The Maine Right to Repair Working Group spent a couple of hours last week debating the intent, purpose, and authority of an independent entity created by a new law passed on a referendum in 2023 to oversee access to vehicle data and telematics.

Proponents contend that independent repairers don’t have the same access to data, telematics, and repair information as repairers at dealerships and OEM-certified facilities — despite having had guests from independent repair facilities convey to the working group that they do. Last year, several industry groups, including the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators), affirmed in a landmark agreement regarding automotive right to repair 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.”

The Maine Right to Repair Working Group is the result of the referendum and subsequent law, LD 1677, passed in November 2023, as is the requirement for the creation of an independent oversight entity and a standardized telematics platform among automakers. The process began with a petition circulated by the Maine Right to Repair Coalition.

The working group is required to submit a report on its findings to the legislature by Feb. 28, 2025.

When kicking off the group’s Oct. 31 meeting, Chairman of the group and Maine Chief Deputy Attorney General Christopher Taub said he thought the group should determine what the entity will be doing so other issues such as how it operates, how it’s funded, and where it will be housed within state government could be decided.

By the end of the two-hour meeting, none of that had been made clear.

Taub asked Tommy Hickey, a working group member and Maine Right to Repair Coalition director, to describe what the intent was meant to be for the entity when the R2R law was drafted since the coalition helped write the bill.

“This entity was to be a group of experts that were going to look at how to implement the law and be a resource too,” Hickey said. “We saw this as something that the attorney general would be implementing, or at least enforcing, and this was to help the AG in its enforcement. The ‘meat and potatoes of the bill,’ as I call it, is for an owner-authorized standard platform that the manufacturers would create which would give information to car owners and this entity would be to make sure this is happening in a way that was best for the consumer and best for the aftermarket to keep that level playing field which is what ‘right to repair’ has been all about.”

Elizabeth Frazier, who represents Auto Innovators on behalf of most automakers, said the law describes an entity that would have much more power than what Hickey described.

Quoting a portion of Section 3 of the law, she noted, “‘The independent entity shall manage cyber-secure access to motor vehicle-generated data… the independent entity shall identify and adopt relevant standards… and create the policies for compliance,’ et cetera. Those are all obviously quasi-legislative things that a rulemaking entity would normally do.”

Jeffrey Groves, a working group member chosen to represent aftermarket parts distributors and retailers, seemingly agreed more along the lines of what Hickey described.

“As I read this language, it seemed to me that what the intent was to create a body that would have expertise that could advise the attorney general’s office — with respect to enforcement [and] with respect to compliance. I think having a body of experts that the AG would be able to ask questions of and get knowledge with respect to items like cybersecurity and privacy and those types of items would aid in that endeavor.”

Tesla Service Engineering Director Brian Boggs, chosen as an OEM representative on the working group, questioned whether an entity is even necessary.

“If the main point of the independent entity is to show that it [law] can be implemented, I guess I don’t understand why that is needed,” Boggs said. “If the rest of the statute mandates that it is implemented and there’s an enforcement mechanism then the manufacturers can get moving and make the implementation.

“I fully believe that we’re now three to five years behind Europe as a result, unintentionally, of the bill in Massachusetts and this bill in Maine — that the manufacturers were hesitant to offer solutions because the mandates are very prescriptive — a specific way to implement the solution… My main fear is that the independent entity will adopt very specific standards that will constrain innovation and result in a slower implementation… My impression is that what the voters want exists throughout the rest of the bill.”

Taub and AG Office Consumer Protection Division Chief Christina Moylan said that without some kind of other entity, it would be very challenging for the law to be properly administered and enforced. Moylan said the entity would need to have rulemaking authority that the attorney general could look to when there is a complaint.

However, she also said if there was another way for the AG’s Office to get balanced expertise to enforce the law without an independent entity, that’s also an option the working group could recommend.

Boggs and Frazier questioned who would grant access to data and repair information once access has been authorized by the owner.

“Is it the vehicle manufacturer or the independent entity? When I read the words ‘administer access,’ to me, it implies the independent entity is the one that says, ‘Yes, the independent repairer, who is now owner-authorized, shall be able to access data from the vehicle,'” Boggs said. “Therefore, the liability of correctly saying yes or no shifts from the vehicle manufacturer to the independent entity. Both NHTSA and I, as a vehicle manufacturer, think that the responsibility needs to remain with the manufacturer such that they can be held accountable.”

Frazier said it hasn’t been made clear to her, despite much discussion and debate, who or where access would reside.

“It is ultimately about who is going to hold the key to say, ‘Yes, that independent repair person can have access,'” she said.

After continued discussion and debate, Taub recommended the group agree that rather than it being the entity’s responsibility, it will be the manufacturer that makes sure the right people have access to the data. Boggs agreed, adding that the language of the law needs to be reworded to convey that. Frazier said OEMs have already agreed on this.

Taub also said the group could look at the operations of licensing boards or regulatory agencies as examples of the structure of the entity and its operations, or leave some of that up to the entity to decide later on.

“With this passing by such a large margin as it did with voters, 84-84%, one of the things that I’d like to explore is how to accomplish this in a manner that costs the taxpayers the least amount of money, that causes the least amount of delay possible because cars are being manufactured right now and they’re going to be out of warranty soon,” said Tim Winkeler, an independent repair facility representative member of the working group.

Winkeler is also president and CEO of VIP Tires & Auto Service and a member of the Maine Right to Repair Coalition.

“Mainers deserve a choice about whether or not to take that vehicle to an independent repair shop or whether or not they have to wait longer and pay more to take it to a dealership. Those are things that are of concern. Because sometimes that really affects the bottom line here and whether or not independent repairers can continue to operate their shops and whether or not consumers have the choice.”

The group will meet next on Nov. 18 at 2 p.m.

Images

Featured image credit: bkindler/iStock