Breaking down the REPAIR Act

If you buy something and it breaks or malfunctions, you should have the option to fix it yourself. And if you don’t have the necessary technical skills and tools, you should at least be able to choose who does it for you. It’s your right as a customer.

That’s a very simplified rationale for vehicle right to repair, and most would find this an uncontroversial argument. It’s also the justification aftermarket associations such as the Auto Care Alliance (ACA), MEMA, The Vehicle Suppliers Association and other aftermarket groups are using to get the bipartisan-sponsored Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry (Repair) Act passed.

Collectively, the ACA said the aftermarket comprises of 525,000+ businesses that employ nearly 5 million people and generate more than $500 billion.

An R2R agreement between OEMs and independent shops to share repair data has existed for over a decade and re-emphasized in 2023, but pro-REPAIR Act organizations want a more binding solution.

Without it, they envision a future where OEMs demand only their parts be used for repairs, and with a monopoly created, can raise prices. Along with the customers paying more, the aftermarket sector contests it loses out.

“Without the REPAIR Act, the automotive aftermarket will cease to exist in any meaningful way,” stated Bill Hanvey, CEO and president of the ACA, in his written testimony to Congress in January. Long term, he argued failure to pass federal R2R “will send prices skyrocketing, quality plummeting, and eliminating consumer choice.”

OEMs, meanwhile, maintain their OE parts have been engineered and tested to ensure safe and reliable performance.

“It’s not that we want you to have a bad experience and a bad quality product coming out of [a repair],” offered Johann Agebrand, director of product marketing at Volvo Trucks North America. “We want the right thing to be replaced. We want you to use the right parts replacing it.”

On the fleet side, we have reported that many fleets prefer using premium OEM parts for optimal safety and better total cost of ownership, but this argument is about the right to repair, not what’s the right way to repair.

But what’s the right way forward?

The current REPAIR bill prohibits vehicle manufacturers from creating technological or legal barriers that prevent the owner, aftermarket parts and tool providers or repair facilities from accessing critical repair information and tools, and allows the owner (or designated repairer) to have access to vehicle-generated and telematics data “without restriction or limitation.” Language also exists to dissuade OEMs from implicitly mandating a specific part or tool brands—a hedge to prevent monopolies and parts pricing.

This changes the R2R debate from who can repair a collision mitigation system or swap a fuel injector to what parts can be used.

Consumers already have the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act to allow non-OEM parts to be used without voiding warranties, but that does not apply to commercial vehicles. This bill does.

And instead of focusing on who can access repair data and tools, the more relevant question is who gets all that valuable vehicle-generated data? Technicians want access to diagnose trucks and clear codes, but the phrase “without restriction or limitation” has OEMs questioning the bill’s true motives.

Throw intellectual property and cybersecurity into the mix and things don’t just get complicated; they get ugly. The two critical and symbiotic sides of vehicle maintenance sector, OEMs and aftermarket, stand on opposing sides of an issue they mostly agree on.

But this fight could reach a resolution with the stroke of a pen, or more likely, President Donald Trump’s Sharpie, assuming the REPAIR Act finally escapes the purgatory of Congressional subcommittees and reaches a simple majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and the president signs it into law.

That’s a big if, as this is the third Congressional term that the REPAIR Act, which has the full support of the auto and commercial aftermarket, has been proposed.

Meanwhile, a competing bill has gathered significant support from the OEM side and organizations representing independent shops and collision repairers. It’s called the Safety as First Emphasis (SAFE) Repair Act. According to the framers at the Alliance of Automotive Innovation (AAI) and Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS), it’s everything the REPAIR Act is, but better, because it safeguards data and customer choice, expands transparency, and protects manufacturers’ intellectual property.

Aaron Schulenburg, executive director of the SCRS, said the SAFE Repair Act safeguards access to required tools and info, providing customers true freedom of repair options without giving out unrelated vehicle data or being influenced by insurers.

“There is even a specific section that provides both diagnostic and repair parity, providing independent repair facilities the means to perform diagnostic and repair functions in the same manner as dealers—including the capability to perform the function remotely if that’s how the dealer can perform it. Isn’t this what proponents of ‘right to repair’ claim to want?”

The real question is really which is the best and safest and most feasible option for the vehicle owners of America, from the struggling single mom with a rusted out Dodge Caravan trying to make ends meet to the third-generation trucking company owner…also trying to make ends meet?

To help answer those questions, we will be taking an in-depth look at both sides this week. But if you think you already have the answer, feel free to tell us at [email protected].