More than 60% of independent repair facilities report difficulties with routine repairs due to OEM-imposed data barriers - and over half send up to five vehicles per month to dealerships simply because their tools cannot access the necessary diagnostic codes. That friction is not incidental. It sits at the center of a widening policy fight that will determine how the U.S. auto repair industry operates for the next decade.
As vehicles evolve into rolling software platforms - transmitting telematics wirelessly, receiving over-the-air (OTA) firmware updates, and relying on dozens of networked electronic control units - the practical ability of independent shops to diagnose and service them has become a question of both economics and regulation.
Two Bills, One Fight: The Federal Legislative Landscape
The 119th Congress opened with competing proposals aimed at resolving what supporters on both sides frame as a consumer-choice issue but which diverge sharply on the question of how much vehicle data the aftermarket should access.
The REPAIR Act (Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair) was reintroduced in February 2025, backed by the Auto Care Association, MEMA Aftermarket Suppliers, the CAR Coalition, and CVSN. The bill carries bipartisan sponsorship from Representatives Neal Dunn (R-FL), Brendan Boyle (D-PA), Warren Davidson (R-OH), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA), along with 12 additional co-sponsors.1DA 25-418 Released: May 23, 2025 THE PUBLIC SAFETY ...
The Senate companion bill was introduced in April 2025. Together, the legislation would require automakers to provide independent repair facilities with access to diagnostic codes, calibration tools, and essential repair information.
Critically, the Senate version explicitly requires that OTA updates not render aftermarket parts inoperable - a provision directly targeting the growing concern that manufacturer software pushes could degrade or disable components sourced outside the OEM supply chain.
Days before the REPAIR Act's reintroduction, a competing proposal emerged. The SAFE Repair Act - backed by the Automotive Service Association (ASA), the Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS), and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation - also promises to protect consumer choice and preserve competition but differs significantly on how repair access should be structured, how vehicle-generated data should be handled, and where to draw the line between open access and intellectual property protection.
SCRS Executive Director Aaron Schulenburg stated that the SAFE Repair Act "meaningfully protects consumers' right to decide where and how their vehicles are repaired, and how the information that is available is used to restore safety systems, restore the vehicle structure, and to keep them and their families safe."
REPAIR Act vs. SAFE Repair Act: Key Differences
| Feature | REPAIR Act (H.R. 1566 / S. 1379) | SAFE Repair Act |
|---|---|---|
| Data access mandate | Full, equal access to vehicle-generated & telematics data | Parity with dealer access; tied to existing 2023 MOU commitments |
| OTA update protection | Prohibits OTA updates from rendering aftermarket parts inoperable | Not explicitly addressed |
| Parts mandate ban | Prohibits OEMs from mandating specific tool or part brands | Allows OEM vs. non-OEM consumer choice; equal recall protections |
| Safety emphasis | Addressed as a component of data/tool access | Safety restoration as the primary legislative priority |
| Enforcement body | Federal Trade Commission (FTC) | State Attorneys General / consumer protection statutes |
| IP & cybersecurity stance | Access subject to same cryptographic protections as OEM dealers | Emphasizes preserving OEM IP and existing data-sharing agreements |
A July 2025 national poll found that more than 83% of Americans support the REPAIR Act, with strongly bipartisan backing - 84% of Republicans and 82% of Democrats expressed support.2ASA, SCRS, AAI propose alternative to REPAIR Act | Fleet Maintenance
The Cybersecurity Dimension: Legitimate Constraint or Gatekeeper Strategy?
The debate over vehicle data access does not occur in a regulatory vacuum. The U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) finalized a rule in January 2025 targeting connected vehicle technologies with ties to foreign adversaries. Software prohibitions take effect for Model Year 2027, restricting ADS and VCS software linked to China or Russia; hardware prohibitions follow for Model Year 2030. Starting with Model Year 2027, manufacturers with ties to foreign adversaries will also be barred from selling passenger vehicles in the U.S.
The BIS rule increases scrutiny of designated foreign adversaries - particularly China and Russia - in connected vehicles, covering both hardware and software and rolling out in phases from 2027 to 2030. The rule affects automotive manufacturers, IoT suppliers, fleet operators, and telematics providers alike.
OEMs cite similar security principles to justify restrictions on third-party diagnostic access. Some automakers have argued that broader data access could "open the data floodgates too wide" and potentially undermine intellectual property protections. Aftermarket advocates counter that the REPAIR Act explicitly requires access to be subject to the same cryptographic and technological protections already applied to OEM-authorized dealers - a provision designed to neutralize that argument.
The regulatory environment for right to repair in the U.S. is growing increasingly complex, with state-level laws already in effect and a potential federal law still pending - a framework that presents both immediate and long-term challenges for automotive OEMs navigating overlapping and sometimes conflicting standards.
Economic Stakes for Independent Shops
Vehicle data limitations cost independent repair shops an estimated $3.1 billion each year, according to industry research cited by the Auto Care Association. As vehicle complexity accelerates, that figure is projected to grow absent federal intervention.
A 2024 independent survey found that 51% of independent repair shops send up to five cars each month to the dealer due to data restrictions, and 63% reported encountering a restriction on repair data daily or weekly.
The pressure is particularly acute around ADAS calibration - now a mandatory procedure for most collision, alignment, and windshield replacement jobs. The median initial investment to bring ADAS calibration in-house stands at $55,494, with ongoing annual tooling and software costs averaging $18,773.
Industry data shows that 47% of repair shops had to turn down ADAS-related repairs in the past 12 months due to insufficient capabilities, with 58% citing a lack of calibration equipment as the primary reason.
AAA research found that ADAS systems can add up to 37% to the total repair cost following a crash, driven by the expense of replacing and calibrating the sensors that operate these systems.
