M.O.Used: Automakers Try End Run Around Repair Industry on Telematics Access
The surprise announcement of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with two repair industry groups is unenforceable and leaves OEMs in the role of repair gatekeepers, warned the Auto Care Association.
A surprise announcement Tuesday of a breakthrough on the contentious issue of automobile repair got a thumbs down from right to repair advocates, who said it was designed to sow confusion ahead of planned Congressional hearings next week.
The announcement, between The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (AAI) and two auto service industry groups: the Automotive Service Association (ASA) and the Society for Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS), was hailed as a “landmark agreement” that “affirms a 2014 national agreement on automotive right-to-repair.”
But the main group promoting vehicle right to repair laws, the Auto Care Association, fired back late Tuesday, issuing a statement opposing the agreement and calling the MOU a “thinly veiled response by the automotive OEMs to HR 906: The REPAIR Act,” a proposed federal law that would give automobile owners and independent repair shops access to vehicle telematics data needed to diagnose problems and carry out repairs.
Conciliatory sounds from the automotive industry
On its surface, the MOU appears to show auto manufacturers making concessions to automotive right to repair advocates, after spending tens of millions of dollars fighting and litigating proposed right to repair laws at the state and federal levels.
Independent repair facilities “shall continue to have access to the same diagnostic and repair information that auto manufacturers make available to authorized dealer networks,” the MOU reads. That includes vehicle telematics data needed to diagnose and repair a vehicle” and “vehicle technologies and powertrains, including gasoline, diesel, fuel cell, electric battery, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid electric powertrains.”
As technologies evolve, the MOU ensures that automakers will maintain “a level playing field and a forum to discuss future repairer needs as they develop.”
“Consumers should have choice when it comes to repair options and the ability to have their vehicle serviced in well-equipped shops by well trained technicians anytime, anywhere, anyplace,” the statement from the groups read.
An agreement ‘designed to create confusion’
However, the devil is in the details, as the saying goes. And the details surrounding the MOU raise concerns among vehicle repair backers.
First, it was negotiated without the knowledge or participation of the Auto Care Association, which is the largest independent repair industry group and represents more than 536,000 companies involved in the auto repair industry and more than 900,000 technicians. By comparison, the Society for Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) that was a signatory to the MOU represents just around 6,000 businesses nationally and around 53,000 technicians.
In a statement, that group said the MOU does little to extend the rights that vehicle owners and independent repair providers already have under a 2012 Massachusetts law and the 2014 MOU that automakers signed with Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) - as the Auto Care Association was then known- in the wake of that law’s enactment to stave off further laws in other states.
“The agreement between the Alliance, ASA and SCRS is…designed to create confusion,” the Auto Care Association said in its statement. It cited a number of shortcomings in the MOU.
First, the agreement does not have the backing of all automakers. Notably: electric vehicle maker Tesla is not a signatory.
Second, the MOU lacks an enforcement mechanism to ensure OEM compliance with its terms. That leaves independent auto repairers without recourse should OEMs refuse to comply.
Finally, the MOU leaves automakers in the role of gatekeepers to vehicle telematics data. OEMs are not obligated to provide vehicle owners or aftermarket providers direct access to telematic repair and maintenance data, but simply to make the data “that auto manufacturers make available to authorized dealer networks” also available to aftermarket providers. Even then, the data covered is only that which is “not otherwise available” through the standard OBDII port, according to the MOU.
Practically, that means that independent garages could find they have to subscribe to dozens of third-party OEM tools and platforms if they want access to telematics data needed to service various vehicle makes and models rather than through a single direct source.
Behind the scenes: frustration with impediments to auto repair
Accessing telematics data in a standard format and via an independent (not OEM-operated) portal is one of the key features of an expansion of Massachusetts automotive right to repair law passed via ballot measure in November 2020 with the support of 74% of voters. That update to the state’s auto right to repair law requires manufacturers to make that data available to vehicle owners and gives owners the right to share that data with independent repair professionals. The data must be provided in a standard format and via a standard portal that is not owned or operated by an automaker.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation subsequently sued the state in Federal court to block implementation of that law. The group alleged that the ballot measure was contrary to federal vehicle safety laws and would open the door to cyber attacks. The case has been tied up ever since, with both sides awaiting a decision by Federal Judge Douglas Woodlock that has been delayed numerous times.
With no ruling in sight, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell began enforcing the expanded state vehicle right to repair law on June 1st, prompting a letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in mid-June warning manufacturers that compliance with the law could violate the Federal Motor Safety Act, a circa 1960s law. The letter echoed many auto industry talking points in the case, but was roundly criticized, including by Massachusetts’ two Senators, for lacking a factual basis and circumventing established Department of Transportation procedures for issuing such an injunction. (Read my take on the NHTSA letter in this Forbes.com post.)
MOUs: the new regulatory head fake
A memorandum of understanding, driven by manufacturers and omitting key factions advocating for right to repair: does that sound familiar? It should. Agricultural equipment maker John Deere issued a very similar MOU with the American Farm Bureau Federation in January, 2023, as multiple states considered right to repair legislation for agricultural equipment. As with the new auto repair MOU, that agreement also contained promising language, but lacked an enforcement mechanism and seemed to merely codify the status quo.
In a letter sent to members of Congress, the AAI said that the MOU “should reassure you that independent repairers and automakers are not at odds on automotive data access, but rather in lockstep on this fundamental principle: consumers should have choice when it comes to repair options and the ability to have their vehicle serviced in well-equipped shops by well-trained technicians anytime, anywhere, anyplace.”
But right to repair advocates said AAI was following a similar strategy and that there were few expectations that the MOU would change conditions on the ground for vehicle owners or independent repair professionals.
“This MOU does nothing to advance repair and security for owners, but it does validate that OEMS are worried about right to repair legislation moving around the nation," said Gay Gordon-Byrne, the Executive Director of The Repair Association.
“Another MOU, announced on the same day as a hearing in Congress was announced, a hearing which covers the exact issue discussed by the MOU,” said Nathan Proctor, the Director of the national Right to Repair campaign at U.S. PIRG. “This one, like the farm industry MOUs earlier this year, did not involve any of the key proponents for Right to Repair in the car industry. This one also has no enforcement.”
"Car companies can already voluntarily share information, and they are using that control to drive up repair costs, which is also slowing down the repair process,” Proctor wrote. “The solution is clear. It's your car, and the data it generates should belong to you. We know from what we are seeing in other industries, unenforceable voluntary agreements don't work, which is why we need the force of law to protect repair competition."