Collision Industry Conference’s (CIC) panelists representing independent repair businesses and automakers said during a Denver meeting that their member’s interests don’t necessarily align with those promoting modern-day “right to repair” (R2R) in federal and state initiatives. 

Proponents of the federal Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR ACT, H.R. 906) claim regularly on Capitol Hill that they represent independent repair businesses, but their interests in the bill don’t necessarily promote thorough repairs and utilization of repair information, as much as they are focused on giving vehicle owners the tools and information they need to choose aftermarket parts. 

“Automakers want to steer vehicle owners to their own, higher-priced repair shops and prevent consumers from accessing their vehicle data, which are often needed for repairs,” CAR Coalition says on their website, in support of the REPAIR ACT.

The website also claims the coalition is made up of independent auto part markers, insurers and retailers; featuring companies such as ABPA, CAPA, Allstate, LKQ, American Property Casualty Insurance Association, AutoZone, Farmers Insurance, PartsTrader and others as members. 

“Groups like CAR Coalition have lots of after market parts companies, alternative parts platforms and insurance companies,” Aaron Schulenburg, Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) executive director, said. “So I think the two bills, in my opinion, are both very much parts acts. One is about protecting the right to choose aftermarket parts. The other is about limiting intellectual property protection for OEMs on patents.”

“The focus is on protecting the choice of a part type rather than necessarily protecting the type of repair, rather than protecting safety,” Schulenburg said. “What the REPAIR Act isn’t, is a bill that mentions safety anywhere within it. It’s not a bill that talks about consumers having the right to choose or not be influenced or be limited.”

At the federal level, H.R. 906 passed out of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Innovation, Data and Commerce in November but has yet to move to the full House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Bob Redding, Automotive Service Association (ASA) lobbyist said. He said there is only a small window left for the bill to pass through the committee for this year. 

Another bill, Save Money on Auto Repair Transportation (SMART) Act would reduce the length of time OEMs can restrict the use of their patents from 14 years to two-and-a-half. The bill hasn’t moved since it was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet since reintroduced last year. 

SCRS, ASA and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators) responded to R2R developments in a letter to Congress announcing the Automotive Repair Data Sharing Commitment in July 2023. The pact affirms a 2014 national memorandum of understanding (MOU) that in part states, “independent repair facilities shall have access to the same diagnostic and repair information that auto manufacturers make available to authorized dealer networks.”

Automakers first made an agreement to provide repair service, training information and diagnostic tools available to independent dealers in a 2002 ASA and Automaker agreement in 2002, according to Redding. The agreement followed multiple years of failed rulemaking by the federal government following the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment that required OEMs to provide auto repairers access to vehicle emissions control diagnostic systems and emissions related diagnostic and repair instruction. 

Redding said the repair industry and OEMs have a 22-year history of working together through agreements. The agreements have provided the industry with the information it needs to do proper repairs. 

“It’s about trust and transparency and we should always give an industry agreement a chance,” Redding said. “If we fail, you can go to your state legislature, you can go to Congress or you can go to a federal agency and, and advocate for a change. But we should at least try doing it ourselves.”

Schulenburg said it was important for SCRS to represent the independent repair industry on the issue. 

“Insurance companies are holding meetings in the White House saying that they are representative voices of these small collision repair businesses who don’t have access to what they need to fix cars properly,” Schulenburg said. “I think it was important that an organization that represents collision repairs sign on to an agreement that recognizes what we have and what we should have.” 

Wayne Weikel, Auto Innovators vice president of State Government Affairs, said there was a belief that the 2014 MOU would solve “the problem” and that attempts to pass bills would stop. He said that didn’t happen. 

“The problem we had with the 2014 agreement is that we [automakers] didn’t sign it with repairers,” Weikel said. “We went out and we signed it with aftermarket part companies and aftermarket car retailers. When the whole discussion in reality, should have been what do repairs need from automakers. That was the basis of this 2023 agreement.  Let’s move past where we were in the past and let’s talk, ‘What does the industry need now?’ The great part of the agreement was that it also accounted for what does the industry need moving forward and it has the ability to grow and change.” 

