1. Document tariff compliance meticulously: In this roiling tariff environment, it is critical to maintain records of your compliance with regulations and the amount you have paid in tariffs.  Whether it is CBP using data analytics to detect misclassification and undervaluation, or working through developing tariff refund processes, it is a good time to review your compliance with tariff rules.
2. Prepare recall remedies for heightened scrutiny: NHTSA is questioning remedy adequacy and pushing for expanded campaigns. Your recall processes should be  prepared for investigations challenging the effectiveness of recall remedies and the recall population or face expanding recalls, civil penalties, and consent orders.
3. Redesign telematics consent frameworks: FTC and state AGs are accelerating enforcement of connected vehicle data practices. Implement affirmative express consent, clear opt-outs, and robust data governance now.

Regulatory compliance priorities across the automotive industry have evolved from broad agency authority concerns to specific enforcement mechanisms. NHTSA scrutiny of recall remedies and completion rates (41%) has surged 12 percentage points from 29% last year, making it the second-highest concern. This substantial increase suggests the agency’s more aggressive posture on remedy adequacy is resonating across the industry, particularly as software fixes for hardware problems are increasingly being questioned.

State and federal oversight of ADAS and ADS (32%) has declined 10 percentage points from 42% last year, though it remains significant. This modest decrease may reflect more federal policy activities reducing the risk of a 50-state patchwork of regulations, but the continued high level of concern is warranted in an area where significant regulatory and enforcement activities are developing

Connected vehicle data enforcement has split into distinct categories, with state privacy compliance and AG enforcement (30%) substantially exceeding FTC enforcement (17%). Together, these represent 47% concern about data practices, a 9 percentage point decline from last year’s combined focus. The split reflects the maturation of enforcement, where state attorneys general now pursue parallel investigations alongside federal actions. The FTC’s consent order against GM, including a five-year ban on sharing geolocation and driving behavior data, has established a template that state enforcers are likely to cite in civil litigation.

Emissions and fuel economy compliance (29%) has declined 22 percentage points from 51% last year, likely because the Trump administration’s regulatory direction is now clear, even if California’s waiver authority remains in litigation. Companies understand what federal requirements will look like and can plan accordingly. DOJ criminal enforcement risk (18%) has increased 12 percentage points from 6% last year, moving from minor concern to a notable threat as the DOJ enforcement policy has shifted to actions against individuals in organizations and away from companies.

Customs and Border Protection’s tariff and customs enforcement (51%) emerged as the primary compliance risk, representing a 28 percentage-point surge from last year. This dramatic increase confirms that tariffs have moved from policy debate to active enforcement reality, with companies facing audits, penalties, and retroactive duty assessments that can reach tens of millions of dollars for a single importer.

Section 232 auto and auto-parts tariffs now cover passenger vehicles, light trucks, and specified parts, making classification, origin, and valuation determinations central compliance issues. CBP guidance emphasizes that importers must substantiate USMCA content claims with detailed documentation. Inaccurate or incomplete records can lead to retroactive assessment of the full 25% tariff on an entire vehicle, plus penalties that multiply the financial impact.

Enforcement is intensifying through data analytics. CBP issued more than 2,200 trade penalties and collected over $216 billion in duties, taxes, and fees in fiscal year 2025. The agency is using sophisticated analytics to detect undervaluation, misclassification, transshipment schemes, and attempts to claim multiple tariff exemptions on the same goods. What were once manual spot checks have become algorithm-driven investigations that flag anomalies across millions of transactions.

Recent automotive litigation underscores the stakes. Companies are challenging the legality of specific reciprocal and IEEPA-based tariffs while preserving their refund rights, creating a contentious enforcement landscape in which importers simultaneously comply with duties under protest and litigate their validity. This dual-track approach requires sophisticated legal strategy and meticulous documentation to preserve all potential remedies.

For legal teams, tariff compliance now demands the same rigor as product safety or emissions regulations. Companies need robust classification strategies that document how tariff codes were determined, prior disclosure programs that voluntarily report errors before CBP discovers them, and penalty defense capabilities when enforcement actions occur. The 51% majority concern reflects recognition that customs compliance has become a core operational imperative, not an administrative afterthought.