Right to Repair: The cost of access

In Part 1 of our Right to Repair series, we took a look at the federal legislative push to transform access to vehicle data from a privilege granted through OEM agreements into a legally protected right. Part 2 explored the more contentious question of whether independent shops are truly being locked out of repairs or whether, as some opponents argue, the existing system already provides the access for those willing to invest in the proper tools and training.

The answer, as with most things involving modern commercial vehicles, is not simple.

Even without legislation in place, shops are already repairing increasingly complex vehicles every day. The modern Right to Repair debate is no longer only about whether the door to vehicle data is open. For many shops, the argument is whether the cost of getting the key has become too high.

Subscription as a disservice?

From a business perspective, Right to Repair is a growth enabler for independent shops. The ability to diagnose vehicles faster, complete repairs without dealer handoffs, and reduce administrative complexity translates directly into increased shop throughput.

Tony Mercury, vice president of operations at Autoshop Solutions, which was acquired by Shop-Ware provider Vehlo, described the current challenge facing all‑makes shops. “Right now, all‑makes shops are juggling a bunch of OEM subscriptions just to cover different vehicles, and it gets expensive and inefficient,” he explained.

Mercury argued that standardized access would streamline that environment. “Right to Repair would basically give shops direct access to the same OEM data, tools, and parts, so they aren’t relying on dealerships, and that would help speed up repairs, cut costs, and improve margins,” he offered.

The current inefficiencies in the absence of Right to Repair legislation extend beyond subscription costs. Proponents argue that delays caused by incomplete diagnostics, module lockouts, or the need to outsource jobs introduce downtime that impacts both shops and their fleet customers. According to the pro-REPAIR Act group Commercial Vehicle Solutions Network (CVSN), rising repair costs, reduced fleet uptime, and limited repair options—particularly in rural or underserved areas—are among the key issues the legislation would address.

One of the most persistent challenges for commercial vehicle shops is managing the complex ecosystem of OEM software subscriptions needed to work across brands. High‑performing shops have responded by turning to advanced aftermarket diagnostic platforms designed for breadth rather than brand specificity.

That inefficiency is not trivial. Some shops must maintain access to dozens of OEM systems, each with its own pricing model, interface, and limitations. Ben Johnson, vice president of the general automotive repair segment at Repairify, highlighted the scale of the challenge. “It’s unrealistic to expect an aftermarket shop to buy 22 tools to cover all the manufacturers,” he said.

According to Jason Hedman, product manager at Noregon, shops frequently use an aftermarket diagnostic tool like JPRO during intake or triage to identify issues across the entire vehicle. Because JPRO supports all makes and models of commercial vehicles, it enables technicians of varying skill levels to diagnose and troubleshoot most issues within a single application. “Having a tool with such broad coverage allows shops to greatly reduce their subscription count while keeping more repairs in‑house,” he explained.

Currently, many independent shops are forced into a fragmented workflow. They must navigate multiple OEM portals, pay for numerous subscriptions, and then they still encounter gaps in data access. In some cases, this leads to outsourcing repairs to dealerships, particularly for advanced systems or sensor-related issues. Standardized data access would reduce friction in workflows, and less dependency on OEM dealerships would translate into more predictable operations.

Reducing reliance on OEM subscriptions has practical benefits as well. Each additional subscription also leads to training requirements and update management. A consolidated diagnostic environment, by contrast, simplifies shop operations while maintaining coverage.

Larger multi‑location repair networks often take this consolidation further by using managed services for things such as diagnostic tool management, where companies like Noregon oversee software updates, licensing, and device security across an entire fleet of shop tools. This approach ensures that diagnostic hardware is always active, updated, and ready to use.

Scan tools and software

Even as legislative efforts to enact the REPAIR Act make their way through the federal bureaucracy, technology continues to reshape how commercial vehicles are serviced. Modern scan tools and telematics platforms increasingly bridge gaps in data access, sometimes matching and, in specific cases, exceeding traditional OEM diagnostics.

VoyoMotive built VOYOLink, for example, to extract advanced vehicle data typically available only through scan tools or engineering systems.

Peter Yorke, co-founder and CEO of the company, claimed that OEMs have told congressional subcommittees that open systems are “magical thinking” and cannot exist—“except we built it.”

Yorke explained that standard telematics largely provides generic data and GPS, while VOYOLink was designed to retrieve manufacturer‑level information useful for independent service facilities. He added the software, which, when connected to shop management software and a third-party telematics provider, has the capability to get repair quotes from three different shops to get price transparency. “All we need are access to the API’s for the OEMs, and we’d have it up and running in a couple of months,” Yorke asserted.

For a real‑world example of how advanced diagnostics and telematics directly improve shop performance, Mitchell 1 highlighted how South Florida Mobile Auto Repair, an on‑site fleet management and repair company, integrated VOYOLink with their Manager SE and Manager SE Truck Edition.

By receiving real‑time vehicle health alerts and diagnostic codes directly into its shop management workflow, the business became more proactive and efficient. According to an internal analysis by Mitchell 1, following the VOYOLink integration, revenue per vehicle increased by up to 30% due to more frequent calls and higher revenue per service event.

Scott LaPolla, owner of South Florida Mobile Auto Repair, described the approach as “a game‑changer,” noting that it enabled the shop to add two technicians and mobile service vehicles to manage growing demand. The integration also provided South Florida Mobile to schedule services only when needed, perform more proactive maintenance, and significantly reduce downtime for fleet customers.

Broader Implications

That is one case, and perhaps the tip of the iceberg when it comes to unlocking efficiency with the new technology available. Providing more data and transparency tends to have a multiplier effect, and with AI’s potential to remotely diagnose faults, schedule repairs, and order parts, the future could have a lot less unplanned downtime.

And maybe that is why the Right to Repair debate has not been settled. If technology naturally lowers the amount of expensive repairs and time in the shop, the repair industry overall will generate less revenue.

In that context, the REPAIR Act is not just a regulatory debate. It is about defining what the repair industry will look like decades from now and hoping lawmakers are forward-thinking enough to plan for an increasingly digitized industry. The Constitution was built to outlast the whims and trends of any era; repair legislation should be able to handle what’s next in vehicle repair, including how AI and autonomous vehicles will impact the sector.

“Right to Repair is fundamentally about operational effectiveness,” offered Cavan Robinson, vice president of operations at Vehlo. “With standardized access, shops can move faster, reduce cycle times, and deliver more consistent outcomes.”

He noted that, conversely, without the right to repair, fleets and shops will have to think and spend their way to equal repair rights.

“They will continue investing in all‑makes platforms and workarounds, which can be effective, but are still constrained by a system that wasn’t designed for efficiency,” he concluded.