VehicleServicePros staff recently sat down with the Auto Care Association to answer some questions from our readers about the Right to Repair (R2R) legislation and how it affects automotive shops across the country.
Q. What is the current state of Right to Repair?
Stuart Amols, chairman, tool and equipment committee, Auto Care Association: Tenuous. The current state of R2R is barely suitable for current technology, but lacks any federal statute or broad government support. Additionally, many of the new technologies being adopted or on the horizon, which will impact R2R, will not necessarily be afforded the same protection currently enjoyed. It appears the OEs are still intent on putting up roadblocks wherever possible to keep repair and maintenance of new vehicles captive.
Ben Johnson, vice-chairman, tool and equipment committee, Auto Care Association: From my perspective, it seems compartmentalized. Most light vehicle manufacturers have made available the information that the franchise dealerships have access to, both for individual access and licensing that information to repair information service providers like Mitchell 1 and ALLDATA. A few have never opened agreements but “look the other way” and allow the access to continue. At least one (Tesla) has hidden behind “we don’t have franchised dealerships, therefore we have no requirement to license information” and have been very resistant. Even with those that license the information, their interpretation of “fair and reasonable pricing” varies widely, with some manufacturers charging many times what others charge, with no real justification for doing so. They realize they have a captive audience who have no alternatives to get the VM-supplied information. The lack of a federal mandate which might close some of these loopholes is noticeable.
Q. How has President Biden supported the effort and what does this mean for the automotive industry?
Amols: President Biden’s and his administration’s statements of support and intent to legislate (if necessary) an open and competitive environment for repair of various consumer electronics and farm machinery bodes well for R2R. Essentially the same issue, just a different product. This sets a strong precedent.
Johnson: The current administration appears to be supportive of R2R in principle, although a lot of focus appears to be on consumer products and farm equipment. Nevertheless, philosophically they appear to be “on our side”.
Q. What are some of the biggest hurdles for Right to Repair going forward?
Johnson: I believe the biggest hurdle is time. Access to information has been a discussion topic for several years with little progress and engagement by the OE, except to lobby against it. While the battle rages on, OEs are aggressively implementing their own proprietary security methods and associated charges to aftermarket tool manufacturers and ultimately to the shops and technicians who utilize those tools. There is no consistency or standardization which drives development cost and tool complexity. It may be difficult to retro-fit several model years of vehicles with proprietary security technologies to adhere to a standardized model later, potentially resulting in several model years worth of vehicles which are difficult to maintain.
Amols: I think the biggest hurdles are awareness and the aftermarket being out spent and out lobbied by the OEs. Also, the cost imposed by OEs when they “comply” with R2R. Each manufacturer has different access procedures, protocols, fees, etc.
The OEs can find ways to comply with the letter of R2R requirements, but not the spirit.
Q. How is the changing complexity of vehicles making Right to Repair more critical?
Johnson: With the increased complexities in the vehicles introduced with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), electrification and other technologies, access to the appropriate service information and data and tests from the vehicle’s on-board computer system are more essential than they’ve ever been. If access to the information necessary to service and maintain these vehicles, and access to the on-board systems for diagnosis and test of these systems is restricted, a shop simply will not be able to effectively service them. In addition, parts suppliers who design and distribute aftermarket parts will have limited capabilities in developing cost-effective replacement parts.
Amols: As vehicle complexity increases, then so does the amount of data a vehicle can collect about the owner and their usage — and transmit this data wirelessly and without any knowledge of the owner to the OEs. This a serious privacy issue. There needs to be an “opt out” process for the vehicle owner. Also, as more systems become dependent on access to data, fewer and fewer repairs will be possible without a strong R2R requirement.
Q. How can shops get involved and help support this ongoing effort?
Amols: They can lobby their legislators (local, state, and federal). Also, educate their customers of the negative impact of the OEs’ goal of monopolizing access to the personal information their vehicle collects about them and their usage, as well as forcing them to only be able to have their vehicle repaired by an OE dealer.
Johnson: We learned in Massachusetts that winning R2R is all about educating the public. Shops have access to many consumers who have already made the choice to have services done at aftermarket shops. They can get involved by distributing information and educating their customers, one by one, on the implications if R2R isn’t passed, and passed at a national level. Get them and their customers to lobby their elected officials and make sure those officials understand the importance of their support for the issue. And “vote out” those who don’t represent the majority of consumer’s concern for these issues.
