Why Drivers and Mechanics Are United Against Automakers: ‘Right To Repair’ Explained

The biggest car news and reviews, no BS

Our free daily newsletter sends the stories that really matter directly to you, every weekday.

Email address Sign Up Thank you!

Terms of Service & Privacy Policy.

If you buy something, you should own it. If you own a car, you shouldn’t need permission to repair it. And if you don’t want to DIY, you should be free to choose where you take it for service—like your independent shop down the street, not just a corporate-owned dealership. That’s the real consumer issue at the heart of right to repair. It’s not just about dudes like me tinkering on old trucks in driveways; it’s about stopping automakers from turning your car into a secret scroll only the dealership can decipher. This affects every single car owner in America.

Quick Download on Right to Repair in 2026

Here’s the contextual download for anyone wondering why “right to repair” keeps surfacing in the news—and why it matters even if you never plan to touch a wrench.

• What it means: Right to repair is the principle that a company selling you a complex product has to make the information, tools, and parts needed to fix it available to you and to independent shops—not just to its own dealers. In plain terms, you should be able to get your car fixed without the manufacturer’s permission.
• Why it’s back: Carmakers and the aftermarket struck a truce in 2014, but that deal predates the era of the always-connected, data-collecting car. Automakers have since found new leverage the old agreement never addressed: proprietary software and the wireless “telematics” data your car generates.
• The current fight: A watered-down version of right-to-repair legislation has advanced in the House, but it does little more than write the old handshake agreement into law—while leaving the actual modern battleground, telematics and software access, untouched.
• The misdirection: The Trump administration issued a June 2026 memo pitched as “freedom to fix,” but it targets only emissions parts—a narrow, deregulation-flavored slice of the issue that sidesteps the real problem of automakers paywalling your car’s own data.
• Why you should care: Whether you wrench in your driveway or drop your car at the shop, you and your mechanic are on the same team here. Neither of you wants your car’s diagnostics locked behind the manufacturer’s firewall, because that’s what turns routine repairs into dealership-only errands at dealership prices.

‘Right to Repair’ Explained

Right to repair means companies that make complex products (like cars) have to make the maintenance information for those products publicly available. Put another way, you’ve got to be able to fix a car without direct permission from the automaker.

This was tenuously settled about 12 years ago. Car companies pretty much pinkie-promised they’d keep letting aftermarket parts makers and independent mechanics exist, as long as those folks stopped trying to protect their livelihoods with regulations. That handshake is now buckling under the weight of technology it was never written to cover.

Why Is This in the News Now?

The right-to-repair boat is rocking again because—guess what—car technology is a lot different than it was in 2014. Today’s automakers have new ways to weasel out of that pesky agreement with the aftermarket: proprietary computer wizardry and leveraging consumer data privacy against the consumer.

The 2014 agreement didn’t say anything about the telemetry and data a car could collect—it wasn’t really a thing yet. Heck, Tesla was barely a thing at that point. Now automakers have realized they can effectively hide diagnostic abilities behind a wall of proprietary data. Data that independent mechanics, let alone DIYers, could be locked out of.

Today’s cars are heavily computerized. They collect a huge amount of data, and they’re deeply, systematically interconnected—a burned-out taillight might cause your cruise control to fail. That’s not inherently bad engineering, but it does create the context for automakers to be all, “Sorry, you can’t change your wiper blades without the wiper telemetry logs, and those have to be kept secret, so you’ll have to come to the dealership and present your monthly wiper blade subscription code at the kiosk.”

I don’t want that future, because it sucks. Independent mechanics don’t want it because it will nuke their businesses. Automakers really want it because it could tap a fresh keg of what we hold most sacred in capitalism: recurring revenue.

How We Got Here

The Massachusetts Automotive Right to Repair Act was the first big-deal law built around this idea in America, and it’s basically where the right-to-repair saga as we’ve been tracking it begins. Massachusetts legally required vehicle manufacturers to give independent shops and car owners access to the exact same diagnostic tools and repair information available to authorized dealerships. That didn’t mean it had to be easy—a dealer-grade scan tool can cost as much as a decent used car—but the point is, you can buy one.

In 2014, a network of automakers responded with a voluntary, non-binding agreement—the R2R Memorandum of Understanding—that took the thrust of the Massachusetts law and extended it nationwide. In exchange, the aftermarket agreed to stop pushing for right-to-repair legislation in other states and at the federal level. It was explicitly framed at the time as decisively ending the industry’s long-running right-to-repair debate. But of course, when it comes to technology and policy, nothing stays still forever.

Worth remembering: that was purely a trade agreement between commercial entities—voters and consumers had no say in it. On the manufacturer side were the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers (since merged into today’s Alliance for Automotive Innovation). On the aftermarket side were the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (now the Auto Care Association) and the Coalition for Automotive Repair Equality—that’s the world of AutoZone, Advance Auto Parts, and NAPA. The same two camps are squared off today. And assuming you’re not an executive at a car company, it should be pretty clear the aftermarket is the side aligned with you as a car owner.

Who Is For and Against Right To Repair

Arguments in Favor of Right to Repair: The Aftermarket and Consumer Position

• You own the car, so you should control its data and its repairs. The foundational argument is about ownership. If the vehicle is yours, the information needed to fix it—and the data it generates—shouldn’t be the manufacturer’s to withhold.
• Competition keeps repair costs down. When independent shops can access the same tools and information as dealers, owners have somewhere else to go. Lock that out, and you hand automakers a repair monopoly, which is a straight line to higher prices.
• The cybersecurity objection doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. A bipartisan group of senators, citing FTC findings and independent cybersecurity experts, has argued the industry’s security concerns are largely a pretext—especially since the same automakers profit from selling reams of vehicle data to insurers and third parties, often without clear consumer consent.
• Modern repairs are about information, not tools. The real chokepoint has moved from physical access to software authorization. Fixing today’s cars increasingly requires telematics data, calibration procedures, and manufacturer software—exactly the stuff being left out of the current bill.
• This isn’t a niche hobbyist issue. Right to repair polls well across the political spectrum; surveys have found overwhelming public support for requiring manufacturers to make repair information and parts more accessible. Most people intuitively grasp that they should get to choose who fixes their car.

