reducing licensing application fees, promoting microreactors through new NRC guidance and reducing cost for pre-application activities, encouraging placement of nuclear plants at retired coal plant sites, and focusing on U.S. production of high-assay low-enriched uranium.
Executive Orders: The second Trump Administration has continued to emphasize nuclear generation through ongoing executive orders. On May 23, 2025, the Trump Administration issued four executive orders, targeting different elements of the U.S. energy sector. Our recent article discusses the implications of these executive orders.
3. State Developments
At the state level, lawmakers are using a variety of approaches to allow for and incentivize nuclear generation.
Indiana’s Senate Enrolled Act No. 424 establishes a cost recover and filing structure for SMRs. Through Colorado’s HB25-1040, nuclear power is added to the State’s definition of “clean energy resources”, which would allow nuclear projects to contribute to the State’s clean energy goals and receive local funding. This spring, the governor of Massachusetts recently announced the Energy Affordability, Independence and Innovation Act, which, among other actions, would repeal the State’s requirement for new nuclear facilities to be approved by a ballot initiative. The Wisconsin State Senate recently passed SB 125 (currently sitting with the Assembly), which would require the establishment of a nuclear sting study to identify opportunities and sites for nuclear development.
Certain states like Minnesota have outright moratoriums on the construction of new nuclear plants but their lawmakers have begun reassessing those limitations.While they did not pass, two bills were proposed this spring that would either entirely remove Minnesota’s moratorium or specifically authorize the construction of SMRs.
4. More to Come
The TVA’s application signals renewed industry interest in nuclear energy generation, and combined with legislative and executive pressures, we anticipate many more developments in this area. Stay tuned for more updates from your Foley team. Please reach out to any of the authors here or another member of your Foley team if you have any questions about these developments.
FCA Outlines Next Steps on Potential Motor Finance Redress Scheme
On 5 June 2025, the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA“) has published a statement (“Statement“) setting out its current thinking on the possible implementation of a redress scheme for motor finance customers who may have been affected by discretionary commission arrangements (“Redress Scheme”).
This follows the FCA’s earlier decision to pause complaint handling in light of the pending appeals to the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Hopcraft & Ors (the “Supreme Court Appeals”). In March 2025, the FCA stated that if, following the outcome of the Supreme Court Appeals, it concludes that motor finance consumers have lost out, it is likely to consult on an industry-wide consumer Redress Scheme.
In the Statement, the FCA confirms that, subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court Appeals, it is likely to consult on a Redress Scheme that would require firms to proactively assess and compensate affected customers. The FCA’s preference is for a streamlined, industry-wide solution that avoids the need for individual complaints or reliance on claims management companies.
The Statement also outlines the principles that would underpin any such scheme, including:
A focus on fair outcomes for consumers who suffered financial loss due to non-disclosure of discretionary commission arrangements;
A firm-led approach to identifying and compensating affected customers;
A commitment to efficiency and consistency, with the FCA potentially setting out a standardised methodology for redress.
The FCA has indicated that the Redress Scheme would likely operate on an opt-out basis. This means eligible consumers would automatically be included unless they actively choose not to participate. The opt-out model is intended to maximise consumer reach and reduce friction, particularly for those who may not otherwise engage with a complaint-led process.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Supreme Court Appeals is expected in July 2025. The FCA has reiterated that it will make a final decision on whether to proceed with a Redress Scheme within six weeks of the Supreme Court’s ruling. In the meantime, the pause on complaint handling remains in place until at least 4 December 2025.
This latest development signals a potentially significant shift in the regulatory landscape for motor finance. Firms should continue to monitor the situation closely and consider how they might operationalise a redress process if required.
Designers Beware: Prior Utility Patent Lacking Written Support Can Anticipate Later-Filed Design Patents
In its recent In re Floyd opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a decision by Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to reject a design applicant’s priority claim to an earlier utility filing for failing to adequately support the claimed design, while simultaneously finding that those same disclosures in the utility filing anticipated the claimed design.
