Two bills have been introduced in Maine that mandate standards on independent and OEM-affiliated repair facilities that conduct repairs on vehicles, one of which is specific to vehicles under manufacturer warranties.

LD 1467 and LD 1468 are in addition to a package of five bills introduced this session to repeal Maine’s new Data Law that passed by referendum in 2023. A public hearing was held on both bills before the Joint Housing and Economic Development Standing Committee on April 29.

More than 84% of voters approved a 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, 2025, all automakers must provide access to vehicle data via a standardized and owner-authorized platform.

Both bills are sponsored by Rep. Amanda Collamore (R-District 68) and co-sponsored by Rep. Tiffany Roberts (D-District 149) and Rep. Tracy L. Quint (R-District 8).

LD 1467 states that it would “ensure accountability” for repairs done by independent repair facilities, and Collamore said it’s specific only to warranty repairs.

The bill states that if the repair fails to meet industry standards or results in further damage or defect to the vehicle, the independent repair facility is responsible for “reimbursing the consumer for any additional costs incurred by the consumer in correcting the improper repair and reimbursing a motor vehicle dealership or the manufacturer for any costs incurred by the motor vehicle dealership or the manufacturer in correcting the improper repair.”

Vehicle dealerships or manufacturers would have to provide proof supported by sufficient evidence that an independent repair facility improperly repaired a vehicle.

Before performing a repair, the independent repair facility would be required to disclose to consumers in writing that it isn’t affiliated with the manufacturer or a motor vehicle dealership and that an improper repair may result in an additional expense or warranty conflict.

“This bill is about one fundamental principle — accountability,” said Collamore, during the hearing. “It aims to close a clear gap in consumer protection by ensuring that independent repair facilities are held responsible when their work on vehicles under a manufacturer’s warranty does not meet industry standards or causes further damage. Let me be clear, this bill is not an attack on independent repair facilities. These businesses play a valuable role in our local communities and often provide more affordable, accessible repair services to Mainers.

“What this bill does is establish a baseline of responsibility when those services go wrong, especially when the vehicle in question is under the manufacturer’s warranty.”

She added that the bill would provide “peace of mind for responsible repair businesses and levels the playing field” while ensuring “the integrity of warranty agreements is preserved” for manufacturers.

According to the bill, independent repairers would be exempted if an improper repair is the result of inaccurate or incomplete information from the consumer, the manufacturer, or a vehicle dealership, or if the repair was necessitated by misuse or neglect of the vehicle by the consumer.

Failure of an independent repair facility to reimburse a consumer, motor vehicle dealership, or manufacturer for improper repairs completed at the facility would be considered an unfair trade practice under Maine law.

On behalf of the Maine Automobile Dealers Association, and in support of the bill, attorney Bruce Gerrity said repairs completed by independent repair facilities aren’t guaranteed by manufacturers.

“Manufacturers have a great deal of control over dealerships,” he said. “As a practical matter, dealerships are under their thumb, and there are a number of standards they have to meet that an independent entity does not. The manufacturer controls, to some extent,t how much is paid for the dealer’s work by the manufacturer.

“We believe that one of the keys to the right to repair issues is consumer disclosure. If consumers know what the situation is, they can make informed decisions.”

Mark Gallagher, representing Maine Automotive Right to Repair Coalition member, Strategic Management Services, said he was testifying on behalf of independent repairers who weren’t able to speak at the hearing. He said they would call the legislation “a solution in search of a problem.”

“It’s very rare and not typical,” he said. “It was described earlier that a consumer would bring their vehicle to an independent repair shop if it was under warranty. A situation where that may happen is if there’s an emergency with a vehicle and they didn’t have access because of location or other reasons to get to a dealership. The likelihood would be, if a bill like this passed, that an independent repair shop would not take on the liability of fixing that vehicle in that emergency situation, which I think is a concern for consumers.”

LD 1468, which is filed as an emergency bill, would set “standards” for independent and OEM-affiliated repair facilities.

