With new cars and trucks increasingly complex and computerized, repair shops need access to highly technical information and software. Everyone agrees on that. But one group of industry associations wants the government to make sure automakers provide the technical information and tools to everyone, while the other side argues for trusting the auto industry to make the information and tools available under a voluntary agreement. As such it is a battle between those incompatible ideals – equality and liberty. The pro-equality group argues that auto manufacturers provide full diagnostic and service information to their own dealerships, which make some 50 percent of their profits from their service departments, but not to small independent repair shops, which get information that is either limited or late, or both. This group advocates passage of the Right to Repair bill that would require automakers to provide the same information and tools to independent shops and consumers that it provides to the service centers at their dealerships, with the Federal Trade Commission providing oversight. The act was last introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, as a consumer-rights bill in 2005 News source: ProJo Meanwhile, the pro-liberty group argues that the information automakers currently provide under a voluntary industry agreement is adequate and timely, and that having the government involved through legislation would result in unnecessary bureaucracy. “It’s a philosophical difference; that’s how I would rate it,” said Steve Johnson, president of Number One Tire in Warwick and vice president of the Rhode Island chapter of the Automotive Service Association, which argues that automakers do provide the necessary information on a timely basis for affordable prices. He said the independent repair shops typically do not see new vehicles, which are serviced by the dealerships, and argued that independents have access to all the information they need through the National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF). The NASTF is a collaboration between the service, equipment and tool industries and the auto manufacturers that was established in 2000 to provide technical information to repair technicians. The ASA signed up with NASTF in 2003. “The information (text service bulletins and software updates) is available,” said Johnson. “It’s not often that we don’t get it.” Stan Morin, president of New England Tire in Attleboro and Warwick and national treasurer and past president of the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers, disagrees. “The difference is this,” he said. “There is no good reason for the car manufacturers to continue in this process.” As he sees it, Johnson – who is a friend – is too trusting, relying on a voluntary agreement by the industry not to favor their own dealerships. He cited a 2002 agreement between automakers and repair shops in Europe that went awry, resulting in the European Commission getting involved and forcing four manufacturers – Fiat, General Motors Worldwide, Toyota and Chrysler-Daimler – to accept a fine of 10 percent of their sales if they were found to be favoring their dealership repair shops. He said if the European Commission had to get involved to that extent, why trust the automakers on this side of the Atlantic? “We are willing to pay for the information, but we want it to be identical to the information that the local franchises are getting,” he said Morin cited an example of purchasing a 25-page service bulletin from one manufacturer only to find out that the dealership was armed with a 41-page bulletin about the same subject. “If there is a page 26, I want a page 26,” he said, let alone pages 26 through 41. The AASP supports the federal Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act, which would prevent manufacturers from withholding information necessary to diagnose problems and service or repair vehicles from owners and repair facilities. Other organizations supporting the bill include AAA, the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association and Service Station Dealers of America. They argue the bill would prevent an auto repair cartel through exclusive access to necessary information, increase competition and reduce auto repair costs. They add that it would also protect the kind of trusting relationship that consumers develop with their local repair shops, which are also often cheaper and more conveniently located. Morin told of his 84-year old mother-in-law who wanted to have her vehicle serviced at her neighborhood service station – “the owner is her former paper boy” – but who was told by the dealership that “we are the only place where you can get your car fixed.” He said it was not currently possible to complain to the Better Business Bureau or the office of the Massachusetts Attorney General because there is currently “no functioning law.” But he said a state Right to Repair bill has been introduced in Massachusetts and foresees a push to establish one in Rhode Island if Massachusetts makes it law. On the other hand, industry groups such as Johnson’s ASA and the National Automobile Dealers Association stand by their agreement with carmakers to provide technical information and tools. They argue that the Right to Repair Act would affect manufacturers’ ability to control the quality of work on their vehicles and lead to unnecessary monitoring by the Federal Trade Commission. They are also concerned the bill might require the release of proprietary information. Indeed, they argue that independent service shops as well as vehicle owners already have the right, through a voluntary agreement following a ruling by the Supreme Court, to access the diagnostic information and tools (read software) needed to maintain their cars and trucks. And perhaps most of all, this group has a distrust of government involvement and regulations. “There is no need to regulate the information that is coming out,” Johnson said. “It would be a nightmare.”