Background
On January 23, 2016, Applicant Bonnie Floyd filed a utility patent application claiming a cooling blanket with ventilated openings along a matrix of sealed compartments. The utility application disclosed figures of cooling blankets in six-by-six and six-by-four arrays.
Three years later, on March 27, 2019, Floyd applied for a design patent claiming the ornamental design of a cooling blanket with rectangular compartments separated by channels of ventilated openings. To secure an earlier filing date, Floyd claimed priority to her previously filed utility application. But unlike the six-by-six and six-by-four arrays depicted in prior utility application, the figures in her design application depicted a six-by-five array of rectangular compartments.
During prosecution of the design application, the Patent Office rejected Floyd’s priority claim to the earlier utility filing because it did not disclose the six-by-five design, and as such, “the claimed design include[d] new matter.” Once priority was denied, the previously-filed utility application became prior art, which the Examiner then relied upon to reject the six-by-five design as being anticipated by the same utility application.
The PTAB agreed with the Examiner’s finding that the utility application did not sufficiently disclose the six-by-five arrangement claimed in the design application. While the utility application contained a generic statement allowing the “embodiment to be made in any size,” the Board interpreted this as referring to the size of the rectangular compartments, not their arrangements. Id. at 4.
The PTAB likewise affirmed the Examiner’s findings that those same disclosures of the utility application anticipated the six-by-five design.
Floyd appealed, challenging both of the Board’s findings.
The Federal Circuit Decision
Recognizing that an earlier utility filing must “reasonably convey” the visual impression of the claimed design, the Federal Circuit found that nothing in Floyd’s utility application would allow a skilled artisan to appreciate the precise six-by-five ornamental arrangement of the later-filed design application. Nor were all intervening arrangements implicitly disclosed because the utility application never articulated a “range of possible arrays rather than the distinct examples depicted in the figures.” Accordingly, Floyd’s design could not claim priority to the earlier-filed utility application.
The Federal Circuit likewise dismissed Floyd’s “inherent” disclosure theory ─ namely, that the utility claims referred to “a plurality of individualized compartments” ─ because nothing in the specification suggested a skilled artisan would necessarily adopt the exact six-by-five arrangement of Floyd’s claimed design. The Federal Circuit instead held that the missing limitation must have necessarily flowed from the earlier utility filing, not merely that it could be selected among many possibilities.
Finally, the Federal Circuit explained that differing legal standards for written description and anticipation allow for a prior utility filing to anticipate a claimed design even though those same disclosures are insufficient to support a priority claim.
Practical Considerations
Prepare Parallel Design and Utility Filings. Where the commercial value of an invention lies in both its function and appearance, applicants should consider filing the design and utility applications in parallel, as opposed to relying on continuation practice. Parallel prosecution eliminates the risk highlighted in Floyd, as each application stands on its own written-descriptions. This dual-track strategy also broadens enforcement options. Whenever possible, applicants should budget for and execute parallel filings at the outset to avoid the evidentiary gaps that may arise when a later-filed design application attempts to retroactively mine aesthetic support from the utility specification.
Prepare Numerous Design Disclosures in the Earlier Utility Filing. If design protection cannot be pursued until after the utility filing, an applicant should consider including numerous design disclosures — drawings, photographs, or other depictions that, even if unnecessary to support the utility claims, unmistakably convey the varying aesthetic features of the product — so that any future design application can rely on the earlier filing as clear written-description support for the claimed design.
How the New Pennsylvania Distracted Driving Law Affects Drivers Starting June 2025
Starting June 5, 2025, Pennsylvania will take a significant step toward improving road safety with the introduction of a new distracted driving law known as Paul Miller’s Law. This legislation is designed to address the dangers of distracted driving by restricting the use of handheld devices while operating a vehicle.
Distracted driving has been a growing concern across the country, leading to countless accidents, injuries, and even fatalities. Whether you’re a long-time Pennsylvania driver or a new resident, it’s crucial to understand how this law will affect you, what behaviors are considered distracted driving under the new rules, and the consequences of not following them.
