Here's how to get Right to Repair law passed

The automotive aftermarket industry is closely watching its second, serious attempt to turn the Right to Repair Act from bill into law — and we are going about it all wrong.

The latest version is on life support — through no fault of own — with an 80% chance of its dying on the table this congressional session. But like anything in the automotive world, there is always a fix.

So how do we repair the legislation for the next reboot in the 119th Congress? Like any car or truck in our service bay, here's how: following the steps to success.

First, we need to investigate the contents of the bill. Oh … did I use the word "bill" in the singular context. Forgive me. There are multiple automotive repair bills circulating in the present-day 118th Congress.

And unlike the early 2000s, there are more consumer right to repair bills that surfaced post-pandemic. The first serious attempt in decades was in the hands of the 117th Congress.

Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., introduced the automotive industry's HB6570 Right to Repair. Meanwhile, there was a little confusion as there was another bill circulating, identified as HB4006, which covered the "right to repair" everything else but cars and light trucks. The docs were passed among members of the House and died a lonesome death with only 16 congressional members supporting the measure.

Not to be outdone by fellow delegates, more legislators came up with their own version of automotive fair access to repair versions in the 118th Congress:

• 2024 HR8544 — Fair REPAIR Act, Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y.— a revision of defunct HB6570;
• 2024 HR906 — REPAIR Act, Rep. Neal Dunn, R-Fla. — another revision of defunct HB6570;

These bills — along with more than 18,000-plus potential legislation docs — are on the chopping block. While HR906 has a higher probability rate than HR8544 to move into committee, its lifespan is limited — extremely limited — to the congressional session when it is introduced. The 119th Congress takes their oath Jan. 3, 2025, less than 60 days away.

Now, we have multiple automotive repair act bills, and more to pen. Therefore, when someone asks for your support on automotive rights to repair legislation, which one are they talking about? Or do they even know that there are multiple, similarly structured documents floating around the Capital?

And how does the average legislator know which one serves mom and pop shops, technicians and support personnel best? Easy answer to all: In general, they don't know.

Most lawmakers never have picked up a wrench, let alone understood a repair invoice on their car or truck. How do I know this? It's all about knowing your history and your audience.

About 20 years ago, I was member of a roundtable committee — comprising other local business owners, state representatives, and members of Congress — discussing the overall status of Southwest Florida.

The primary topics of conversation focused on the booming regional economic outlook to subsequent infrastructure issues from uncontrolled growth. It was around the same time that one of the first Right to Repair bills was circulating Congress. And it just so happened that our local Washington voice was in the group: Congressman Connie Mack III (R-Fla.).

Of course, I had to ask his stance on the (original) potential legislation floating around the house halls, accompanied by NASCAR celebrities and others associated within the automotive community to promote our cause for reasonably priced repair data to fix our client's vehicles.

His response: Crickets.

At that point, he was asking me questions regarding the congressional bill — a bill that made it to his office as he remembered shaking hands with a NASCAR celebrity. Had Rep. Mack read HR2735 "Motor Vehicle Owner's Right to Repair Act of 2003" by fellow Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, he would have already known the answers to his deluge of questions regarding the bill's contents to me — including how this bill would affect his aunt's repair shop choices for her Volvo maintenance.

Unfortunately, this legislation attempt was not recognized with the enthusiasm it deserved.

And fast forward to 2024: In the ensuing weeks, these bills will not make it to the Senate for vote; they will die the same death as about 16,793 other pieces of legislation this session.

What is causing the stall-out? Several things come to mind:

1. Paperwork overload: The insurmountable amount of legislation passed around the corridors each session nullifies importance, in some cases.
2. Congressional limits: Short amount of time to pass the paperwork through both the House and Senate. A bill will start to walk on its own only to be stopped by the Congressional time clock; new sessions start.
3. Confusion: Bills receive a new bill number, even if the topic is carried forward.
4. Public perception: Most vehicle owners do not understand what is at stake when it comes to the simple economics of losing the neighborhood mom-and-pop shop — a place they have been patronizing for decades — and the price-hike when their only option is the dealerships to provide needed repairs. Therefore, no support.

But the aftermarket automotive industry had one major win: about 50 years ago: the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA). This all-too-familiar law had a more challenging time during its congressional trip.

The 1975 piece of legislation had to fight for position in a pack of almost 22,000 pieces of potential legislation. Only 4% came out winners that session — including this consumer rights bill to law making sure that product warranties, including automotive, were spelled out.

At the same time, the law was able to put "some bite" into the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act to protect consumers' purchases. In the auto world, MMWA also provided protection for consumers' choices to where they had their vehicle repaired.

We are all too aware that dealerships boast to uninformed customers how they "are the only ones" who know how to work on said brand's car or light truck or how they use genuine parts and are constantly educating their technicians (leave out how the aftermarket technicians are in the same room at time of training).

And if I had a dime for every time I heard this through the decades at the shop — "If we don't perform the repair, it will void the warranty." — I would be living in Switzerland counting my money.

What warranty? The interesting thing is, when asked to put that statement in writing, no dealership service adviser ever will because it would be in direct violation of the MMWA.

The MMWA also requires that OE parts not available for purchase to the aftermarket automotive industry must be installed for free. Yes. You heard me right — and here are a couple of first-hand witnessed scenarios:

• About the time when lubricant chemistry was beginning to be a big deal, I ordered engine oil from the local dealership to perform the job. The dealership would not sell it to me; it said it was a national OE position. Therefore, under the MMWA, my customer received a free oil, lube and filter at the dealership due to this restriction of trade.
• Another instance was a part needed to repair a vehicle — and again — other dealerships would not sell the part, saying it was dealer install, only. Again, another one of my customers received a free part replacement due to a restriction on trade.

Thank you, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Meanwhile, there have been subsequent state laws enacted that reflect the original right-to-repair bill. Massachusetts is one such noted commonwealth that has been in and out of the courts regarding their version. I am sure there is more legal fun to come.

Part 2: It is all about our vehicle's data. It is unbelievably valuable. Do you believe the automotive industry lobbyists are going to want to give up this now proprietary information, needed for machine learning to the future of autonomy?

I can answer that in one word: No. And it is the lobbyists' job to make sure that coding stays in the hands of the original equipment manufacturer. (BTW: They are doing an excellent job, so far.)

But something must be done to protect consumers' ability to choose where they want to go for their automotive repairs at a reasonable price and reputation. And with dealerships charging up to $400 per hour for labor, the average driver cannot afford even the most basic of maintenance at those prices.

There must be competition for price stabilization and quality. Yes, quality. Those standards will be higher when more shops compete for excellence as the "Best Auto Repair" accolades bring in more customers.

The 119th Congress begins Jan. 3, 2025. It's a clean slate for both representatives and senators to submit bills, resubmit previously failed legislation attempts, and do anything else that can be conjured up.

But the next automotive "Right to Repair" needs to take a more conservative stance — think of it like the age-old question: How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

Maybe, the first serving can be taken out of the playbook of the MMWA … an amendment to reflect the automotive industry's growth through the decades. It is time to brainstorm and put everyone's name on the blame-line.

So, we do not get it "one-and-done" on the first try. But in the end, we will have the fix.