The Data Debate: Understanding Both Sides of ‘Right to Repair’

The discussion surrounding high-tech vehicle data access has only grown more relevant in the auto repair industry—but not everyone has the same stance on how to best handle the issue. While Right to Repair has gained incredible traction, some shop owners in the industry have concerns with how it may ultimately impact their day-to-day operations.

So, what exactly is the REPAIR Act calling for? Ratchet+Wrench sat down with Scott Benavidez, owner of Mr. B’s Paint and Body Shop Inc. in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and chairman of the Automotive Service Association’s Board of Directors, to hear some of the valid concerns he has as an independent shop owner.

In turn, Lisa Foshee, senior vice president of the Auto Care Association’s Government Affairs and General Counsel, offered some insight into how some of these concerns are being addressed by the Right to Repair movement.

Not All Shops Have the Same Experience

Different shops have different experiences with being able to access data. For Benavidez, his shop has seen little issue with communicating directly with OEMs for the data they need to repair vehicles.

But this process can look different for mechanical repair shops, as opposed to collision repair businesses, Foshee counters. It’s true that data access is typically not a huge roadblock for collision shops: these vehicles are often still under warranty, making it the automakers’ best interest to be compliant with collision shops. For mechanical repair and service shops, it’s more likely they’ll be seeing mostly cars that have aged out of their warranties.

Foshee cites a recent ACA survey in which 63% of respondents reported difficulty accessing repair data either daily or weekly. Additionally, 51% reported having to send up to five vehicles to a dealer each month due to data access restrictions.

R2R opponents have their reasons for being skeptical of the legislation as an answer, though; particularly, how government involvement will impact the operations of smaller shops.

“I think our biggest concerns were having the government regulate shops and regulate that kind of information,” explains Benavidez. “They do not have the capacity to do it. They do not have the people in place to do it. It was better to be able to problem-solve it ourselves, with direct contact with the OEMs.”

This relationship between shops and OEMs is what was outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding between ASA, the Society of Collision Repair Specialists, and many different automakers. The MOU has been a central talking point in the debate surrounding R2R, with many questioning if further action is needed.

Many have dismissed the MOU as a solution, though, as it provides no consequences for automakers not providing someone repair data. Nothing about the MOU is legally binding or compels an automaker to do anything. This is where the fear for many shops lies: not having an enforceable promise that the repair data will be there for them when they need it.

In addition, Foshee points out that the MOU applies only to data gained through a scan tool plugged into the OBD-II port, not everything that is transmitted wirelessly and stored virtually.

The way this data is wirelessly collected and stored was confirmed by automakers themselves in a statement to the United States Bureau of Industry and Security.

“Generally speaking, auto manufacturers maintain control of any vehicle-generated data that is transmitted to them,” the statement read. “For the data to be shared with other entities, the auto manufacturer would have to proactively share that data with a third party or authorize access to that data by a third party.”

Should Data be Shared for Free?

The topic of data access brings up another crucial point, though: is it fair to force OEMs to hand over repair data to shops for free? As Benavidez points out, it isn’t practical to force companies that have invested money researching and developing this data to simply hand it over, when even dealerships usually must pay for that same data.

However, the REPAIR Act doesn’t call for this data being given away for free. The language of the bill only asks that it is offered at the same price it is for dealerships.

“The REPAIR Act in no way asks for the data to be provided for free. That is not on the table,” explains Foshee. “If you charge the dealership $1,000 a month, then that's what you should charge the aftermarket. But at no point has the aftermarket asked for the data for free.”

With shops already having to compete on a plethora of aspects like customer service and trustworthiness, Foshee contends that the REPAIR Act will offer a level playing field for both dealerships and independent shops.

The idea of a level playing field is a dominant force behind the push for R2R. In that same vein, the bill also emphasizes the importance of aftermarket parts—something some opponents have questioned the motives of. But R2R proponents counter that it isn’t conducive to fair competition for OE parts to be the only ones propped up as a solution.

An Industry Looking for Answers

While ASA is not opposed to any kind of legislation promoting data access, Benavidez says that it’s important to try and make the process outlined in the MOU work before jumping to sweeping federal regulations as a solution.

The push for R2R comes from an anxiety many mechanical shops are feeling—small, independent shops, who may not have the relationship with auto manufacturers that others do—that they feel the MOU has not addressed.

Concerns from both sides of the aisle are valid. But the over 60% of repair shops surveyed by the ACA, who report having trouble accessing data, are still looking for solutions that they have yet to find.