Why the Law Was Introduced: A Tribute to Paul Miller
The new distracted driving legislation is named after Paul Miller, a young man whose life was tragically cut short in a crash caused by a distracted driver. Paul’s story became a powerful symbol for advocates pushing for tougher regulations to make Pennsylvania’s roads safer.
His memory inspired a push to strengthen Pennsylvania’s stance against distracted driving. The result is Paul Miller’s Law, a comprehensive statute that bans the use of handheld devices while driving and aims to change driver behavior through education and enforcement.
What Counts as Distracted Driving?
At its core, distracted driving is any activity that diverts your attention from driving. It can be visual (taking your eyes off the road), manual (taking your hands off the wheel), or cognitive (taking your mind off driving). The most well-known form of distracted driving is texting, but the new law outlines many other behaviors that can put you and others at risk.
Under the new law, distracted driving includes:
Holding or supporting a phone or other device with your hand or body
Using more than a single button to answer or dial a phone
Reaching for a device in a way that requires you to shift from a proper driving position
Browsing the internet, checking social media, watching videos, or playing games
Taking or transmitting pictures or videos while driving
Sending, reading, or composing emails or text messages
Importantly, these restrictions apply even when your vehicle is temporarily stopped, such as at red lights, stop signs, or during traffic jams. The law treats any moment behind the wheel as part of the driving process.
What Devices Are Covered?
The law applies to what it defines as an “interactive mobile device” (IMD). This includes:
Handheld wireless telephones
Smartphones
Personal digital assistants (PDAs)
Portable or mobile computers
Any similar device capable of sending or receiving electronic data
This broad definition means that most modern mobile devices fall under the law’s restrictions. If you’re holding or interacting with one of these devices while driving, you could be in violation.
What Does “Driving” Mean Under the Law?
Pennsylvania’s new legislation uses a broad definition of “driving”. It includes operating a motor vehicle on a highway, and it still applies when your vehicle is temporarily stationary due to:
Traffic
Traffic signals or stop signs
Momentary delays like construction or congestion
In other words, just because your car isn’t moving doesn’t mean you’re not “driving” in the eyes of the law. Put the phone down if you’re on the road or even stopped.
Are There Exceptions?
Yes. While the law is strict, it includes a few important exceptions:
Emergency use: If it’s necessary to use a mobile device to contact emergency services to prevent injury or damage, you are allowed to do so.
Pulled over safely: You may use a mobile device if you’ve pulled your vehicle over to a safe location and are fully stopped.
Additionally, the law does not apply to:
GPS or navigation devices that are physically or electronically integrated into the vehicle
Devices affixed to a mass transit vehicle, bus, or school bus
Systems that require no more than a single button press to activate or answer
The law also makes clear that it does not authorize police to seize your phone or device as part of an enforcement action.
What Are the Penalties?
Paul Miller’s Law includes a phased enforcement plan designed to give drivers time to adjust to the new requirements while also sending a strong message that distracted driving will no longer be tolerated.
Phase 1: Written Warnings
From June 5, 2025, to June 4, 2026, violators will receive written warnings.
This grace period gives drivers time to understand the law and change their habits without facing immediate financial penalties.
Phase 2: Monetary Penalties
Beginning June 5, 2026, violations will result in a summary offense.
Offenders will face a $50 fine, plus court costs and applicable fees.
Severe Penalties for Distracted Driving–Related Crashes
If a driver is convicted of homicide by vehicle and was also driving while distracted, they may face up to five additional years in prison.
It’s worth noting that the new hands-free law builds upon Pennsylvania’s existing texting-while-driving ban, which already prohibits composing, sending, or reading text-based messages while driving. Violations of that law also come with a $50 fine, though they do not add points to a non-commercial driver’s license.
How This Law Affects All Drivers
This law doesn’t just apply to those caught texting. It impacts every driver on Pennsylvania roads, whether you’re commuting to work, running errands, or taking a road trip.
