Right to repair advocates argue that repair restrictions increase the cost of repair.[1] Several commenters argued that if independent repairers were given access to OEM manuals, tools, and replacement parts, repair costs would be lower due to more competition in the repair market. For example, the International Association of Medical Equipment Remarketers and Services, Inc., (“IAMERS”) noted that “some independent servicers maintain diagnostic imaging equipment for $150–$250 per hour. When compared to manufacturer servicing at rates reportedly ranging from $500–$600 per hour (with a four hour minimum), independent servicing may offer a cost-effective alternative to hospitals and healthcare organizations in need of reducing costs.”[2] According to right to repair advocates, however, many independent repair shops do not have access to replacement parts, diagnostics, and other resources that would enable them to complete the repairs in a cost-effective manner.[3]
For example, right to repair advocates maintain that where non-manufacturer replacement parts do not exist or their use is not feasible (i.e., because the product will no longer function if a non-OEM part is used), manufacturers have effective monopolies on the repair of their product, allowing for repair costs to be more expensive than they could or should be. ABPA argued in its comment that “car companies are trying to create a product monopoly by leveraging new technological advantages gained through telematics from the cars and software partnerships with large industry players to eliminate parts competition. The result is higher parts pricing—leading to increase in repair costs….”[4] LKQ Corp. similarly pointed to the use of technology in cars to stop independent repair shops from using salvaged parts in the repair process: “With increasing frequency, vehicle manufacturers embed software restricting the reuse, repair and remanufacturing of an electronic control module or computer. This limits repair options to new OEM replacement parts only.”[5] Within the aftermarket industry, dealer prices for OEM parts are almost always the highest. Alternative parts, including remanufactured or salvage control modules, sell at a fraction of dealer prices.”[6] Ultimately, none of the comments or empirical research submitted before or after the Workshop rebuts the right to repair advocates’ argument that repair restrictions increase the price consumers pay for repairs.[7]
- ↑ See, e.g., Rob Beschizza, Fix a laptop screen? That’ll cost more than a new laptop, (Sept. 15, 2020 8:30 AM), https://boingboing.net/2020/09/15/fix-a-laptop-screen-thatll.html.
- ↑ IMAERS empirical research, at 1–2.
- ↑ Where non-manufacturer parts are available, competition can reign in cost, as historically exemplified by the auto industry. For example, the ABPA stated in its empirical research submission that “[f]or more than 60 years, the alternative collision parts industry has been offering quality alternative parts to consumers, typically 15–50% less expensive than car company non patented repair parts.” ABPA empirical research, at 2. Citing an APICIA Micra Report, ABPA notes that competition in parts had reduced the cost of auto OEM parts by approximately 8%. ABPA Presentation; IAMERS empirical research, at 2–3; Auto Care Association comment, at 3.
- ↑ ABPA empirical research, at 1.
- ↑ LKQ empirical research, at 4.
- ↑ Id., at 5.
- ↑ We note that the higher cost of repairs disproportionally burdens Americans in financial distress. According to the Federal Reserve, only 48 percent of adults with a family income of less than $40,000 reported that they could cover a $400 emergency expense completely using cash or its equivalent. Update on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households: July 2020 Results, https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2020-update-economic-well-being-of-us-households-overall-financial-security.htm (last visited Mar. 8, 2021). The Federal Reserve’s data also
40
