exchange, the repair-side trade groups agreed to not fund or otherwise support any new state right to repair legislation.[1]
The MOU has been raised as a model of self-regulation that could apply in the broader right to repair context.[2] Kyle Wiens of iFixit stated at the Workshop, for example, that the MOU is “the direction that we need to go in. And it’s a question of … do you need the regulatory framework. Can you do it in a voluntary fashion.”[3]
In addition, a broader right to repair self-regulatory agreement that would cover all products presents significant complications. Aaron Lowe of the Auto Care Association expressed his view at the Workshop that the MOU was generally successful because the auto industry is discrete, such that the parties are identifiable and could be brought to the table to negotiate.[4] As demonstrated by the Nixing the Fix docket and the far-ranging discussion at the Workshop, numerous industries (e.g. mobile devices, home appliances, tractors, medical devices and equipment) as well as component parts (e.g. batteries) are implicated by repair issues.
Moreover, any self-regulatory agreement would also need to be flexible enough to change or grow as the industry and products covered by that agreement change. For example, Aaron Lowe explained at the Workshop that the automobile MOU, while initially a sufficiently comprehensive agreement, does not necessarily extend in its current form to telematics.[5] Relatedly, on November 3, 2020, Massachusetts voters passed a ballot initiative that extends the state’s 2013 Motor Vehicle Right to Repair Law to telematics. The new law would require, starting with model year 2022, “manufacturers of motor vehicles sold in Massachusetts to equip any such vehicles that use telematics systems … with a standardized open access data platform,” that would enable vehicle owners to authorize “independent repair facilities (those not affiliated with a manufacturer) and independent dealerships … to retrieve mechanical data from and send commands to, the vehicle for repair maintenance, and diagnostic testing.”[6]
As the MOU illustrates, self-regulation can help address concerns about repair restrictions in discrete markets. But, no industry sector other than the automotive industry has worked to open repair markets through a self-regulatory framework. Ways to stimulate self-regulation in markets beyond the automotive sector, however, merit further consideration.
- ↑ Id.
- ↑ The Equipment Dealers Association and Association of Equipment Manufacturers, trade groups representing manufacturers of agricultural and off-road equipment, also engaged in self-regulation concerning repair issues. They released a “Statement of Principles” on right to repair detailing the steps they would take to expand the right to repair in their industry. See Press Release, AEM, EDA Announce Statement of Principles on ‘Right to Repair,’ Association of Equipment Manufacturers, (Feb. 1, 2018), https://www.aem.org/news/aem-eda-announce-statement-of-principles-on-right-to-repair/.
- ↑ Transcript, at 180.
- ↑ Id. at 183–184.
- ↑ Id. at 179.
- ↑ See Final Summary for 19-06 Initiative Law to Enhance, Update and Protect the 2013 Motor Vehicle Right to Repair Law, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-submitted-for-the-2020-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws#19-06-initiative-law-to-enhance,-update-and-protect-the-2013-motor-vehicle-right-to-repair-law- (last visited Sept. 23, 2020).
46