Commercial Drivers
For commercial drivers, a violation is recorded on their driving record, which could have professional consequences. Even one offense may affect employment, insurance premiums, or regulatory compliance for trucking and transport companies.
Novice and Teenage Drivers
Young drivers are particularly at risk. Statistics consistently show that teen drivers are more likely to crash when distracted. This law provides an added layer of accountability and protection for novice drivers.
Everyday Drivers
Even experienced drivers are vulnerable to distraction. The new law is a reminder that your focus needs to be on the road at all times. Putting the phone down, even just for a few minutes, could be the decision that saves a life.
Tips to Stay Compliant and Avoid Citations
Here are some practical steps you can take to ensure you’re following the law and staying safe behind the wheel:
Go Hands-Free
Invest in a hands-free device or use your vehicle’s built-in Bluetooth system. Mount your phone on the dashboard if you need to use it for navigation.
Pre-Program Your GPS
Before you start driving, input your destination. Avoid adjusting routes or settings while your vehicle is in motion.
Use “Do Not Disturb While Driving”
Many smartphones offer a “Do Not Disturb While Driving” feature. Turn it on to minimize temptations and silence incoming notifications.
Pull Over Safely
If you need to send a message, take a call, or check an email, pull over to a safe location. Simply being stopped at a red light is not considered a safe time to use your device.
Educate Teen Drivers
If you’re a parent, talk to your teens about distracted driving. Encourage them to be role models for their peers and always drive device-free.
How Distracted Driving Affects Liability and Insurance Claims
While the immediate goal of the new law is to encourage safer driving behavior, it also carries significant legal implications, especially regarding auto accident liability and insurance claims. Distracted driving has long been a factor in determining fault in car crashes, but now that it’s clearly prohibited by law, proving negligence may become more straightforward.
Establishing Negligence in an Accident
A key factor in personal injury claims stemming from car accidents is whether one driver acted negligently. Distracted driving, especially when it involves unlawful behavior like handling a device while driving, can be a clear indicator of negligence.
For example, if a driver rear-ends another vehicle and it’s discovered that they were holding a phone or composing a text message at the time, that information may be used as evidence of fault. Under the new law, simply holding an interactive mobile device could be considered a breach of the legal duty to drive safely.
Traffic Citations as Evidence
If a driver is cited under Paul Miller’s Law at the time of a crash, that citation could be used as supporting evidence in a civil personal injury case. While a citation alone doesn’t automatically determine fault, it may strengthen a claim that the driver was behaving irresponsibly at the time of the incident.
This is especially important in cases involving serious injuries, where victims seek compensation for:
Medical expenses
Lost wages
Pain and suffering
Property damage
Future medical care or rehabilitation
Insurance Considerations
Distracted driving violations can also have insurance consequences. Drivers found at fault in an accident due to distraction may:
See an increase in insurance premiums
Face policy non-renewal
Experience limited coverage eligibility with certain providers
Insurance companies closely monitor violations and claims history. As enforcement of the new law begins, it’s likely insurers will pay even more attention to distracted driving citations when evaluating risk.
Frequently Asked Questions About the New Law
To help you better understand this new law, here are answers to some of the most common questions Pennsylvania drivers are asking.
Does this law mean I can’t touch my phone at all?
Not necessarily. You may press a single button to activate or answer a call using a hands-free system. However, holding or manually using the device for any other function, such as texting, browsing, typing, or swiping, is prohibited while driving.
Can I still use my phone for GPS?
Yes, as long as the GPS is integrated into your car or mounted and used in a hands-free manner. You must set your destination before driving and avoid interacting with the device while the car is in motion.
What if I’m stopped at a red light or in traffic?
Even if your vehicle is not moving, you are still considered “driving” under the law. The only time it’s legal to handle a device is when your vehicle is safely pulled over and completely stopped off the roadway.
Is it okay to use voice commands?