Arguments Opposing Right to Repair: The OEM Position

• Open data access is a cybersecurity risk. Automakers argue that piping telematics and vehicle-system access to any third party widens the attack surface for bad actors, and that a connected car is a safety-critical system, not a smartphone. Ford CEO Jim Farley has publicly made the case that consumers shouldn’t be repairing their own vehicles for exactly these safety and security reasons.
• Repair procedures are protected intellectual property. OEMs contend that proprietary diagnostic software and repair methods are hard-won IP they’re entitled to protect, not information they should be forced to hand to competitors.
• Modern safety systems demand precision. Miscalibrated ADAS components—the cameras, radar, and sensors behind automatic braking and lane-keeping—can fail dangerously. Automakers argue that dealer-controlled procedures ensure these life-safety systems are serviced correctly.
• Consumer data needs protecting. The industry frames tight control over vehicle data partly as data stewardship, arguing that loosening access could expose sensitive personal information—a concern regulators are, in fairness, increasingly scrutinizing across the whole industry.

The catch, which critics are quick to point out: every one of these concerns, however legitimate on its face, maps almost perfectly onto outcomes that funnel more repair work back to dealerships.

Where Things Stand Now

As of summer 2026, here’s the actual state of play. The standalone REPAIR Act (H.R. 1566)—the bill the aftermarket and independent-repair groups actually wanted—has been parked in the House Energy and Commerce Committee since early 2025. Then, on May 21, 2026, that committee held a wide-ranging markup and folded a narrowed version of the right-to-repair language into a bigger vehicle: the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026 (H.R. 7389), which cleared committee on a 48-1 roll call vote.

But what passed is toothless. Committee members stripped out the broader provisions on telematics and direct wireless access to vehicle data. The bill doesn’t require automakers to give owners or independent repairers access to wirelessly transmitted vehicle data. Instead, it essentially codifies the 2014 memo—applying it to vehicles under 14,000 pounds (every passenger car and SUV, even the electric Hummers) and empowering the FTC to impose civil penalties for violations. Making an old handshake enforceable isn’t nothing. But it’s a decade-old handshake.

CAR Coalition executive director Justin Rzepka put it bluntly, arguing that codifying a 2014 MOU does nothing to expand consumer choice and instead hands automakers a costly repair monopoly. His point: that old agreement doesn’t cover ADAS sensors, cameras, radar, calibration, telematics, or wireless data—all of it critical to maintaining a modern car. Tellingly, even the REPAIR Act’s own sponsor, Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL), has said the committee version doesn’t capture the original intent and that he plans to pursue changes on the floor. When the person whose name is on the bill says the bill misses the point, that’s the story.

What Happens Next

H.R. 7389 heads to the full House—all 435 members—but not as a standalone bill. The plan is to pair it with the BUILD America 250 Act (H.R. 8870), the five-year, $580 billion surface transportation reauthorization better known as “the highway bill.” The hard deadline driving everything is September 30, 2026, when current highway and transit authorities expire. Leaders in both parties want it on the president’s desk before then, so realistically we’re looking at a House floor vote this summer, then the Senate (working on its own version, complicated by the midterms), then reconciliation before the September 30 wall. No floor date is locked in yet; committee chair Brett Guthrie has committed to continued negotiations on the right-to-repair language before any vote.

The Politics Behind Right to Repair

Right to repair has a uniquely bipartisan appeal because it supports both citizens and small businesses. It’s a particularly interesting issue for the Trump administration to preside over. As both the president’s detractors and his supporters would agree, the Trump brand is all about business-doing and money-making—but it also leans hard on celebrating blue-collar life and self-sufficiency. Right to repair drives a very visible wedge between those two ideas.

After a recent meeting with auto industry executives, President Trump indicated he was down with DIYers, referencing a pardon for somebody who “got seven years in jail” for “fixing a car.” That framing was never substantiated; the likeliest referent is Troy Lake, who was pardoned after seven months—not seven years—of a 366-day sentence for illegal pollution-increasing modifications on diesel trucks.

Then, on June 29, 2026, the president issued a memorandum—not legislation, not even an executive order—titled “Lowering the Cost of Living by Promoting the Freedom to Fix.” It doesn’t enact anything. It directs EPA administrator Lee Zeldin to make it easier for car owners to use aftermarket emissions parts and repairs. And here’s the sleight of hand: this is emissions-parts right to repair, not information, tooling, and software right to repair. The essential fight—the one about automakers paywalling your own car’s diagnostic data—is about access to that data, plus the manufacturer software, tools, and telematics that go with it. The memo waves at the marquee and leaves the actual arena empty.

So what’s a car owner actually supposed to do with all this? For now, less than you’d hope, but more than nothing. H.R. 7389 isn’t law yet, there’s no locked-in floor date, and the right-to-repair language is still being negotiated—which means the window where a phone call to your representative actually lands is open right now, not after the September 30 deadline forces everyone’s hand. If you want a proxy fighting on your behalf, it’s mainly the aftermarket coalition—the Auto Care Association, the CAR Coalition, SEMA, and others—not the folks who build the cars. And when the real telematics fight comes back around, because it will, it’ll help to already understand that this was never about guys in driveways. It’s about who gets to read your car’s mind.

Got a tip? Send us a note at tips@thedrive.com