In Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2016) __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 6122776, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held to meet that statutory requirement, an “inspection report” must conform to commonly understood meaning of that term in the automobile industry; namely, “a report that lists the components inspected, with a space corresponding to each component in which the inspector designates whether or not that component is functional.” California Vehicle Code section 11713.18(a)(6) prohibits a car dealer from advertising or selling a used car as “certified” (or any similar word) unless before the sale, the dealer provides the buyer “with a completed inspection report indicating all the components inspected.” Gonzales determined that CarMax’s Quality Inspected Certificate was not a proper “completed inspection report” because it only checked off which components had been inspected without indicating whether each of those components passed inspection and functioned properly. By selling the used car to Gonzales as “certified” but providing him only the inadequate Quality Inspected Certificate, CarMax violated Vehicle Code section 11713.18(a)(6). A violation of that section is also a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law, and Gonzales remands the case for entry of summary judgment against CarMax under those laws. Remedies under those laws may include actual and punitive damages, rescission of the car purchase contract and restitution, injunctive relief and awards of costs and attorney fees.