
New York bill requires part type disclosure, bars non-OEM parts without owner consent
By onCollision Repair | Legal
A bill has been introduced in New York that would require collision repair shops to disclose to vehicle owners the types of replacement parts they plan to install during vehicle repairs.
Written authorization to use the parts would also be required under AB 75 for which a form is included in the bill that would be provided to customers along with estimates.
“Replacement crash parts” are defined in the bill as those typically replaced during the repair of a damaged vehicle that supports the vehicle exterior and are made of sheet metal, plastic, fiberglass, or similar materials including doors, fenders, panels, bumpers, hoods, floors, or trunk lids. The bill does not apply to windows or hubcaps.
Assemblyman William B. Magnarelli (D-Syracuse) introduced AB 75 last week as well as AB 245. The latter would require repair shops and insurers to follow automaker and OEM collision repair guidelines, procedures, recommendations, and service bulletins.
Under AB 75, the use of non-OEM parts would be barred on vehicles during the year of manufacture and for two years after, or for the duration of the OEM’s new vehicle and/or sheet metal or body parts warranties, whichever is longer.
The bill lists specific restrictions on insurers as well.
“No insurer shall directly or indirectly require the use or installation of any type or types of replacement crash part for the repair of a collision-damaged vehicle without disclosing the type or types of replacement crash parts to the vehicle owner or the vehicle owner’s authorized representative,” the bill states.
“In the event replacement crash parts are used or installed which are other than new original equipment manufacturer (OEM) replacement crash parts, and such parts are ill-fitting and require additional labor and materials in their installation or use, the insurer shall be responsible for the cost of such additional labor and materials.”
The bill was referred to the Transportation Committee.
The Automotive Body Parts Association (ABPA) has voiced opposition to both bills in letters to Magnarelli.
Executive Director Edward Salamy wrote that requiring written consent to use non-OEM parts could “confuse and mislead consumers.”
“The required written authorization for the use of aftermarket parts is likely to confuse consumers by implying that these parts are inferior or unsafe,” he wrote. “In reality, many aftermarket parts are subject to rigorous quality and safety standards and are often indistinguishable from OEM parts in functionality. Misleading consent language may steer consumers unnecessarily toward higher-cost OEM parts, further inflating repair costs without any tangible benefit.
“This legislation, if enacted, will have significant negative consequences for New York drivers by increasing vehicle repair costs, raising insurance premiums, and limiting consumer choice in automotive repairs. …Our members distribute over 80 percent of independently produced aftermarket replacement parts to the collision repair industry in the United States. Our opposition to AB 75 stems from its potential harm to New York consumers and businesses.”
Salamy and ABPA are not the first to debate the concept of consumer consent.
A Collision Industry Conference (CIC) panel in 2017 debated state legislation at the time that sought to strip away active consumer consent to alternative parts. Aftermarket parts proponents expressed similar opposition to the idea of going beyond passive disclosure of what kind of components were used in a collision repair.
Jack Gillis, who served at the time as executive director of the Certified Aftermarket Parts Association (CAPA), said: “There’s a fundamental problem with consent: Why do you need to consent to something that is the same?”
However, Gillis said himself during the panel discussion how many aftermarket parts don’t meet CAPA’s standards.
Wayne Weikel, representing the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (now operating as the Alliance for Automotive Innovation) asked: “If aftermarket parts are as good as or better than OEM parts, the way proponents claim, why would securing consumer approval be a problem?
“Either you’re willing to stand behind these parts, or you’re not.”
In opposition to AB 245, Salamy wrote that the legislation is “self-serving.”
“While we respect the ability of OEMs to provide repair guidelines to ensure quality and safety, mandating the use of only their own branded parts as part of these procedures is undeniably self-serving,” he wrote. “Such mandates allow OEMs to eliminate competition, inflate repair costs, and place an unnecessary financial burden on consumers and businesses.”
Similar to his letter addressing AB 75, Salamy wrote that AB 245 would result in higher costs and insurance premiums for consumers and reduced consumer choice. He also wrote that aftermarket parts don’t compromise safety.
“Claims that aftermarket parts compromise vehicle safety are unsupported,” the letter says. “Both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) have determined that aftermarket parts are cosmetic and do not impact safety. Furthermore, aftermarket parts are often backed by warranties that exceed those provided by OEM manufacturers, offering consumers added protection and peace of mind when choosing these alternatives.”
Eddie Kizenberger Jr., executive director of
“We have set up meetings with these sponsors at this point in time to be able to discuss things we do and things we do not like about the bills as they are and then introduce ideas that will help benefit the consumers, primarily, and as a byproduct of that, the members of our association,” he said. “First and foremost, everything that we do is circled around how does what we’re trying to pursue help benefit the consumer?
“We’d like to see how these things mature. We’d like to see what effect we can have on these bills, depending on the bill, to support or refute and be able to provide positive action and suggestions as to where we think these bills should go.”
Similar bills have been introduced over at least the past six years, and none made it out of committee, he added. Kizenberger said he believes that’s because legislators are “burdened with a multitude of other things.”
“Unfortunately, in New York, our interest bills that deal with insurance and consumer issues like this usually don’t get heard or don’t make very much progress until sometime in the second legislative year,” he said.
Images
Featured image credit: LukaTDB/iStock