Car Prices. It's Demanding Fairness.

New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers (NJ CAR) President Laura Perrotta's Response to Anthony Russo's November 2, 2026 Commentary   

Anthony Russo's recent commentary claiming that New Jersey's new warranty reimbursement law is driving up vehicle prices is long on speculation and short on facts. His argument relies on exaggerated cost projections, a misleading description of how the law works, and a convenient disregard for the technicians and local businesses responsible for repairing manufacturers' defective vehicles.

Let's start with the fundamental issue Russo ignores: Automobile manufacturers have historically controlled how much they pay dealerships to repair defects in the vehicles they manufacture. They establish the warranty, determine the labor-time allowances, and decide how much they believe a repair should cost. When those allowances fall short of the work actually required, franchised auto dealerships and their technicians can bear the financial consequences.

S-3309 was designed to address that imbalance.

First, Russo's claim that dealerships can simply invent labor hours and charge manufacturers for work never performed is misleading. The law establishes a methodology based on actual customer-paid repair transactions to determine appropriate labor-time allowances. It does not give dealers unlimited authority to fabricate claims. Manufacturers retain the ability to audit and challenge improper reimbursement requests.

There is a significant difference between fraudulent billing and requiring manufacturers to reimburse dealers according to a fair, documented standard. Russo deliberately blurs that distinction.

Second, his assertion that the law is driving up vehicle prices is unsupported. Russo cites an estimated $348 million in additional annual manufacturer reimbursement expenses and then treats that projection as proof that New Jersey consumers are paying more for their vehicles.

Where is the evidence?

Where are the documented vehicle price increases directly attributable to this law? Where are the manufacturer pricing disclosures demonstrating that New Jersey buyers are paying a warranty-law surcharge?

Russo provides none.

More importantly, Russo's argument ignores a fundamental problem with his timeline. S-3309 only took effect on April 1, 2026 — barely seven months ago. The law establishes a process through which dealerships must apply for revised warranty reimbursement, submit supporting repair data, and allow manufacturers an opportunity to audit those submissions. The new reimbursement levels are not simply imposed automatically on every manufacturer the day the law takes effect.

Many dealerships have yet to seek higher reimbursement, while others have submitted applications that remain unresolved or disputed by manufacturers. Before claiming that this law has already caused widespread increases in vehicle prices, Russo should establish how many dealerships have actually received higher reimbursement, how much manufacturers have actually paid, and whether any of those expenses have demonstrably been passed along to New Jersey consumers. Without that evidence, his projected costs are just that — projections, not proof of actual price increases.

An increase in manufacturer expenses does not automatically translate into an equivalent increase in consumer prices. Automakers determine vehicle pricing based on numerous factors, including market conditions, competition, production costs, and consumer demand. Presenting a projected reimbursement expense as a proven consumer price increase is simply not credible.

And there is another glaring omission in Russo's argument: the much larger economic forces affecting vehicle prices and repair costs across the country. Global supply-chain disruptions, rising manufacturing and parts costs, and federal tariff policies have placed substantial financial pressure on the automotive industry. These factors affect manufacturers, dealerships, and consumers nationwide, regardless of whether a state has enacted legislation like S-3309.

Indeed, vehicle prices were rising long before New Jersey's warranty law took effect. Federal tariffs on imported vehicles and automotive components, coupled with the complexity of global supply chains, have created significant additional costs for automakers. Unlike Russo's speculative connection between S-3309 and higher prices, these are documented economic pressures affecting the national automotive marketplace.

If Russo wants to explain why cars and repairs cost more today, he should examine those well-established national and international cost drivers rather than single out a New Jersey law that has been in effect for only seven months. Correlation is not causation, and blaming S-3309 for broader automotive inflation without producing evidence of a direct connection is not a serious economic argument.

Third, Russo ignores the people actually performing the repairs. Automotive technicians frequently work under flat-rate compensation systems, meaning their earnings are tied to assigned repair times rather than necessarily reflecting every hour spent completing a job.

When a manufacturer assigns an unrealistically low labor allowance, a technician may spend considerably more time completing the repair than the hours credited. That creates real financial consequences for skilled workers.

Russo expresses outrage at the possibility of manufacturers paying for hours not worked, yet shows remarkably little concern about technicians working hours for which they may not be adequately compensated.

Why should the company responsible for a defective vehicle have unilateral authority to determine how much labor is required to repair its own mistake?

Fourth, Russo overlooks the law's broader consumer-protection and vehicle-safety provisions. S-3309 also addresses safety recalls, consumer notification, and the handling of vehicles subject to serious safety defects. These provisions are intended to improve recall completion and protect motorists.

That is hardly the reckless consumer policy Russo portrays.

Finally, Russo warns about the financial burden on New Jersey businesses while ignoring the independent dealerships employing thousands of New Jersey residents, investing in expensive equipment, and maintaining the facilities necessary to perform warranty and recall repairs.

Those businesses deserve fair compensation, too.

No one is suggesting manufacturers should pay fraudulent claims or reimburse dealers for work that was never performed. But neither should manufacturers enjoy unchecked authority to dictate reimbursement terms that may fail to reflect the work necessary to fulfill their own warranty obligations.

The real issue is not whether manufacturers will have to pay more. It is whether they have been paying fairly in the first place.

If Russo wants to argue that S-3309 is raising vehicle prices, he should produce actual evidence rather than predictions. If he wants to allege widespread overbilling, he should substantiate that accusation rather than mischaracterize the law.

New Jersey consumers deserve transparency, safe vehicles, qualified technicians, and a fair warranty repair system.

Fairly compensating the businesses and workers who fix manufacturers' mistakes is not evidence of consumer harm. And protecting manufacturers' profit margins should not be confused with protecting consumers.