Maryland House committee members question necessity of proposed right to repair bill
By onLegal
A “right to repair” bill has been reintroduced in the Maryland House of Delegates claiming independent repairers don’t have access to necessary information while automakers and dealers say a law isn’t necessary because the information is already available to everyone.
Bill sponsor Del. Kevin Hornberger (R-District 35B) said during a House Economic Matters Committee hearing on Tuesday that HB 843 would “protect consumers’ rights to decide where and with what parts they can use to repair and maintain their vehicles.” The bill is carried over from 2023.
He added that the bill would allow repairs at independent shops during and after the warranty without voiding it, as long as repairs are done in “a compliant manner.”
“This bill provides independent repair shops and aftermarket businesses that produce OEM comparable parts the right to access critical information, tools, and equipment needed to maintain and repair at a fair and reasonable cost,” Hornberger said. “The real issue independent repair shops encounter when servicing vehicles as a third party is access to vehicle telematics.
“The predicament to remedy under this bill is what’s called flashing, and that’s a software chip on the newer cars once something is mechanically repaired, the repair is actually not complete. Many independent repair shops have difficulties when manufacturers try to access this telematics data for authorized repairs and it creates a conflict whereas they cannot complete the repair.”
Chairman Del. C. T. Wilson (D-District 28) asked how a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between automakers and the aftermarket comes into play.
“The MOU is proving to not be sufficient, and there are a number of auto manufacturers that are not participating in the MOU,” Hornberger: said. “We’re looking for some leadership on the state side to try to prompt this. Ultimately, you would want universal language across the country and that was the intent of the MOU. Unfortunately, not everyone’s participating and it’s not meeting the needs of the consumer.”
Wilson questioned if Hornberger’s claims are true, noting that Tesla testified last year that there is a website where all repair information is available, OEM1Stop.com.
“Every single part was there. It was priced well,” Wilson said. “The only thing it didn’t allow them to do was access certain parts of the electronics. …I’m always concerned about somebody getting the ability to remote start my car or my car can be summoned to wherever I’m standing. I’m not comfortable with other individuals being able to have untrained, unsanctioned, or licensed shops that basically have no oversight or accountability, having the ability to walk up and wake up my car and tell it to come to them.”
When asked who isn’t participating in the MOU, Hornberger said Lucid and Lexus.
Hornberger also claimed that Subaru has barred Safelite from access to the technology necessary to replace windshields with embedded devices. Subaru didn’t reply to a Repairer Driven News request for a response to Hornberger’s claim by the publication deadline.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators), Maryland Automobile Dealers Association (MADA), and Washington Area New Auto Dealers Association (WANADA) testified against the bill. The Washington Metropolitan Auto Body Association (WMABA) and Automotive Service Association (ASA) submitted opposition letters.
Josh Fisher, Auto Innovators state affairs senior director, said automakers don’t oppose the right to repair but a bill isn’t necessary.
“House Bill 843 is a bill seemingly filed under the premise that independent repair shops need a law to ensure they have access to information from automakers necessary to diagnose and repair a vehicle,” he said. “That premise is simply wrong. And here’s the truth, automakers already make available to independent repair businesses all the information needed to diagnose and service a vehicle. In fact, consumers already have a wide range of options for where to seek service to repair their vehicles.”
The 2014 MOU was expanded in 2023 by Auto Innovators, ASA, and the Society for Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) to reaffirm repairer access to all necessary information to complete a repair, including telematics data.
Later in the day after the Maryland hearing took place, a data access lawsuit Auto Innovators filed against Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell was dismissed.
At the hearing, MADA President Peter Kitzmiller agreed with Fisher that access has been available since 2014.
“There is no access problem,” he said. “Seventy percent of all repairs outside of warranty are done at independent repair facilities so this idea that somehow you’re forced to go to a new car dealer, which I’d frankly be happy about, it’s just not the state of the market.”
He added that it’s unreasonable to ask OEMs to pay independent repair facilities for warranty repairs.
Fisher added that Auto Innovators thinks it best for there not to be state-by-state R2R legislation.
“The first half of this bill deals with right to repair and, basically, is a restatement of the 2014 MOU,” he said. “We’re not opposed to that. The reason we don’t want that in code is because somebody will be back here next year changing that and then we’ll end up with 50 different laws in 50 different states when we have one controlling MOU in all 50 states.”
