identified. Moreover, manufacturers will have [a] record of the repairs, which can assist in insurance claims and/or criminal investigations.”[1] By contrast, Workshop panelist Kyle Wiens stated that manufacturers are creating liability for themselves by withholding information from third parties on how to fix products.[2] In addition, AOCA argued that manufacturers simply use aftermarket parts and service providers as scapegoats for issues that arise with OEM-branded parts and service. For example, AOCA asserted that automakers engage in this type of restriction when they issue:
a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) directing its authorized dealers to treat certain aftermarket parts as the de facto cause of problem engine symptoms that can be caused by a variety of factors including engine defects. The dealers forgo technical analysis and instead repeat the maintenance process for which the aftermarket part was employed—this time using the automaker’s recommended brand part. The automaker and dealer have not proven the particular aftermarket part caused the problem engine symptom as required by MMWA, yet the consumer gets charged for the mandatory maintenance including when it doesn’t solve the problem engine symptom.[3]
Other than these assertions of liability exposure and reputational harm, the record is sparse. In the Request for Empirical Research, staff requested data and research about “[t]he liability faced by manufacturers when consumers or independent repair workers are injured while repairing a product.”[4] Staff also sought data on “[t]he liability faced by manufacturers when consumers are injured after using or coming into contact with a product that has been repaired improperly by a consumer or independent repair shop.”[5] Staff additionally requested this data in individual meetings with manufacturers and trade associations. Manufacturers provided no empirical evidence to support their concerns about reputational harm or potential liability resulting from faulty third party repairs.
OEMs and the industry trade groups representing them argue that consumer demand and design decisions to service that demand, as well as consumer safety, are the drivers behind various physical repair restrictions. For instance, in its comment, CTA stated that:
OEMs[] invest in improvements to their product designs in response to consumer preferences. Such improvements may, however, involve trade-offs. For example, customer preferences for a lighter device may require the use of materials that are not as durable, or
33