Yes. Using voice-activated features that allow you to control your device without touching it (and without looking away from the road) is allowed under the law.
What To Do If You’re Involved in a Distracted Driving Accident
Unfortunately, even with stronger laws in place, distracted driving accidents will still occur. If you or a loved one is involved in a crash caused by someone who was using a mobile device or otherwise distracted, it’s important to take action quickly.
Here are a few key steps:
Seek Medical Attention Immediately
Your health and safety are the top priority. Even if you feel okay, get evaluated by a medical professional to identify injuries that may not be immediately obvious.
Call Law Enforcement
A police report is critical for documenting the crash and any potential citations issued. If distracted driving is suspected, be sure to mention this to the responding officer.
Gather Evidence
If it’s safe to do so, take photos of the accident scene, vehicle damage, and any visible injuries. Collect contact information from witnesses who may have observed the distracted behavior.
Avoid Speaking to the Other Driver’s Insurance Company
Insurance adjusters may try to minimize your claim. It’s best to speak with an attorney before giving any statements.
Consult a Personal Injury Attorney
An experienced attorney can help you navigate the legal process, gather evidence, and pursue full compensation for your losses.
Supreme Court Ruling Will Result In Less NEPA Requirements For Projects
On May 29, 2025 the Supreme Court issued its decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. The case addressed a proposal considered by the U.S. Transportation Board by a group of seven counties in Utah for the construction and operation of an 88-mile rail line in northeastern Utah. The proposed rail line would facilitate the transportation of crude oil from Utah to the gulf states, and elsewhere. While the project was approved in December 2021 following review of a 3,600-page Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit faulted the EIS for not sufficiently considering the upstream effects of increased oil drilling in the Uinta Basin, and downstream environmental effects of increased oil refining along the Gulf Coast, outside of the railroad line itself. As a result of this, the D.C. Circuit ultimately vacated the EIS and the Board’s approval, pausing construction indefinitely.
In its May 29 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit’s decision on the basis that the D.C. Circuit “did not afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required” under NEPA, and faulted the D.C. Circuit for ordering “the Board to address the environmental effects of projects separate in time or place from the construction and operation of the railroad line.” Ultimately, the Court concluded that under NEPA, the Board’s EIS did not need to address the upstream or downstream effects of the proposed project, and instead only need concern itself with the effects of the 88-miles of railroad line itself.
In the majority opinion, authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court emphasized that NEPA imposes no substantive environmental obligations or restrictions, and instead is purely a procedural statute that requires an agency to prepare an EIS weighing environmental consequences of a proposed action as the agency reasonably sees fit under its governing statute and any substantive environmental laws. Put simply, the Court expressed that NEPA “does not mandate particular results but simply prescribes the necessary process’ for an agency’s environmental review of a project.” The Court expressed its view that NEPA had transformed from a simple procedural requirement, into a “blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents” to try and stop or slow down new infrastructure and construction projects. To address this perceived overgrowth of NEPA from its original procedural purpose, the Court called for a “course correction of sorts” to “bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with statutory text and common sense.” Thus, the Court held that “the bedrock principle of judicial review in NEPA cases can be stated in a word: Deference.” Thus, under this ruling, agencies will be given large judicial deference in reviewing EIS and decisions, with those decisions only being reversed in cases where the agencies decision was wholly unreasonable in light of the fact-dependent and context-specific analyses.
To this end, the Court held that requiring the EIS to consider the upstream and downstream effects of the 88-mile project was outside of the scope of the necessary considerations for an EIS and held that an EIS “need not address the effects of separate projects.” Thus, the Court held that EIS need not consider the effects a proposed project could lead to on the periphery, but instead only need to consider the environmental impact of the project itself.
While the exact impact of this change in the requirements of EIS and judicial review of decisions made under NEPA remains to be seen, this decision will undoubtably lead to agencies being required to follow less strict requirements in considering the potential wide-ranging effects of proposed projects. It can be expected that this limiting of the scope of EIS requirements under NEPA will lead to both increased approval of proposed infrastructure and construction projects, while also carrying the risk of increased environmental impacts resulting from these projects.
