“Right to repair” debate has returned to the Maine legislature with a new package of bills aimed at repealing the new Data Law passed by referendum in 2023.

More than 84% of voters approved the referendum that began as a petition circulated by the Maine Automotive Right to Repair Coalition. It requires OEMs to standardize onboard diagnostics and provide remote access to those systems.

Under the new law, effective Jan. 5, all automakers must provide access to vehicle data via a standardized and owner-authorized platform.

A Right to Repair Working Group was formed under the Data Law to provide recommendations to Maine’s Joint Standing Committee on Housing and Economic Development on a future commission that will handle vehicle data sharing in the state. The group approved its final report in February.

Rep. Tiffany Roberts (D-District 149) introduced four bills (LD 442, LD 1227, LD 1228, and LD 1394). Rep. Amanda Collamore (R-District 68) introduced LD 292.

Roberts has been vocal in the past about “right to repair,” stating that legislation is unnecessary. At the working group’s October public hearing, she said the future entity (since decided by the group to be called a commission) itself should be regulated by legislation as a licensing board. Rep. Amanda Collamore (R-District 68) agreed, and both said, as the legislation stands now, personal data generated and collected in vehicles isn’t secure.

Proponents of the new law, and those behind the R2R referendum campaign, argue that independent repair shops and vehicle owners don’t have access to the tools and information necessary to repair vehicles. Roberts, Collamore, trade associations, and others, including independent repairers, say the opposite. They say the tools and repair information they need have been accessible since at least 2014, when a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between automakers and the aftermarket was signed.

Those who say there isn’t access argue that the 2014 MOU is outdated and doesn’t include telematics, which are necessary for some repairs. No evidence has been provided that telematics access is necessary to complete any repair procedures.

The Joint Committee held a public hearing on all five bills April 10.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators), two dealership owners, and the Maine Automobile Dealers Association testified in favor of the bills.

Among the opposition were LKQ Corp., the Maine Automotive Right to Repair Coalition, the Auto Care Association (ACA), U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), and one dealer. Tommy Hickey, director of the coalition, helped draft the R2R laws in Maine and Massachusetts. Hickey was also a member of the working group.

LD 442

LD 442 simply stands to repeal the new R2R law.

“I oppose an unworkable, unsafe, and misleading law that endangers consumers, conflicts with federal safety mandates, and has already exposed Maine to legal and cybersecurity liabilities,” Roberts testified during the April 10 hearing. “This repeal is not about removing repair rights. It’s about removing a broken statute and clearing the way for real, responsible reform. Why? Because while intentions may be good, implementation is what matters. And when a statute presents legal conflicts, vague mandates, or harms the public interest, it is our duty to act.”

She added that the law in its current form is also potentially unconstitutional and “dangerously out of step” with federal safety and cybersecurity regulations.

“Maine currently, as we all are probably aware, has no data privacy law, which is a problem on its own, but worse in this context,” Roberts said. “Once a third party receives vehicle telematics data in Maine, no legal protections are in place to govern what happens next. Unlike licensed dealerships, which are regulated under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Federal Trade Commission Safeguards Rule, and state franchise law, the independent repair facilities referenced in this law are not defined, certified, or overseen by any regulatory body. This is a privacy disaster waiting to happen.”

LD 292

This bill would implement the recommendations of the Right to Repair Working Group with a tweak to one aspect.

Collamore said she disagrees with the independent entity serving in a purely advisory capacity but would be consider an amendment to her bill to create a commission that would sunset one year after inception.

“Not one person I talked to knew they had voted in an independent entity,” Collamore said. “They didn’t know that the standardized platform this law required hadn’t been invented yet. All but one person I talked to asked me to fix this law. I will continue to fight for the people I represent and fight to fix the problems of this law.”

The bill would also clarify some definitions with the current law, such as “independent repair facility.”

In opposition to all of the bills, Hickey testified that he’s proud of the working group’s report because of its “unanimous support from all sides of the issue.”

“I urge you to all pass the unanimous recommendations put forth by the working group,” he said. “This will put the proper folks with the right expertise so that they can implement this law to the betterment of Maine drivers… This is strictly about mechanical information. I heard a lot about unfettered access to personal data.

“This is about information to diagnose, maintain, and repair the car… This is an owner-authorized platform, which means you, as the car owner, can dictate which independent repairer or which dealer can get the repair information generated by your car. There is nothing more than that. There is no GPS location. There is no driver behavior. This is strictly information that exists in the OBD port that is now becoming wireless.”

LD 1227 and LD 1228

LD 1227 would repeal the portion of the Data Law that requires automakers to equip vehicles with a standardized data access platform.

