As state-level right to repair laws in Massachusetts and Maine face legal challenges and two proposed federal laws compete for support, one industry leader is calling for OEMs, aftermarket groups and other stakeholders to work together to find a solution.
Brian Herron, president and CEO of Opus IVS, which develops scanning and diagnostics tools for the automotive repair industry, said legislation is good, but he would also like to see a modernized right to repair Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), similar to one signed in 2014, that addresses cybersecurity, telematics and fair pricing.
Herron said the 2014 MOU “kicked the can” on those issues, but now it’s time to “make compromises and deliver on the concept of right to repair: that the independent aftermarket and those companies who develop tools for the market have access to the same capabilities as the dealership, at a fair and reasonable price.”
“I really think it's the right thing for the industry to do right now,” Herron said in an interview with Autobody News expanding on an article he wrote on the subject. “In 2014, we were able to do it. We can do it again.
“I believe that both sides have an interest in sitting down and reaching some kind of an agreement, because there are always two sides of the story,” he added.
Massachusetts’ Right to Repair Law
Herron said Massachusetts’ right to repair law followed the 2014 MOU, “so you had an MOU backed by a law, which was helpful.”
The law was approved by the state’s voters in 2020, but was held up by legal challenges from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation -- a trade group representing automakers -- until 2023, when the state’s attorney general announced the law would be implemented June 1.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation requested a temporary injunction, which was denied. It then filed a lawsuit challenging the law, which was dismissed in February. In mid-March, the alliance filed an appeal, which is still active.
Similar legislation in Maine, which went into effect in February, is also being challenged in court by the alliance.
Herron said the Massachusetts law is based on fair access to vehicle data, as it mandates independent repairers have the same diagnostic and repair capabilities as dealerships. It also addresses concerns around the rise of secure gateways and telematics-based diagnostics, which could have limited or delayed aftermarket access if not properly regulated.
The law ensures secure gateways are standardized and not restricted by automaker policies, and allows third-party organizations, such as the Equipment and Tool Institute (ETI), National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF) and others, to work with automakers to ensure access complies with the open access requirements.
Federal Right to Repair Legislation
Currently, there are two bills addressing right to repair at the federal level -- one introduced in Congress, the other looking for sponsors to do so.
The Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR) Act (HR 906) was reintroduced in Congress in February by U.S. Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL). The bill was first introduced by Dunn in 2023 but stalled in a House committee in October 2024 after failing to receive the necessary markup to advance to the House floor.
A week before that, the Safety as First Emphasis (SAFE) Act was proposed in a letter to Congress by the Automotive Service Association (ASA), Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation.
A national law would override any state laws, Herron said, so if one is passed that doesn’t address secure gateway access and telematics like the Massachusetts law does, it would harm independent repairers.
“A national law could benefit us, but it would be in everybody’s best interest if all the parties could come to the table, and they've done it before, so I know it's possible,” Herron said.
The SAFE Repair Act “took the provisions of the MOU and more or less said they were good,” Herron said, even though it doesn’t address secure gateway access.
“The MOU that was put together said, ‘The aftermarket doesn't need to have [secure gateway access] if it can be accessible through a plug-in connection,’” Herron said. “Well, that may be true, but if a dealership has access in telematics and the aftermarket has to plug in to get it, it's not really what I would consider equal access.”
The REPAIR Act is “moving around a lot, and I can't exactly tell you where it is right now,” Herron said. “At one point, they excluded vehicles that had autonomous systems. I think that's come back around and been put back in again, but the committee just keeps moving what's in there and what's not in there, so it's hard to say exactly what it is. I think some people are nervous that it could end up not being what the industry needs.”
“National politics is just a whole different ball game with how things happen -- what you hope for versus what you actually get,” Herron said.
Why is Right to Repair Important?
Herron said he has been involved in the right to repair debate for more than two decades. He said several automakers “value collaboration with the repair sector,” making tools and data accessible to independent repairers on an equal or near-equal level as dealerships.
Right to repair regulations are needed to address the automakers that wouldn’t comply otherwise, Herron said, and to help those that do by providing justification to allocating resources and making repair-access initiatives a priority.
In 2018, Herron explained, Stellantis introduced its Secure Gateway Module (SGW), which limited diagnostic functionality outside the OEM network, causing non-OEM scan tools to lose code clearing and bidirectional capabilities, leading to immediate aftermarket concerns.
Stellantis later created a registered-user system, but it required additional steps, such as account verifications, fees and licensing requirements. Other automakers followed suit, each with unique policies. Some also require proof of technician training, which can be challenging for small or remote repair businesses.
Recently, NASTF announced Hyundai and Kia secure gateway access will soon be available, potentially in a standardized way. Herron said this could be a positive step forward, so long as NASTF allows any registered aftermarket diagnostic tool to access the secure gateway, much like the Stellantis solution that was eventually deployed.
However, if NASTF implements the same stringent process it uses for key replacement -- requiring user identification, professional credentials and additional OEM-imposed requirements -- it could create barriers instead of solutions.
Enforcement remains a concern, as do the costs of OEM licensing for diagnostic data. Emerging technologies like Service-Oriented Vehicle Diagnostics (SOVD) introduce new complexities, raising questions about how to ensure equitable access to crucial repair information. Additionally, future regulations -- like NHTSA’s 2029 ADAS mandates -- will require that ADAS features remain fully functional post-repair or modification.
The aftermarket community must keep working with OEMs, regulators and tool providers to manage these evolving technologies, Herron said. Together, they can ensure innovation, safety and open access for all.
For a deeper dive with in-depth analysis on secure gateways, telematics, ADAS mandates and the future of Right to Repair, click here to download a whitepaper.
Abby Andrews