This article was originally published in Law360 on July 30, 2026
As H.R. 1566, which prohibits vehicle manufacturers from employing technology that impairs owners from accessing vehicle-generated data, passes through the U.S. House of Representatives, there is now a new opportunity to consider the right to repair.
This issue has come to the forefront for consumer protection advocates pushing for right-to-repair legislation, including a broad coalition of consumer advocacy groups, independent repair businesses, climate activists and lawmakers.
Advocates argue that individuals and independent shops must have legal access to the parts, diagnostic tools and software needed to fix their own electronics, vehicles and equipment.
Opponents of right-to-repair legislation include car manufacturers, original equipment manufacturers and their industry trade groups. Opponents argue that mandated access to parts and diagnostic tools compromises cybersecurity, intellectual property and consumer safety.
As a result, automotive right to repair reflects a clash between consumer freedom and corporate control over vehicle data. As cars evolve into rolling computers, lawmakers must balance innovation with repair accessibility. The future of the industry now hinges on whether Congress establishes a cohesive national framework or if states like Massachusetts continue to force the issue.
Massachusetts sits at the forefront of right-to-repair movement. In 2012, the state implemented the nation’s first right-to-repair law. Its success led to a 2014 memorandum of understanding between the Auto Care Association, the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality and vehicle manufacturers requiring manufacturers to provide service information and tools to repair shops competing with their dealerships.
However, the memorandum of understanding specifically excluded vehicle data and did not adequately address patent rights owned by vehicle manufacturers and parts providers.
Last year in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper dismissed Alliance for Automotive Innovation v. Campbell, a 2020 lawsuit that argued that Massachusetts’ right to repair violated federal safety and patent laws.
Under H.R. 1566, owners of vehicles own the data generated by vehicles, thereby enabling owners, as well as repair shops that perform repairs for the owners, to access such data. The stated goal of right to repair is to allow consumers to select their preferred vehicle repair shops and to prevent manufacturers and dealerships from having a monopoly on such repairs.
H.R. 1566 prohibits a vehicle manufacturer from employing a technology or legal barrier that impairs the ability of an owner, or in some cases a repair facility, to (1) access vehicle-generated data, (2) access critical repair information and tools, (3) use a desired towing or service provider, (4) produce or offer aftermarket parts, and (5) diagnose, repair and maintain the vehicle in the same manner as the manufacturer and dealer.
The bill includes guardrails to protect the owners of intellectual property. Specifically, it states that nothing in the law may be construed to (1) limit or expand any law or right relating to intellectual property, (2) require a motor vehicle manufacturer to divulge any trade secret, and (3) preclude a vehicle manufacturer from employing cryptographic or technological protections necessary to secure vehicle-generated data, safety critical vehicle systems and motor vehicles.
The provisions of the U.S. Senate bill, S. 1379, are similar to the House bill but lack any protection to owners of intellectual property.
Specifically, the Senate bill prohibits a vehicle manufacturer from employing any barrier that impairs the ability of the motor vehicle owner, or in some cases a repair facility, to (1) access vehicle-generated data; (2) access critical repair information, tools and parts; (3) use a desired towing or service provider; (4) produce or offer compatible alternative parts; (5) install and use compatible alternative parts; and (6) diagnose, repair or maintain a vehicle.
Generally, patent rights afforded to vehicle manufacturers allow consumers to repair nonpatented parts of the vehicle but not reconstruct patented technology. Some manufacturers can restrict the sale of spare parts if the part is specifically covered by an active patent.
Patent rights afforded to vehicle manufacturers are also subject to the patent-exhaustion doctrine, which permits a vehicle owner to resell or repair the vehicle after purchase. Copyright law allows manufacturers to embed security measures in vehicle software that prevents third-party access.
With the groundswell of consumers wanting the right to repair and the freedom to select their own repair shops, and Congress attempting to codify these rights, we must consider how consumer rights square with the intellectual property rights of the vehicle manufacturers and parts providers.
In particular, under the Repair Act, consumers will have access to vehicle-generated data and repair information and tools, as well as aftermarket parts. However, the manufacturer may have patent rights that prohibit reconstruction of the products, or patent rights that restrict the sales of spare parts if the spare parts are subject to patent protection.
Similarly, the manufacturer will likely have copyright rights that enable the manufacturer to place security measures to protect vehicle software and prevent third-party access to such software. These types of intellectual property rights are not trivial and should not be ignored.
Ultimately, the evolution of right-to-repair legislation reflects a broader tension between consumer autonomy and the protection of advanced automotive technologies. As vehicles become more software-driven and data-dependent, lawmakers will need to balance innovation with accessibility, ensuring that neither consumer rights nor intellectual property protections are sacrificed in the process.
Whether Congress can establish a coherent national framework, or whether states like Massachusetts will continue to lead, will determine how drivers, repair shops and manufacturers navigate this actively shifting landscape.
In the meantime, attorneys representing vehicle manufacturers and parts providers are left in limbo, but should continue to vigorously obtain intellectual property protection on their clients’ innovations, regardless of whether these IP rights are eroded by future government intervention.