NY Attorney General Secures Over $3.2M from Nissan Dealers for Allegedly Cheating Consumers
On May 6, 2025, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that the agency secured more than $3.2 million from eight Nissan dealerships in New York City, the Hudson Valley and on Long Island – Action Nissan, Bay Ridge Nissan, Legend Nissan, Garden City Nissan, Huntington Nissan, Rockaway Nissan, Smithtown Nissan, and Teddy Nissan – for allegedly overcharging more than 1,700 New Yorkers that purportedly wanted to purchase their leased vehicles at the end of their lease term.
An investigation by the Office of the Attorney General allegedly found that these dealerships added junk fees or falsified the price of leased vehicles that customers wanted to buy when their lease ended, purportedly forcing them to pay higher costs.
Attorney General James has now stopped deceptive practices at 15 Nissan dealerships and recovered more than $1 million in penalties and $4.5 million in restitution for more than 2,800 New Yorkers, according to the announcement.
“Buying a car is a major financial decision, and no one should have to worry about dealers using illegal junk fees to drive up the price,” said Attorney General James. Attorney General James also stated that “[t]hese car dealers misled their customers with bogus fees and other costs to cheat them out of their hard-earned money. My office’s investigation will put money back in the pockets of defrauded New Yorkers and require these dealers to steer clear of violating our laws and deceiving consumers,” according to Attorney General James.
The OAG opened an investigation into Nissan dealerships after consumers alleged they were being overcharged and given inaccurate receipts for end-of-lease buyouts after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The investigation allegedly found that the consumers leased their Nissan cars under an agreement that gave them the option to purchase the vehicle for a set amount after the lease term ended.
However, when they returned to the dealerships to buy their car when their leases were up, the dealerships allegedly substantially overcharged them. The dealers purportedly either added miscellaneous “dealership fees” or “administrative fees,” or inflated the vehicle’s price on the invoice given to the consumer.
Under the agreements announced today:
Action Nissan in Rockland County will pay $157,958.59 to 192 alleged overcharged consumers and pay a $47,920 penalty;
Bay Ridge Nissan in Brooklyn will pay $23,624 to 46 alleged overcharged consumers and pay a $11,960 penalty;
Garden City Nissan in Nassau County will pay $824,013 to 361 alleged overcharged consumers and pay a $89,624 penalty;
Huntington Nissan in Suffolk County will pay $426,654 to 275 alleged overcharged consumers and pay a $68,750 penalty;
Legend Nissan in Syosset, Nassau County will pay $333,482 to 233 alleged overcharged consumers and pay a $20,000 penalty;
Rockaway Nissan in Queens will pay $308,918 to 177 alledged overcharged consumers and pay a $44,250 penalty;
Smithtown Nissan in Suffolk County will pay $643,640 to 321 alleged vercharged consumers and pay a $80,250 penalty; and
Teddy Nissan in the Bronx will pay $108,773 to 156 alleged overcharged consumers and pay a $35,560 penalty.
According to the OAG, the dealerships have also agreed to reform their invoicing practices to ensure all lease buyout customers are neither overcharged nor provided with inaccurate receipts.
The OAG commenced the investigation into the alleged unlawful and deceptive charges pursuant to General Business Law § 349, General Business Law § 350, Personal Property Law §§ 330-53 and Executive Law § 63(12). Consult with an attorney general defense lawyer to discuss legal regulatory requirements set forth in the aforementioned statutory section.
Attorney General James has secured settlements with 15 different Nissan dealerships for allegedly cheating customers with illegal fees and inflated prices when they attempted to buy out the leases on their cars. In June 2024, Attorney General James secured $350,000 from two Nissan dealers on Long Island. In March 2024, Attorney General James secured over $1.9 million from five Nissan dealers in New York City and Long Island.