“[I]ndependent motor vehicle repair shops must be aligned with original equipment manufacturer repairer standards to maintain safety, reliability, and consumer trust; and a lack of standardized training and certification may lead to inconsistent repair practices, which could undermine vehicle performance, safety systems, and warranty compliance,” the bill states.

It would require continued education, defined in the bill as “ongoing training for a repair technician to be current with advancements in motor vehicle technology and repair methods” for independent and OEM-affiliated repair facilities.

“This is an emergency measure that reflects the urgent need to protect the safety and security of Maine’s drivers as our vehicles become increasingly complex and connected,” Collamore told the committee. “Specifically, this bill addresses a growing risk area, telematics. As you know, Maine has taken both steps to require consumer and independent entity access to vehicle telematics data. With it comes a serious responsibility when access is granted to sophisticated systems in modern vehicles, including brake control, steering sensors, crash avoidance systems, and real-time diagnostics.

“It is essential that the technicians and facilities handling that data meet clear standards. Telematics systems are not just convenience features. They are deeply integrated into critical safety operations of the vehicle.”

The bill would also require that minimum OEM equipment and infrastructure requirements be met by OEM repair facilities, including:

• • Diagnostic tools and software;
  • Welding and structural repair equipment; and
  • A climate-controlled paint booth and refinishing system compliant with environmental laws, rules, and regulations.

OEM repair facility technicians would have to be certified and required to complete annual training by a nationally recognized interindustry conference on automobile collision repair, updates on advanced driver assistance system repairs, and electric vehicle-specific repair if the repair facility repairs EVs.

OEM repair facilities would be required to register annually with the Secretary of State, who would maintain and make available on a public website a registry of all registered OEM repair facilities.

The Secretary of State would also conduct random inspections and audits of OEM repair facilities to ensure compliance and respond to complaints from the public.

If passed, violations of the law would cost up to $5,000 each and require mandatory corrective action and a timeline for compliance submitted to the Secretary of State. Registration would be revoked for repeated violations.

Gallagher also testified in opposition to LD 1468 calling it “anti-consumer choice” and “anti-small business.”

“We also believe that it only aids corporate automakers when it comes to consumers and whether or not they have a choice as to who repairs their vehicles,” he said.

In written testimony to the committee, Wayne Weikel, state government affairs president for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators), states that “our members view independent repairers as partners in service to their shared customers.”

“We know that well-equipped shops with well-trained technicians are capable of providing safe and proper repairs, regardless of whether that is within an automaker’s authorized dealer network or not,” he wrote. “In fact, one of the most prominent cases that has drawn public attention to the importance of utilizing automaker repair procedures when completing any repair involved a dealer-based collision shop. In Seebachan v. Eagle Collision, a $42 million verdict was handed down to the plaintiffs after suffering life-altering injuries as a result of improper repairs.

“In our experience, independent repairers want to be able to do the work for which they have trained and be properly paid for those services. That necessitates access and commitment to relevant training courses, sufficient reimbursement to attract and retain staff, and funds to appropriately equip their shop to meet the needs of their customers. It also requires navigating external actors to ensure vehicle service data can be used as intended – to complete a safe and proper repair — as requested by the vehicle owner.”

The written testimony notes its signing of a national “landmark agreement” in 2023 with the Automotive Service Association and the Society of Collision Repair Specialists because of OEMs’ “understanding that independent repairers are the first choice for many consumers.”

“This national commitment preserves competition in the repair industry by securing continued access to the necessary tools, information, and data required for vehicle repairs; establishing pathways to adapt to future technological advancements in the industry; and committing to jointly push federal legislation to effectuate these goals,” Weikel wrote. “Lawmakers should have confidence in the fact that repairers and manufacturers are committed to collaboration on this issue.”

The Maine Joint Committee on Housing and Economic Development work session on the proposed bills to amend the state’s vehicle data access law ended with a vote on an amendment to add a definitions section, eliminate the previously proposed “independent entity,” and utilize telematics language which largely mirrors proposals in the SAFE Repair federal framework championed by automakers and repairers. The amendment passed unanimously with five members absent.

Images

Featured image: Maine State House (Credit: Sean Pavone/iStock)