MANUFACTURERS AND INDEPENDENT REPAIRERS QUESTION SOLUTION TO THE PROPOSED RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT
(This article was printed in Aftermarket Business on August 2nd)

   Opponents of the much debated Motor Vehicle Owner’s Right to Repair legislation have cautioned legislators and consumers not be fooled by this so-called solution, warning that it may create more problems than it will solve. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, and the Automotive Service Association have openly declared disapproval of the pending legislation which is backed by the “CARE Coalition”, a group that includes NAPA, Midas, CARQUEST, AutoZone, Advance Auto, JiffyLube, and O’Reilly’s Auto Parts.
   Last July, Consumer Reports reported that while the “Right to Repair Act sounds great on the surface...this bill many not cut repair costs to consumers, and it could compromise vehicle anti-theft systems and allow unscrupulous mechanics to retune vehicles to crank up performance and tailpipe pollutants”.  The article added that “a Consumer Reports analysis of CARE’s own data and of Congressional testimony shows the problem the bill addresses has already been solved”
   ASA President Ron Pyle states, “ASA is proud of the progress made for independent repairers relative to service, training, and tool information. The 2002 Automaker agreement provides our industry a model for information that  will assure repairers the necessary information for the foreseeable future. Approximately 75 percent of all post-warranty repairs are performed by independent repair facilities. This resolution ensure the continuing viability of the automotive service industry and eliminates the need for current and future legislation.
   To help resolve service and repair related issues independent repairers are encouraged to work through the National Automotive Service Task Force. NASTF serves as a forum to identify and resolve gaps involving motor vehicle repair information and tools. This national, voluntary solution has proven to be an effective resource for repairers and manufacturers alike, and over the course of the last six years, has managed to develop an effective forum to point independent repairers to the information and tools they need and to provide a mechanism to report and resolve the few gaps that remain. AIAM President and CEO Mike Stanton says, “We believe our customers should seek vehicle repair services wherever reliable and first-rate service is offered. Auto makers work very hard to make high-quality cars and trucks, and their reputations could be jeopardized if customers felt they could not go to the service and repair store of their choosing.”
   Alliance CEO Dave McCurdy adds, “Manufacturers recognize the importance of the independent repair industry and want to make sure that consumers have the option of having their vehicles serviced by the repairer of their choice.
  
SSRSOUNY Response: A cooperative approach such as the National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF) isn’t necessarily more effective in the long-term than the legislative or regulatory approach. Here’s why...

     A cooperative approach works only if both sides have something to gain and there is third party enforcement. Neither is the case here. . However, it is clear from statements made by the car companies that many of them only made this promise to avoid legislation. Once that threat goes away, we fear many will go back to their old ways. Further, the car companies and their dealers have become much more aggressive in marketing their parts and service to the car owner. According to the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), even though dealership parts and service department sales comprise just 11.8 percent of typical dealer’s total sales, it contributes 48 percent of the total operating profit. New car sales make up 60 percent of total sales, but only contribute 35 percent of total profit. History has shown that the marketing and competitive interests of the manufacturers will override their current promise once the legislation has disappeared from their radar screen. In addition, while the National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF) is a noble effort for the service industry and the car companies to cooperatively resolve information issues, no car company is bound by its recommendations. Since NASTF is operated by the manufacturers and ASA, there is nothing to compel cooperation from a manufacturer if they choose not to make their tools and information available. A company that is not complying is not subject to any penalty and there is no oversight from a third party. Over the long term, the NASTF can only be effective with the threat of strict federal penalties backing it up. Once car companies know that they could be subject to federal action if they do not fully comply with information requests, the incentive for cooperation will be much greater.