Federal Government Tells Automakers to Not Comply With Massachusetts Automotive Law

Federal Government Tells Automakers to Not Comply With Massachusetts Automotive Law
Automobile traffic jams Route 93 South in Boston on July 14, 2021. (Charles Krupa/AP Photo)
Bryan Jung
6/16/2023
Updated:
6/16/2023

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) told carmakers that Massachusetts’ right to repair law “conflicts with and therefore is preempted” by federal car safety legislation.

The announcement on June 14 may effectively end the state’s controversial automotive law that required car manufacturers to give drivers access to telematic vehicle data.

The Massachusetts Data Access Law has been facing legal challenges since voters approved it via referendum in 2020.

Supporters of the law said it would greatly enhance access to vehicle information and give consumers more choices when they need repairs.

Massachusetts Attempts to Provide Sensitive Vehicle Info to Improve Efficiency

The legislation required that carmakers selling vehicles in Massachusetts give consumers and independent repair shops wireless access to a car’s telematics, which is the digital information used to diagnose its performance.

Independent repair shops would be just as capable of fixing vehicles as authorized dealers if given access to telematics.

Technical data for all models of cars had to be given to independent auto mechanics not employed by the automakers and thus grant them access to sensitive information from millions of vehicles.

Carmakers have yet to provide telematic data to comply with the law, which has been tied up in court since it was enacted.

Kia and Subaru have reportedly stopped activating telematic services on their cars sold in Massachusetts to avoid violating federal statutes, but there were no reports that state officials have taken action against the two companies.

In a letter to 22 carmakers, the NHTSA said that complying with the law would violate federal legislation since it could make it easier for criminal hackers to interfere with sensitive data stored in vehicles or even allow them to take control of them remotely. It explained that the law “poses significant safety concerns” because granting more access to telematic vehicle data could allow for the manipulation of vehicle steering, acceleration, breaks, and airbags.

“A malicious actor here or abroad could utilize such open access to remotely command vehicles to operate dangerously, including attacking multiple vehicles concurrently,” wrote Kerry Kolodziej, NHTSA assistant chief counsel for litigation and enforcement.

“Vehicle crashes, injuries, or deaths are foreseeable outcomes of such a situation,” he explained.

Kolodziej stated that the NHTSA’s opinion supersedes the state law and “expects vehicle manufacturers to fully comply with their Federal safety obligations.”

Right-to-Repair Laws Face National Setback

The fight over the right to repair has been going on across the country over increasingly complex products that rely on electronic components, such as smartphones, farm tractors, and cars.

The order was immediately slammed by independent auto repair shops and other groups that pushed for the reform at the ballot box, with 75 percent of voters in favor.

NHTSA’s letter angered Tommy Hickey, Director of the Right to Repair Coalition, which was a prime mover in enacting the Massachusetts law.

“On behalf of two million voters and thousands of independent auto repair shops across Massachusetts, we are outraged by the unsolicited, unwarranted, and counterproductive letter from NHTSA,” Hickey said in a statement.

“This is yet another delay tactic the manufacturers are using to thwart the will of their customers, Massachusetts voters who voted 75-25 in favor of their right to get their car repaired where they choose.”

Hickey said that the Justice Department previously refused to assert the right to preempt the state law.

However, the DOJ submission of the NHTSA letter to the Boston federal court suggests that the government concluded that federal law takes precedence.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell refrained from enforcing the law until June 1, while its implementation was delayed by the challenges in court.