A new right to repair law in Massachusetts recently got the go-ahead from a federal judge for enforcement. The law went into effect on Thursday, June 1st amid efforts from automakers to overturn it.
According to a recent report from Boston Globe, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell was given authority to begin enforcing the law despite an ongoing lawsuit against it. Automakers have asked U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock for a temporary restraining order to prevent Campbell from enforcing the new law.
“The people have voted on this and that’s the result,” Woodlock said in a recent online hearing, per Boston Globe. “I am loath to impose my own views on the initiative.”
Although Woodlock said that the goal of the law was “unattainable” in its current form, adding that its enforcement would harm automakers, the larger burden of harm was borne by Campbell.
The new Massachusetts right to repair law, which was overwhelmingly approved by voters in a 2020 referendum, requires automakers who sell vehicles in Massachusetts to give consumers and independent repair shops access to vehicle telematics, thus providing the digital information needed to diagnose vehicle problems and repair issues. Independent shops argue that right to repair is needed to fight automaker monopolies on automotive maintenance.
Although the law is supported by enthusiasts and independent shops, a group of automakers, including GM, are arguing that the law would undermine data security, adding that the law is poorly drafted and impossible to comply with. Automakers may still seek to implement a preliminary injunction against the law.
Back in 2021, the Biden administration issued an executive order encouraging the Federal Trade Commission to take action on restrictions related to right to repair issues, including self-repair for automobiles and other consumer goods. In 2022, U.S. lawmakers introduced a new bill aimed at ensuring right to repair.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more GM-related political news, GM business news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
More insane specs from the monster Vette!
Original 409 engine sourced from a boat swap!
Rough exterior hides a wealth of custom details.
But the model is still dead last in its competitive set.
Plus, a nationwide lease on extended-length full-size SUV.
View Comments
It is ridiculous that carmakers want a monopoly on the ability to diagnose problems and repair their shoddy vehicles. It should not take a law to make them do the right thing, Then again any group that wants to force you to take Onstar and buy a subscription for heated seats knows no bounds to their greed
All of the fleets I work with have no issues performing diagnostic services and service programming, including warranty and recalls with reimbursement, and for GM, Ford, Navistar, and PACCAR. So I don't agree with your statement on a service monopoly. For subscription, yea its a monopoly, but I surely wouldn't trust autozone, NAPA, and O'Reilly and their Chinese hackers with access to any vehicle's controller network.
You are correct about those you listed but try any of that with a Mercedes sprinter and you will find it not possible. I work on Fedexs fleet of sprinters at one station and the only tool you can program or access detailed and needed info is a 30k Mercedes Benz tool that links directly to servers in Germany. Mercedes has been doing the same things that vw was doing but apparently, they paid the rite people off. What caught my eye to it was shortly after the vw scandal Mercedes sent out their own techs to all the sprinters fedex had and either replaced all ecms, dpfs,scrs,nox sensors or changed programming or a mix of both. They were pretty reliable but since they have done said work more problems arose with emissions equipment, also now when i read codes some of them just state oe code and it has a long number like 13 digits, these codes cannot be found anywhere. So, i would love to know why Mercedes gets away with it while everyone else has to comply.
That's one of the reasons the Federal government needs to codify the memorandum of understanding for service diagnostics and availability the domestic OEMs and many offshore OEMs endorsed and signed a decade ago. That memorandum has everything the MA passed law has with the exception of outside party wireless access to controller network with a standardized operating format administered by a state government official. The domestic OEMs endorse the memorandum, its the telematics access that's a problem. 13 digits likey isn't the fault code, it's a message ID line and data frame for a standard CAN bus Tx that has a parameter out of range. Could be an issue with the level of diagnostic software used, or deception by Merc. BMW is somewhat shifty for service diagnostics as well.
Nah, how capitalism works is that people avoid Mercedes like the plague.
I like the idea of right to repair, but it's unconstitutional. You can't force a company to make their product/service cheaper or more user friendly. Only in the sense of it posing a physical danger to the consumer.
As the Romans said, let the buyer beware. If Mercedes, GM or Ford make their product unfixable, well then it's time to go elsewhere
Unfortunately, most people are like the frog who is put into a pan of cold water and doesn't realize until it is too late that the water now is boiling! They want a Mercedes, they buy it and when the problems start is when they realize the water is boiling!
Get ready for the next money/control grab. You know those heated seats you paid for, well to actually use them you need to pay gir a subscription.
In July, luxury automaker BMW started selling some new eye-popping subscription-based services in various countries, included charging drivers $18 a month for heated seats and $10 per month for a heated steering wheel, features that critics argued should be standard.
Heated seats are like a $300-$500 option and where I'm from it might be cold enough to use them one month a year so at $18 a month it would take me 20 years to matter.
that is just wrong. If I pay extra to have a option such as heated seats, steering wheel, when I buy the vehicle, charging me money every month to use it is robbery. That is like going to the grocery store and buying chicken, than having to pay $$ to eat every drumstick right before I eat it. I paid for it already, it is mine, I own it, you do not. Same as showing your receipt at the door of stores before walking out. I paid for it, it is mine now, not the stores. They have no right to stop me at the door and ask for a receipt. Watch your security better as I'm paying for it, if you have any doubts.
One of the largest privately funded scams by big box cheap auto parts suppliers and tire centers that deceived voters into supporting a method that enables them to gain access to your vehicle via its wireless telematics to invade your privacy and direct market to drivers. There is no reason, none, that absolutely requires telematics as the only method to diagnose, service, and program modules and sensors connected to the CAN bus. All vehicles, even EVs have access ports for service communication to CAN bus somewhere in vehicle. OEMs, including GM, have been making diagnostic and service programming available via TDS and SPS to independents, fleet maintenance, and DIYers for years. Even the Federal Judge admits that the law as passed is unobtainable while allowing state enforcement. The only way OEMs have to comply is to shut off all outside the vehicle wireless communication, such has onstar, to vehicles delivered in MA. Subaru has already started doing this which has pissed off a lot of buyers. For new car buyers in MA, travel up to NH or down to CT dealerships to pickup your vehicles.
The only reason the OEMS have been making any diagnostic info available for years is because Congress threatened to pass this law back around the turn of the century. And the OEMs did so kicking and screaming all the way.
The depth of information available today adds a new level of concern, but saying you trust only the OEMs with it and nobody else seems short-sighted.
Congress couldn't have proposed this law at the turn of the century because telematics for wireless data transmission didn't exist then. Controller Area Networks were still in their infancy having only been in widespread adoption since 1996 OBDII mandate. In 2000 I was using a TechII for diagnostics on GMs which I obtained with software pretty reasonable. On models prior to 1996 the diagnostics were pretty
crude and most diagnostic work could be done with a paper clip.
I was talking about the agreement to release what the OEMs argued was proprietary information so a person with a scanner could decipher the codes. Congress was considering a bill to mandate that it be done, so the OEMs released the info voluntarily and not be bound forever by an actual law.
And, you're right, the CAN stuff was just being developed. OBDII had taken over OBDI's role, so that was the technology at the time. The proposed bill would have covered OBDI, OBDII, CAN, and whatever other technologies the future might have brought. The OEMs didn't want that.
What stupid money making idea is next? Subscriptions to us the steering wheel? How sad would that be. Watch, you heard it here first.