Last November, the voters of Maine cast a resounding vote of 86% to support the right to automotive repair. As with most ballot initiatives, legislation attached to that question subsequently became law. As the bipartisan House Chair and Lead of the Committee on Innovation, Development, Economics and Business, this law is under our committee’s jurisdiction. As we dove into the new law’s language and what it required, mandated and risked, it became clear that we needed to revisit this issue while also honoring the people’s vote.

1. The proponents deliberately avoided legislative review.

The Maine Right to Repair Committee drafted its ballot language with the help of a national auto parts interest group. Then it went directly to the ballot, avoiding the tough questions that would come with a legislative review. Not benefiting from critical scrutiny, the language could have been better drafted and considered alternate points of view. This manipulation of the system was done with the knowledge that voters would support the “Right to Repair” idea without being able to evaluate the rest of the ballot text.

2. Mainers did not fund the “Maine” Right to Repair Committee.

Despite having the appearance of a locally grown ballot initiative designed to help independent mechanics, this ballot question did not enjoy the financial support of Maine voters. Maine Ethics Committee financial filings show that 99.9% of the committee’s funding came from out of state, with just $1,290 of $4,921,290 coming from in-state. The committee was also fined by the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics for flouting the state’s 24-hour disclosure notice on major donations, specifically intended to ensure Maine voters know who is funding ballot questions.

3. NHTSA says open access to data conflicts with federal cyber guidelines.

In a letter sent to all automakers in June 2023, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that the Massachusetts telematics data access law – on which the Maine ballot question is based and which was also passed without legislative involvement – conflicted with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and “… poses significant safety concerns.” The statement added: “A malicious actor here or abroad could utilize such open access to remotely command vehicles to operate dangerously, including attacking multiple vehicles concurrently.”

4. Automakers already support consumers’ right to repair.

Automakers already provide all the information necessary to diagnose and repair a vehicle, which can be accessed through numerous subscription services. They also make available replacement parts and tools and even work with third-party tool manufacturers to create a diverse array of aftermarket options for owners and shops alike. This partnership with repairers was validated this past summer when the trade association representing nearly all automakers selling vehicles in the U.S. announced a significant agreement on repair data access with two of the largest and most respected representatives of independent repairers – the Automotive Service Association and the Society of Collision Repair Specialists.

5. Maine voters should not be penalized by bad law.

Unless the problems around telematics data access in the ballot question are addressed, automakers will have no pathway to comply with the law while still fulfilling their federal cybersecurity obligations. This tension has led some automakers to shut off all telematics data access on their vehicles in Massachusetts, which NHTSA has said could have “… its own adverse impacts on safety.” Maine voters should not be penalized because the Maine Right to Repair Committee opted to advance a misguided and problematic ballot proposal.

As representatives of the people, we are commited to re-evaluating this law and putting forth something enforceable that will address current and future barriers to the right to repair and protect the privacy rights of the people of Maine.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Opinion: Let’s pass a budget that commits to a thriving Maine

Next »

Opinion: Cumberland has done plenty to support affordable housing