The high cost of parts, equipment, and technology has been identified as the single greatest challenge facing repair shops - a finding reinforced by industry surveys conducted through early 2026. One independent shop reported spending more than $400,000 in 2024 on education, equipment, and facilities.
How OEMs, Aftermarket Suppliers, and Independent Networks Are Adapting
The policy impasse has not halted operational adjustments across the industry. Aftermarket tool manufacturers are investing in multi-platform scan tools capable of accessing a broader range of OEM protocols, while independent shop networks are pooling training resources to reduce per-technician compliance costs.
Access to vehicle diagnostics, repair procedures, and programming currently occurs primarily through subscription-based OEM portals such as Toyota's Technical Information System, Honda's Service Information System, and GM's ACDelco Technical Delivery System - a model that functions but adds friction and cost for independents servicing multiple vehicle brands.
Independent shops report that roughly half of incoming vehicles now require programming, and the complexity of those services is increasing. Compatibility issues, software bugs, time-intensive procedures, and the high cost of keeping diagnostic tools current are cited as common challenges.
On the OEM side, manufacturers are calibrating their public positions carefully. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation maintains that vehicle owners "have the right to choose where they repair their vehicle" and that manufacturers already provide repair information to independent facilities. Critics note, however, that subscription-based portal access creates practical asymmetries that parity language in federal legislation is intended to address.
Training remains the largest single barrier to growth: 59% of shops say better technician training would make them more likely to bring additional calibrations in-house, yet procedures change so frequently that training quickly becomes outdated.
State-Level Action Fills the Federal Void
With federal legislation still in committee, states have accelerated their own interventions. Maine's Right to Repair law took effect January 5, 2025, though full implementation has stalled due to legal and regulatory disputes. The law requires creation of an independent entity to administer the data-access platform, but that entity has not yet been established - leaving independent repair access to telematics data uncertain.
Oregon updated its privacy law in 2025 to cover motor vehicle manufacturers and affiliates that control or process personal data obtained from a consumer's use of a motor vehicle, mandating compliance with state privacy laws regardless of the number of consumers whose data is processed.
As of early 2025, 20 states had active right-to-repair legislation, reflecting mounting pressure on Congress to deliver a uniform national framework before the patchwork of state laws creates compliance burdens for both OEMs and independent networks operating across multiple jurisdictions.
Key Takeaways for Industry Stakeholders
The legislative path remains contested. Two credible federal proposals exist, but neither has cleared committee. Shop owners and supply chain managers should monitor the 119th Congress closely while ensuring current diagnostic tool subscriptions cover OEM portals for high-volume vehicle brands.
OTA update provisions carry real operational consequences. A federal mandate preventing OTA updates from disabling aftermarket components would materially reduce rework and parts compatibility risks for independent shops. Its absence from the SAFE Repair Act is a key differentiator worth tracking.
ADAS capability is no longer optional. With 90%+ of new vehicles equipped with at least one ADAS feature, shops unable to perform calibrations are already ceding a growing share of service revenue. The capital investment for in-house capability is substantial, but industry data suggests a positive ROI within 12 months for shops with adequate volume.
Cybersecurity rules create parallel compliance demands. The BIS connected vehicle rule and state data privacy enforcement actions are reshaping what data OEMs can share, with whom, and on what terms - adding regulatory complexity that current voluntary data-sharing memoranda were not designed to address.
Bipartisan support is an asset, not a guarantee. With 84% Republican and 82% Democratic voter support for the REPAIR Act3New SAFE Repair Act Proposes Stronger Consumer Protections in Federal Right to Repair Debate - Autobody News, the political conditions for federal passage exist - but competing industry coalitions and committee dynamics have delayed action through three consecutive Congresses.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the REPAIR Act and what does it require of automakers? The Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair Act (H.R. 1566 / S. 1379) requires automakers to provide vehicle owners, independent repair shops, aftermarket parts manufacturers, and diagnostic tool makers with access to the same repair data, tools, and critical information provided to authorized dealerships - at fair and reasonable cost, subject to the same cybersecurity protections. It also prohibits OTA updates from rendering aftermarket components inoperable and bans OEM mandates on specific tool or part brands.
How does the SAFE Repair Act differ from the REPAIR Act? The SAFE Repair Act, developed by the Automotive Service Association, SCRS, and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, focuses on codifying existing data-sharing commitments and prioritizes vehicle safety restoration as the core legislative goal. It does not contain explicit OTA update restrictions or provisions against aftermarket parts barriers in the way the REPAIR Act does, and relies more heavily on state-level enforcement mechanisms.
Why are OTA updates a concern for independent repair shops? As OEMs push software updates wirelessly to vehicles, those updates can alter ECU behavior, recalibrate sensor thresholds, or change compatibility parameters in ways that affect how aftermarket parts interact with a vehicle's systems. Without federal protection, an OTA update could render a legally installed non-OEM component non-functional, effectively forcing a return to the dealership.
What are the main cost pressures facing independent shops from diagnostic access restrictions? Data restrictions currently cost the independent repair sector an estimated $3.1 billion annually. Shops face subscription costs for OEM portals, capital expenditures for multi-brand scan tools, ADAS calibration equipment investments averaging over $55,000, and lost revenue from vehicles referred to dealers. For shops without in-house ADAS capability, the calibration opportunity cost alone can exceed tens of thousands of dollars annually.
How are state right-to-repair laws affecting the market? States including Maine have enacted vehicle-specific telematics access laws, though implementation has been complicated by legal challenges and the absence of required administrative infrastructure. At least 20 states had active right-to-repair legislation as of early 2025. The resulting patchwork creates inconsistent operating environments for both independent shops and OEMs and serves as a primary argument for a uniform federal standard.
