California AB 2346, signed into law September 30, 2026, imposes a set of new obligations on e-bike manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. Here is what the law requires and key compliance dates.

What the law requires of the supply chain

The law imposes two categories of obligation: disclosure and labeling requirements, which are operative now, and hardware requirements, which take effect January 1, 2029.

On the disclosure and labeling side, manufacturers and distributors must permanently affix a label, in a prominent location, to each electric bicycle, printed in Arial font in at least 9-point type, showing the bicycle’s classification number, top assisted speed, and motor wattage. This is a product-level requirement; it applies to every unit and must be addressed at the manufacturing or distribution stage before goods reach retail.

The statute, while not defining “seller” and “distributor,” mandates that both must deliver a written disclosure at or before the point of sale covering the bicycle’s classification, maximum speed, continuous and peak wattage, applicable age restrictions, helmet requirements, a written description of California’s e-bike laws, a link to the CHP’s safety and training program, and a recommendation that riders under 16 should not exceed 15 mph. That is a model-specific disclosure, not a one-size-fits-all form, which means retailers carrying multiple classes and models need a systematic process to generate accurate disclosures across their inventory.

Sellers and distributors must also separately provide a disclosure in 12-point type warning that it is against California law to tamper with or modify an e-bike to change its speed capability, and that doing so may trigger requirements for an M1 or M2 motorcycle license endorsement, DMV registration, and motorcycle insurance.

On the hardware side, beginning January 1, 2029, all Class 2 electric bicycles manufactured, sold, or offered for sale must be equipped with a speedometer. All electric bicycles manufactured, sold, or offered for sale on or after that date must also carry an integrated or detachable front lamp emitting white light visible from 300 feet and a rear lamp emitting red light visible from 500 feet behind. Note that “offered for sale” likely captures online listings directed at California consumers, not just physical in-state inventory.

Penalties

Violations of the disclosure and labeling requirements come at a cost: a first conviction carries a fine of up to $500—with multiple first-offense sales counting as a single violation—a second conviction within three years up to $750, and a third or subsequent conviction within five years up to $1,000.

Planning for 2029

The disclosure and labeling requirements are operative now. The hardware mandates — speedometers on Class 2 bikes, front and rear lamps meeting specific visibility standards — apply to products manufactured, sold, or offered for sale on or after January 1, 2029. For manufacturers sourcing or producing inventory for global markets, that cutover requires product specification changes that take time to work through a supply chain.

Prudent distributors should confirm whether their supply agreements require California-compliant hardware well before 2028. Companies that handle these transitions well build their compliance frameworks early, while the requirements are clear and the timeline is forgiving.

If you have questions about how AB 2346 applies to your products or sales operations, the Transportation attorneys at Crowell & Moring are available to help you work through it.

What Manufacturers and Retailers Need to Know About Lithium-Ion Battery Safety Requirements

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) that could significantly reshape the micromobility industry. The CPSC issued the NPR to address what it describes as an “unreasonable risk of death and injury” associated with lithium-ion batteries used in micromobility products, including risks tied to thermal runaway that can lead to fires, explosions, gas releases, burns, overheating, and smoke inhalation. If finalized, the rule would impose mandatory safety requirements on a wide range of popular consumer products — from e-bikes to hoverboards.

Continue Reading CPSC’s Proposed Micromobility Rule Could Reshape the E-Bike and E-Scooter Industry

Last week, in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, the Court unanimously held that state-law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers are not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). To learn more, please read our Client Alert Bad Match, Big Consequences: Supreme Court Holds Freight Brokers Accountable for Negligent Carrier Selection.

On March 4, 2026, the European Commission proposed the Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA), a draft regulation that aims to reverse the decline of the EU’s manufacturing sector while supporting the adoption of cleaner technologies. There are a number of implications of the proposal for the automotive industry. To learn more, please read our Client Alert The EU Industrial Accelerator Act Proposal’s Significance for the Automotive Industry.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) recently announced the issuance of a final rule[1], effective May 26, 2026, requiring covered air carriers[2] to prepare and submit a one-page passenger rights summary (a “Passenger Rights Summary”) addressing key disruption-related topics. The final rule implements Section 429 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.

Continue Reading DOT Issues New Passenger Rights Disclosure Rule

On March 10, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) hosted a public National Autonomous Vehicles (AV) Safety Forum, bringing together federal officials, regulators, and leading figures from the autonomous vehicle industry for a full day of discussions on safety, regulation, and the road ahead for commercial scaling of AVs.

Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy opened the forum by characterizing the current moment as a “golden age” of innovation for autonomous vehicles, while acknowledging the need for a “Goldilocks approach” — one that avoids moving too fast at the risk of compromising safety, or moving too slowly at the risk of falling behind global competitors.

Continue Reading NHTSA Holds Public National Safety Forum on Autonomous Vehicles

Yesterday, the Washington, D.C. Auto Show held its annual “Public Policy Day” to kick off the event, which is a staple in the city each January. The conference started with a discussion by Congresswoman Debbie Dingell of Michigan’s Sixth District and Congressman Bob Latta of Ohio’s Fifth District, moderated by Thomson Reuters correspondent, Dave Shepardson. In addition to panels reflecting multiple industry perspectives, the five-hour program featured a keynote presentation by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy that was moderated by John Bozzella, President & CEO of The Alliance for Automotive Innovation; a closing discussion by NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison that was moderated by Mike Stanton, President and CEO of the National Automobile Dealers Association; and a fireside chat with Department of Energy Under Secretary Alex Fitzsimmons and others.    

Continue Reading On the Cutting Edge: The D.C. Auto Show’s “Public Policy Day”

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) hosted its Fall 2025 Safety Research Portfolio Public Meeting on November 20. See below the main topics discussed, which offer insights into the agency’s ongoing and future research initiatives aimed at improving roadway safety.

NHTSA’s Strategic Priorities

In his opening remarks, NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison shared the agency’s current key priorities:

  • Increase technical engagement between the automotive industry and stakeholders.
  • Enhance the agency’s transparency and communication with an outward-facing approach.
  • Work to bring down the average age of vehicles (currently 13 years), by making cars more affordable.
  • Deter risky driving behaviors such as impaired and distracted driving.
  • Improve emergency post-crash responses.
  • Promote technological innovation—especially automated driving—while maintaining a focus on safety.
Continue Reading Report: NHTSA’s Fall 2025 Safety Research Portfolio Public Meeting

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Doe v. Lufthansa expands district courts’ jurisdiction over foreign airlines. The plaintiffs, a married same-sex couple, booked round-trip flights from Saudi Arabia to San Francisco through Lufthansa, headquartered in Germany but regularly operating flights in and out of California. The plaintiffs allege that Lufthansa staff in Saudi Arabia singled out the couple’s marital status, demanded personal documents, and disclosed their relationship to Saudi authorities, creating grave risks in a country where same-sex relationships are criminalized. The couple brought claims for breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and emotional distress in California. The district court initially dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, reasoning that the conduct alleged occurred abroad.

Continue Reading Caution for Global Carriers: Specific Personal Jurisdiction Expanded in Doe v. Lufthansa

“There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.”

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia authored this line in his majority opinion for United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), a case in which Justice Scalia—a contextualist who often argued that citizens have no Constitutional right to privacy—stated that attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle was a violation of the Fourth Amendment and, indirectly a violation of the privacy of an ordinary citizen. In making this statement, Justice Scalia and the majority touched on an ongoing, rhetorical question at the intersection of transportation and the law that states are still grappling with thirteen years later: what rights to privacy do citizens have on public roadways?

Continue Reading Big Data v. the Individual’s Right to Privacy on the Road