Balancing the benefits and risks of data access: new federal ‘Right to Repair’ proposals in the USA
In the European regulatory environment for the automotive sector, aftermarket competition and access rights over data generated by cars are important areas of focus, and they are ones that we monitor on an ongoing basis. But outside Europe, regulators in other parts of the world are also now coming up with their own attempts to balance the interests of consumers, OEMs and their dealers, and independent aftermarket players including repairers and others.
When it comes to automotive ‘Right to Repair’ regulations, the USA currently has a gap at the federal level. In recent years, a number of individual States have come up with their own rules around access to in-vehicle telematics platforms, with the most prominent examples being those in Massachusetts (introduced in 2020) and Maine (2023), both of which were finally passed following considerable litigation from OEMs and others, and federal-level scrutiny over cybersecurity and general safety concerns.
Now, however, this gap could be on the way to being closed following the submission at the end of February of the ‘Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR) Act’ for full Congressional approval, with the proposals having so far cleared more procedural hurdles than any previous attempts in this area. The latest developments have been welcomed by the independent aftermarket lobby, saying that the Act would ‘reinforce consumer choice, strengthen competition, reduce repair bottlenecks, and ensure that independent repairers can still service increasingly software-dependent vehicles’.
The REPAIR Act would provide a comprehensive national framework for access to vehicle-generated data, repair information, tooling, etc. Key highlights of the proposals include:
OEMs would be barred from using technological or legal barriers to restrict in-vehicle data access, and would need to provide car owners (and their chosen third parties – so including repairers) with the same data “in the same manner, time, method, and cost” as that available to their own dealers or authorised service providers, whether via the physical OBD port in the car or via wireless connections
OEMs would also be required to supply independent repairers and parts/tool suppliers with all necessary technical information, software, wiring diagrams, calibration data, and equipment needed to return a vehicle to its usual operational specifications
OEMs would not be able to mandate specific brands of parts or tools, except in the case of warranty or recall repairs. Any recommendation would need to be accompanied by a notice stating that “vehicle owners can choose which repair parts, tools, and motor vehicle equipment to purchase, and should carefully consider their options”
Businesses accessing vehicle‑generated data would need to delete it within 72 hours upon owner request (with limited exceptions), and they would not be allowed to use or transfer the data for unrelated purposes. There would be a narrow exception allowing OEMs to retain strictly anonymised data for research and development purposes
The Act would be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), with violations treated as unfair or deceptive practices. The FTC would be advised in this by a new “Fair Competition After Vehicles Are Sold Advisory Committee”. A formal complaints process and deadlines for investigations are also proposed.
European readers will spot many direct parallels between these proposals and the existing EU rules and guidelines spread across various pieces of legislation including the Type Approval framework, the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption, and the Data Act.
At the moment, the REPAIR Act is reportedly “alive and advancing, but is not yet law”. It can be expected to meet opposition, including a number of objections from the OEMs in particular:
The safety and cybersecurity risks of allowing expanded access to vehicle systems (including the potential for low-quality repairs)
The risks of drivers’ personal data (including location history) being misused
The risks of intellectual property around software, parts calibration, etc. being compromised
An increased compliance burden on both OEMs and their dealer networks.
These arguments will be familiar to those who have followed the regulatory developments in Europe, where they are generally considered to be valid (if sometimes overstated), but ultimately manageable, especially if the rules are written with care.
So, the REPAIR Act proposals are the most comprehensive attempt yet to regulate automotive repair at the federal level in the USA. If enacted, the consensus is that they could play a significant role in expanding in-vehicle data access and in strengthening independent aftermarket competition. But, just as in Europe, the keys to this will be exactly how this access is provided on the ground, and the extent to which aftermarket players will be able to draw on such data easily as part of their service offer. And in both of these areas, there is still some way to go before the picture is clear.
Image: Auto Care Association/RepairAct.com
Did you enjoy the Regulation Blog? Did you find it useful? Your feedback is welcome! Remember too that we are always happy to contribute to members’ internal work in understanding and preparing for regulation-driven change, so if you think we can help, just let us know!