In WMABA’s letter of support, Executive Director Jordan Hendler also said independent repairers have the access they need to complete repairs, and that the bill fails to address the real challenges facing independent collision repair businesses.
“We support right to repair but we oppose House Bill 843,” she wrote. “These bills will not materially address any of the challenges that repair shops face servicing their customers today — recruiting and retaining employees; keeping up with training on new vehicle technologies; getting insurers to pay for proper repairs as recommended by automaker guidelines. These bills are only a distraction from the
needed conversation about the above issues and are often pushed by companies that manufacture and sell replacement parts, not by groups that represent repairers.”
Kirk McCauley, WMDA-CAR member and government relations director, spoke in favor of the bill on behalf of Maryland service stations, convenience stores, and automotive repair shops.
“This bill is about consumer fairness,” he said. “The consumer ought to have access to the repair shop that they want to use. They bought the car, they paid for it, and they should be able to take it to a shop of their choice. It not only saves them money, saves them time — it saves the environment because they don’t have to drive as far to a shop.”
ASA’s opposition letter notes to the committee that its members rely on vehicle data access to repair vehicles, so without it, they would go out of business.
“We are pleased to inform you that independent repair shops enjoy that access today, making it possible for independent auto repairers to perform 70 percent of all post-warranty repairs in the United States,” wrote Executive Director Julie Massaro.
The 2023 MOU, she wrote, “guarantees that independent automotive repairers can access the same information, systems, and tools provided to a manufacturer’s franchised dealership needed to repair a vehicle.”
“It stipulates that no technology, such as telematics or powertrain, can be used to circumvent this commitment,” the letter states. “The agreement also created a Vehicle Data Access Panel to resolve potential gaps in data access. Our members value the ability to collaborate directly with manufacturers on these matters. This agreement provides long-term assurance to the independent automotive repair community. While we are confident that the agreement is strong enough to stand on its own, we support efforts to codify the agreement into federal law.”
Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown’s Consumer Protection Division wrote a letter to the committee in support of the bill as long as it’s amended. The division said it doesn’t have the expertise to meet the proposed requirement to prepare an information sheet for vehicle buyers that explains what telematics is and their access rights so that needs to be removed from the bill, or transferred to the appropriate resource.
“Modern automobiles are basically computers on wheels and repairs are more complex and expensive,” the letter states. “However, by requiring automobile manufacturers to make available to independent repair shops and automobile owners the same diagnostic tools they provide to their dealers, House Bill 843 would provide consumers with cheaper, more varied repair options.”
“Right to repair” bills have also recently been filed in Hawaii and Kansas. Auto Innovators sued Maine’s attorney general earlier this month over its new R2R law, which includes the creation of a standardized access platform and an independent commission to handle vehicle data sharing in the state.
The Massachusetts suit was filed in 2020 after the passage of the state’s Data Access Law, which was approved by referendum on the state’s November 2020 ballot. The law expands the state’s right to repair law and requires OEMs to create and implement an onboard, standardized diagnostic system that would be accessible to everyone with or without OEM permission.
Auto Innovators argued that OEMs can’t safely and consistently comply with the legislation. A trial on the suit was held in 2021. U.S. District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock delayed ruling on the case several times before Judge Denise J. Casper took over earlier in January this year.
As of Wednesday, Casper’s order was sealed to the public.
In a press release, Auto Innovators said the decision “will introduce potential security risks to our customers and their vehicles” and that the new law is “at odds with the U.S. Constitution.”
“During the trial, the attorney general’s own experts said there wasn’t any available technology to allow for operational compliance,” the release states. “Automotive right to repair already exists in Massachusetts. Automakers have always provided all the maintenance, diagnostic, and repair information needed to safely and securely service a vehicle. That won’t change.
“The attorney general suggests disabling telematics services, such as emergency assistance services. That ‘solution’ deprives Massachusetts drivers of the safety and convenience features they’ve come to expect. The fact is: some of those features can’t be separated from the proper functioning of a vehicle — which means certain vehicles may no longer be offered for sale in Massachusetts.”
The alliance said it is evaluating its appeal options.
Images
Featured image: Chairman Del. C. T. Wilson (D-District 28) speaks during a Feb. 11 House Economic Matters Committee meeting hearing on HB 843.