OEMs and aftermarket clash over competing Right-to-Repair bills

There’s no indication Congress has the same urgency, but headway was made Jan. 13 when the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade heard from experts on 16 bills involving technology, safety, and right to repair.

Bill Hanvey, the ACA’s CEO and president, represented the aftermarket side, which has been championing R2R for many years. Hilary Cain, SVP of policy for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, spoke on behalf of the SAFE Repair Act. They also fielded questions on other issues such as autonomous vehicles and catalytic converter theft.

In his testimony, Hanvey argued that indie shops don’t have the access to the data they were promised and it’s costing the customer.

“Vehicle manufacturers are increasingly restricting access to critical repair and maintenance data to owners and independent repair shops, forcing vehicle owners into franchise dealer repair facilities, where costs are, on average, 36% higher and repair wait times are significantly longer,” he testified.

For a business relying on commercial vehicles, like a plumber, three days of downtime means “three days of lost productivity and many disgruntled customers,” he said.

In addition, the executive also cited a 2024 ACA study of indie shops that found one in five repairs are sent to dealers “due to repair data restrictions, costing consumers upwards of $3 billion in added repair expenses.”

He gave examples such as one vehicle needing to be placed in dealer service mode to swap windshield wipers, while in another case, during a battery changeout on a new model, a dealer code was needed to reset the Electric Control Module.

More than half of indie shops surveyed by ACA said they send one to five vehicles to dealers for repairs every month.

All-makes tools have to work with each OEM’s “non-standardized methods of getting to the security systems,” and with fixed innovation budgets, aftermarket developers have to “pick and choose” what they can and cannot access, offered Ben Johnson, VP of general automotive repair segment for Repairify, a provider of diagnostic and ADAS calibration tools.

That leads to some makes and models being left out.

Sometimes auto makers do give enough access, and sometimes not enough to get into security-enabled modules, explained Johnson.

“If you pass the gate, you can get into any make and model and get to whatever you needed to get,” he said. The most reliable way to do this is buy the OE-specific tool, which can cost $2,000. Johnson noted all-makes shops can’t afford to buy 22 different versions. “It becomes pretty unrealistic to expect them to be able to do that,” he said.

Johnson said generally the auto side is good about compliance, though mentioned some European brands are “awful” in this regard.

Fleets and commercial shops have a tougher time.

“As far as I know, it’s been very difficult to get a non-dealer shop access to OE diagnostic tools in that commercial side,” he said.

Hanvey asserted why accessibility and supply chain integrity are crucial reasons to pass the REPAIR Act. Hanvey also noted there are 235,000 independent shops “on the corner of every Elm and Main Street of every town in this country,” versus 17,000 authorized dealers. These are far more accessible and available, especially to rural customers who might drive 100 miles to buy a vehicle but not to get it maintained.

Foshee agreed.

“If you’re hauling medical supplies across Nebraska and your truck breaks down, you can’t have it towed three hours to get to the nearest dealership,” she said.

Sources we interviewed also agreed data is being gatekept.

“[The OEMs are] shutting down key access to complete the repair,” insisted Shari Pheasant, who co-owns a 12-bay shop in Sparks, Nevada, called A Master Mechanic with her husband Jeff. They service a 60/40 split of consumer to fleet customers, and she said sometimes their diagnostic technicians “get about 75 to 80% of the way through” before the scan tool says a dealer code is needed to complete the repair. The shop must then send the vehicle to a dealership.

“And our dealerships are two months out [for service] right now,” added Pheasant, who was named 2025 Female Shop Owner of the Year by Women in Auto Care, an ACA offshoot.

While keeping some data from shop technicians, Hanvey alleged the OEMs “monetize [their telematics] data by selling it to third parties like insurance companies, ticket sellers, coffee shops and fast-food restaurants, or anyone else willing to pay for it.”

“The REPAIR Act doesn’t provide independent shops like mine with anything we don’t already have to properly fix your vehicle,” wrote McNee, a member of the SCRS. He noted his shop invests in all the tools and training needed to safely repair vehicles to OEM standards.

“The idea that independent repairers are being ‘locked out’ by automakers is not true,” he added, calling the lack of access a “myth” propagated by special interests such as large insurance companies and corporations that profit off alternative parts sales. He wrote the SAFE Repair Act, conversely, ensures access to info, tools, and training, while addressing the “real challenges” that customers and small shops endure, while supporting shops that “refuse to cut corners.”

According to Cain’s testimony, besides providing only the necessary diagnostics and repair data to consumers and indie shops, the SAFE Repair Act would ensure customers can choose between OEM and aftermarket parts, keep insurance companies from deciding where and how repairs are done, safeguard IP, and strengthen cybersecurity.

She noted in her written testimony that the SAFE Repair Act “does not limit repair access or favor franchise dealers over independent repair shops.”

This version would also provide parts transparency, the former director of innovation for Toyota argued.

The SAFE Repair Act, as explained by Cain, would also benefit potential vehicle buyers by notifying them via a repair history report of any “prior repairs, alterations, or deviations” contrary to OEM recommendations.

That is something Cain alleged happens today. In some instances, she said a safety system failed after repair because the shop skipped a step or used a cheaper part than what OEM guidelines called for.

“In many of these cases, the deviations were driven not by consumer preference or technician judgment, but by insurance reimbursement models that incentivized lower-cost, faster repairs rather than complete and proper ones,” she testified.

One specific case involved John Eagle Collision Center in Dallas. The shop did not follow Honda Fit roof replacement guidelines after it was damaged by hail and used adhesive glue instead of shop tack-welding it. In 2013, the car was T-boned by a hydroplaning Toyota Tundra. The owners were trapped inside, receiving severe burns.

Because the incorrect repair affected the crashworthiness of the compact car, a jury decided John Eagle was 75% liable for the couple’s injuries, and on the hook for $31.5 million in damages. Shop manager Boyce Willis testified in 2017 they “were guided by insurance” to make the cheaper repair. Not following their wishes could result in them “not paying the bill,” Willis said.

Aaron Schulenburg, executive director of the SCRS, said “the SAFE Repair act preserves consumer choice and puts the decision-making in the hands of the consumer,” not the insurers. He was quick to point out that several insurers, as well as the lobby group American Property Casualty Insurance Association, support the REPAIR Act and have spent lobbying money on HR. 1566.

Cain also theorized language within the REPAIR Act would open the data floodgates too wide and unleash “vehicle data far beyond what is necessary to perform safe repairs [and] potentially undermine intellectual property protections.” This means instead of licensing the rights to produce OE-compatible parts, the aftermarket has the data they need to make their own—without putting in the billions of dollars in R&D like the OEMs have.

The subcommittee was generally concerned with China, both competing with their auto manufacturing technology and preventing them from stealing ours.

“We are seeing a lot of intellectual property theft and counterfeit parts coming out of China, and our fear would be that…reducing the intellectual property protections in the law may encourage more of that,” Cain asserted.