A federal court has finally resolved a lawsuit filed by vehicle manufacturers challenging Massachusetts’ right-to-repair law, allowing the state to implement more stringent rules that give people more access to vehicle data more than four years after voters approved the measure.
In February, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper of the District of Massachusetts federal court dismissed remaining claims in a case involving the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and the State of Massachusetts. The dismissal is the culmination of litigation that included a bench trial that ended years ago, federal government intervention and a judge that virtually disappeared from the case for more than a year.
At the heart of the case is Massachusetts’ updated right-to-repair law. In November 2020, voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that gives vehicle owners and independent repair shops access to a vehicle’s telematics system.
With vehicles becoming more computer-driven, some have claimed that much of the data necessary to run diagnostics and repair vehicles has been inaccessible to mechanics outside of a manufacturer-approved dealership. The new right-to-repair law gives everyone access to that data through a mobile app beginning with model year 2022 vehicles.
In 2012, Massachusetts passed the first right-to-repair law in the United States. That law required manufacturers to sell owners and independent repair shops the same diagnostic and repair information made available to the manufacturer’s dealers.
About a year later, automotive associations signed a memorandum of understanding to apply Massachusetts’ right-to-repair law nationwide beginning with model year 2018 vehicles. With that context in mind, the question is whether manufacturers will agree to do the same with Massachusetts’ updated law.
Manufacturers challenge right-to-repair law
Just a few weeks after Massachusetts’ right-to-repair law was approved by a 75% vote, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation filed a lawsuit against the state to stop it.
The association – which represents some of the largest manufacturers, including Ford, General Motors, Honda and Toyota – argued that unfettered access to vehicle data poses safety and security issues. Manufacturers claim restrictive telematics systems prevent bad actors from maliciously accessing data.
“Under the guise of providing access to data necessary to perform vehicle maintenance, the (right-to-repair) law sweeps broadly to allow third-party access to nearly all data generated by vehicles—with negative consequences for consumer privacy, public safety and manufacturers’ federally protected property rights,” manufacturers stated in the lawsuit.
Furthermore, manufacturers claimed that independent repair shops already have all the information and access they need to make any repairs.
The lawsuit included eight claims:
- Preemption by National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
- Preemption by Clean Air Act
- Preemption by Copyright Act
- Preemption by Defend Trade Secrets Act
- Preemption by Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Preemption by Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- Unconstitutional Taking
- Preliminary/permanent injunction
Lengthy litigation and a judge MIA
Massachusetts’ right-to-repair law remained in limbo during litigation, which lasted longer than anticipated before a new judge had to step in.
A five-day bench trial began on June 14, 2021, and did not end until July 21, 2021. A series of post-trial delays, including several from Judge Douglas Woodlock himself, pushed back the decision date by nearly two years.
In March 2023, Woodlock dismissed counts three through eight but kept intact the first two – Safety Act and Clean Air Act violations. On Dec. 13, 2023, an attorney for Massachusetts withdrew from the case. That would be the last item on the court docket for more than a year.
Inexplicably silent on the case, Woodlock was replaced by Casper on Jan. 7. Casper expedited the case and made her decision a month later, dismissing all claims by the manufacturers.
As of Wednesday, March 5, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation had not filed a notice to appeal.
Department of Transportation steps in
Throwing a wrench in the works, the U.S. Department of Transportation weighed in on the case, siding with manufacturers at first but supporting Massachusetts’ right-to-repair law in the end.
Before the law came to a vote, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration warned state lawmakers that the proposed right-to-repair law would introduce cybersecurity risks. The agency said the new state law would prevent manufacturers from complying with existing federal guidance and “cybersecurity hygiene best practices.” NHTSA referenced a Chrysler recall of more than 1 million vehicles after a Jeep was hacked.
Just a few days before the bench trial began, NHTSA, under a new administration, informed the court that the federal government takes no position regarding whether the right-to-repair law is preempted by federal vehicle safety laws. The agency noted that the state law creates a safety issue that could prompt manufacturers to recall vehicles under federal law.
“DOT is concerned that the (right-to-repair) law potentially creates a similar serious cybersecurity risk to motor vehicle safety by effectively requiring open remote access to certain vehicle systems through the removal of existing manufacturer access controls,” NHTSA stated in a letter to the court.
In June 2023, NHTSA reentered the debate. This time, the agency definitively said that Massachusetts’ right-to-repair law “conflicts with and therefore is preempted by the Safety Act.”
However, the agency came back less than two months later, stating that after speaking with Massachusetts’ attorney general, the state law does not conflict with federal law.
Addressing the issue of cybersecurity, NHTSA and Massachusetts agreed that manufacturers can comply with the law by providing wireless access to a vehicle from within close proximity, such as through Bluetooth technology, without providing long-range remote access.
“In NHTSA’s view, a solution like this one, if implemented with appropriate care, would significantly reduce the cybersecurity risks – and therefore the safety risks – associated with remote access,” NHTSA told the court. “Limiting the geographical range of access would significantly reduce the risk that malicious actors could exploit vulnerabilities at scale to access multiple vehicles, including, importantly, when vehicles are driven on a roadway. Such a short-range wireless compliance approach, implemented appropriately, therefore would not be preempted.”
Federal right-to-repair law proposal
While the Alliance for Automotive Innovation is fighting Massachusetts’ right-to-repair law, it has reached out to Congress for a nationwide solution.
On Feb. 18, automotive and repair associations issued a letter to Congress to draft federal legislation that addresses vehicle repairs. The associations stated that vehicle right-to-repair already exists and that previous attempts of federal legislation failed to address safety and security.
Stakeholders have already written up the Safety as First Emphasis (SAFE) Repair Act. Provisions in the proposed legislation include:
- Independent repair shops’ must have continued access to the same ability to perform diagnostic and repair services as franchised dealers.
- Consumers must be allowed to decide where and how vehicles are repaired, rather than insurers.
- Consumers seeking a repair must be provided a choice of parts to be installed on their vehicle.
- Consumers who choose to have non-OEM parts installed on their vehicle must have the same recall and safety protections as consumers who choose OEM parts.
- Consumers who purchase used vehicles must be made aware of prior alterations or repairs that were performed in connection with a collision.
“By addressing these priorities, we can ensure all consumers have access to high-quality repairs
that uphold safety and transparency,” stakeholders state in the letter. “This path forward not only strengthens consumer trust but also reinforces a balanced approach to the automotive repair marketplace.” LL
Credit: Source link