Both of these bills focus on terms within the new law that Roberts said aren’t defined or need to be clarified, including telematics system, independent repair facility, diagnostic and repair information, mobile-based application, owner-authorized, platform, access platform, standardized access platform, reliable and accepted systems, securely communicating, service information, and what telematics systems includes.

LD 1227 would also repeal Section 1810, subsection 6.

“This section mandates a mobile-based interoperable platform giving unrestricted access to vehicle-generated data, a provision that now threatens consumer privacy, vehicle cybersecurity, and means compliance with federal law. I respectfully ask that this committee support the repeal itself and the emergency clause because the stakes are not theoretical, they’re immediate and they’re profound.

Roberts noted subsection 6 is already being challenged in court as being “unconstitutional and impossible to comply with.”

“On subsection 6, we have opened a door with no lock and no guard on the other side,” Roberts said. “To be frank, many of us in this room saw this coming. Some chose not to believe it. This is one of those rare times when I don’t like being right, but here we are.”

Auto Innovators filed a lawsuit suit in January to challenge Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey over the enforcement of the Data Law because the “independent entity” it calls for doesn’t exist. Auto Innovators represents the automakers that manufacture 96% of all vehicles made in the U.S.

Auto Innovators’ suit against Massachusetts over its new Data Law was dismissed in February. Reasons the judge gave for his ruling included the “plain language” of the law and existing options for automakers to grant or bar access to what’s necessary for repairs.

Hickey cited the dismissal, despite it being under appeal, as evidence backed by the Department of Justice that state automotive R2R wouldn’t be federally preempted, and is “doable and safe.”

During the Maine committee hearing, Auto Innovators State Affairs Vice President Wayne Weikel testified that automakers have provided all necessary information to diagnose and repair vehicles.

“In 2021, the FTC came out with a report on repair restrictions across the entire economy. They cited the auto industry’s MOU as a model for other industries to follow, saying, ‘it created a broad, if not complete, right to repair in the automotive sector.’

“We participated in and we support the findings of the AG’s working group. …the working group unanimously agreed that the independent entity… should be stripped of all its responsibilities, and instead they recommended it should only be advisory in nature. We support that decision. If you only enact the recommendations of the working group, automakers will still have trouble implementing the will of the voters as reflected in the ballot question. That is because the ballot question didn’t just say what data had to be shared, it told automakers how to share that data.”

LD 1394

This bill would exclude electric vehicles from certain requirements of the R2R law, such as the diagnostic, service, and repair information necessary to reset an immobilizer system or security-related electronic module, Section 1810 Subsection 6 in its entirety, and any other telematics systems requirements.

“Automakers have indicated, and are already demonstrating in Massachusetts, that if forced to comply with open telematics access requirements of Subsection 6 of the repair law, they will disable telematics altogether to protect consumer safety, avoid federal liability, and comply with cybersecurity regulations,” Roberts said.  “That is not a hypothetical threat, it’s already happening.

“This bill offers me a chance to avoid the unintended consequences unfolding in other states… What’s the risk? Telematics will be disabled. Manufacturers are subject to federal cybersecurity obligations under the Vehicle Safety Act and the FTC. In June of 2023, NHTSA explicitly warned that open telematics mandates, like those in Maine and Massachusetts, could enable remote manipulation of vehicle systems and pose significant safety concerns. As a result, some automakers have already turned off telematics in Massachusetts models to avoid violating federal law and exposing drivers to hacking risks. If Maine proceeds without this exclusion, we are inviting the same outcome. Consumers will lose features they rely on, and the climate impact will be considerable.”

Andreas Heiss, LKQ Northeast Region government affairs manager, testified on behalf of the company that the five bills “fly in the face of the working group’s unanimous recommendations and go directly against the will of 84% of the voters.”

“The data would not be stored by the commission [independent entity], and would be stored in the exact same manner as it is today,” he said. “The working group reached consensus on numerous language changes to the existing statute, all of which were designed to provide the state with guidance, implementation standards, and complaint resolution, as well as make recommendations for the best practices by the manufacturers in providing that data.

“We’re talking about this today as if this [data] is all just going to be floating around. An owner has to give consent to the shop. They choose to have this information. We see no reason to implement any of the changes proposed in any of these bills.”

The committee did not vote on any of the five bills or make recommendations following the April 10 hearing.

Images

Featured image: Maine Rep. Tiffany Roberts (D-District 149) testifies on four bills she’s introduced during an April 10 Joint Standing Committee on Housing and Economic Development public hearing. (Video screenshot)