This matter was handled by the Assistant Attorney General of the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau, under the supervision of the Bureau Chief and Deputy Bureau Chief. The Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau is a part of the Division of Economic Justice, which is led by the Chief Deputy Attorney General and overseen by the First Deputy Attorney General.
Oregon Amends Consumer Privacy Act
On May 27, 2025, and June 3, 2025, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed into law H.B. 3875 and H.B. 2008, each of which amends the Oregon Consumer Privacy Act (the “Act”).
H.B. 3875 expands the Act’s scope to cover all motor vehicle manufacturers that control or process personal data obtained from consumers’ use of vehicle or any component of a vehicle, by removing car makers and affiliates from an exemption for entities that process the data of fewer than 100,000 consumers or derives 25 percent or more of their revenue from selling data. As a result, drivers have the right to opt out of having their personal information sold or used for advertising by car makers.
H.B. 2008 amends the Act to prohibit the sale of precise geolocation data relating to an individual or their device’s present or past location (within a radius of 1,750 feet), and the sale of personal data of children under age 16.
Supreme Court Decision Limits the Opportunity for NEPA to Derail Projects
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 8-0 ruling limited the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the national environmental law that mandates federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions before making decisions. In the May 29, 2025, decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the Supreme Court found that substantial judicial deference should be afforded to agencies under NEPA, and that NEPA does not require agencies to consider the environmental effects of projects that are separate in time or place from the project at hand.
The case concerned construction of an 88-mile railroad line connecting Utah’s oil-rich Uinta Basin to the national freight rail network to facilitate the transportation of crude oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast. As part of its project review, the Surface Transportation Board (Board) prepared a 3,600-page environmental impact statement (EIS) that addressed significant environmental effects of the project and identified feasible alternatives, as required under NEPA. The Board concluded that the project’s transportation and economic benefits outweighed its environmental impacts and approved the railroad line. Eagle County, Colorado, and several environmental organizations challenged the Board’s EIS and final approval order in federal court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ultimately vacated the Board’s EIS and final approval order, holding that the Board’s analysis of environmental effects should have included reasonably foreseeable impacts from upstream oil drilling and downstream oil refining projects.
The Supreme Court characterized the D.C. Circuit’s decision as belonging to a line of NEPA cases guided by an overly aggressive judicial approach. According to the Court, NEPA is a purely procedural statute that requires an agency to prepare an EIS, but does not require an agency to weigh environmental consequences in any particular way. The Court further emphasized that NEPA is a “procedural cross-check” to inform agency decision-making, not a “substantive roadblock.” It further criticized the use of NEPA by project opponents as a “blunt and haphazard tool” to stop or slow new infrastructure and construction projects.
When determining whether an agency’s EIS is compliant with NEPA, the Court affirmed that courts should afford “substantial deference” to the agency. The essential determination is “not whether an EIS in and of itself is inadequate, but whether the agency’s final decision was reasonable and reasonably explained.” Thus, courts must defer to agencies so long as they are operating within this “broad zone of reasonableness.”
The Court distinguished Seven County from its recent landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), which applied de novo judicial review in cases when an agency interprets a statute. In cases in which an agency exercises discretion granted by statute, judicial review is conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard, under which a court asks whether the agency action was reasonable.
This judicial deference in NEPA cases extends to factual determinations made by agencies about what details are relevant in an EIS. The Court affirmed that an EIS must address the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the project at hand. However, the Court also noted that courts should defer to agencies about the scope of analysis, including decisions about how far to go in considering indirect environmental effects from the project at hand and whether to analyze environmental effects from other projects separate in time or place from the project at hand.
Seven County’s limitations on the required scope of agency analysis under NEPA to the direct and indirect environmental effects of the project at hand may streamline agency review of infrastructure, construction, and energy projects. However, uncertainty remains as agencies determine the extent of analysis required during project review, which may differ by agency or types of projects or may change with administrations. The ruling may also cause environmental groups to reconsider when and how to mount challenges to projects under NEPA.
Alexandra Prendergast contributed to this article