Schulenburg said that R2R initiatives all market to independent repairers that they don’t have access to tools, equipment and resources to fix vehicles properly in the same way that franchise dealers do. 

“I feel confident based on our communications with our members that this exists today,” Schulenburg said referring to the tools, equipment and information accessible and referenced through the MOU. 

SCRS members aren’t saying they have trouble accessing the information to make a proper repair, Schulenburg said. He said, instead, members voice that they face obstacles when trying to deliver a proper repair to the consumer. They face economic obstacles, sometimes perpetuated by the same companies championing the REPAIR Act.

Schulenburg, Redding and Weikel said they each spend time on Capital Hill trying to educate congressmen that independent repairers are not being represented by those pushing the federal bills. 

“I think voices end up addressing folks on Capitol Hill and telling narratives or perspectives that don’t align with what our members experience,” Schulenburg said. He later added, “ I think it’s important that our industry and independent repairers have a voice and that the people who are responsible for making decisions on whether things like this [REPAIR Act] moves out of committee and how they turn into law or don’t turn into law, understand the realities of what’s facing this industry.”

“I think the biggest consequence and benefit of this topic is the chair that’s sitting right next to the podium,” Schulenburg said noting the empty chair that sits on CIC stages as a reminder of the consumers negatively impacted by improper repairs. “We owe a consumer for a proper repair to keep them safe and that chair is there because people didn’t use the information that was available to them.”

Weikel said automakers and repairers align in protecting the consumer’s best interest. 

“We spend a lot of time on the hill explaining, ‘I understand this has been presented as right to repair, but they don’t actually represent repairers.’” Weikel said. “Here’s what repairers say or here’s what automakers provide. And yes, that’s completely counter to what you have heard on the repair act.” 

He said those on the other side have done a good job of framing the issues as something needed for repairs to be completed. Yet, he added that’s not actually what’s in the bill. 

“People who do my job do it very well for the other side on this issue,” Weikel said. 

Schulenburg agreed that the issue has been framed effectively by proponents. He said even independent repairers can be confused by the conversation. 

Jeff Butler, owner of Haury’s Collision & Vintage in Washington state, later in the meeting stated that he didn’t understand the topic prior to the panel. 

“So this social media campaign that looks like support? It says support your local auto shop is not our industry supporting local auto shops,” Butler asked, as he pointed to a sponsored Facebook promotion from the Auto Care Association. 

Schulenburg responded. “That is from groups who are proponents of this act, but, no, we don’t see eye to eye on the content or the material. But it is targeted to encourage collision centers like you.” 

Panelists said that as they work to educate lawmakers on what the bills don’t effectively do for the industry, they also hope to inform them on what is needed to perform a safe repair. 

“What I believe all of our organizations are very hopeful of is that we find a way to shift the conversations from simply preserving a consumer’s choice for one type of part to a consumer being able to choose where they want to have their vehicle repaired, how they want to have it repaired with what parts they want it repaired with,” Schulenburg said. “It should be focused on making sure that consumers are entitled to safe, proper and thorough repairs.”

Redding agreed and added, “ If you’re going to do a repair bill for all repairs, mechanical and collision, it needs to do what we want it to do.” 

Weikel said it will likely take a new and separate bill to change the conversation. 

“We should have our own federal bill that supports safe repairs,” Weikel said. “The first line of the bill should be the use of OEM repair procedures. Collision repairers shouldn’t have to fight to make sure they can do proper repairs.”

Schulenburg continued the conversation with, “I think if there’s going to be a focus on access to information, there should be an equal focus on utilization of the information and it should provide a consumer safety and consumer rights to safe and proper repairs.”

“There’s a lot of push by people in both the insurance industry and the regulatory world to add technology to vehicles to make them safer…and then the same people who push for that often create obstacles in the claims settlement process.”

IMAGES

Ron Reichen, Bob Redding, Aaron Schulenburg and Wayne Weikel discuss right to repair initiates during a panel discussion at a Collision Industry Denver meeting in July/Teresa Moss.