The international right to repair movement is cutting across industries, from tech, to telecom, and most importantly, the auto industry. The CAR Coalition is a group of independent automotive parts and repair companies, associations, and insurers. They’re leading the charge on behalf of consumer choice, transparency, and affordability in the auto repair industry.
Last year, the coalition launched a major campaign in support of the right to repair movement and key federal legislation, such as the Save Money on Auto Repair Transportation (SMART) Act and the Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR) Act. Under current law, the misuse of design patents by manufacturers has drastically increased repair costs for American vehicle owners, the coalition says.
I sat down with Ian Musselman of LKQ Corporation, a member of the coalition, to learn more about the Right to Repair and the role of patent law.
AS: Our audience is very familiar with the Right to Repair, but perhaps not so much with patent law. How are design patents connected to the need for right to repair protections?
IM: It's extremely nuanced. Something that really has not existed in terms of how to keep parts choice out of consumers ability to make decisions on how to repair the cosmetic features of their vehicle following a collision.
Design patents have been around for a while. The intention of a design patent really is to protect the original design of a system.
In the vehicle’s case, it would keep Chevy from copying a Ford Mustang, or Ford from copying a work that shows the design of an overall system. It wasn't necessarily to protect the design features of a fender or a bumper cover (as in the external appearance of a vehicle.)
So, part by part, those pieces of the vehicle, there should be the opportunity for the consumer to decide, when they are replacing a fender, if they would like a Ford fender or an aftermarket, third-party fender that is of similar quality and restores the vehicle to its original appearance.
AS: Can you provide an example of this in practice?
IM: Absolutely. I can tell you how difficult it has been with my own vehicle. I've got a 7-year-old, large family truck, I had left side taillight burnout. I took it to my local mechanic while I was getting an oil change and said, "John, do you mind throwing a new bulb into the taillight assembly?"
He said, "You know, these vehicles, it's no longer a bulb, it's an LED board, so you've got to get an LED board to replace it." I said, “Great, we’ll order it, slap it in there.” He came back to me and said, “I can't actually order it. You've got to order it from GM, and they won't sell it to me.”
I went to my local GM dealer and asked them to order the LED board, so I could take it back to John, so he could install it, and I was informed by the parts department they could not sell me that LED taillight unless they were the ones to install it.
I ended up purchasing an aftermarket taillight assembly for much cheaper that has the same functionality, but I really wanted to keep that same appearance and that just wasn't available, so having the ability to get access to parts to use the garage, and your want to use is extremely important to the consumer.
It's a way that we keep competition and status quo that exists today, which also drives down prices. I mean, today's inflationary economy is extremely important.
AS: How do we fix this problem?
IM: The Federal Trade Commission recently released a report, “Nix the Fix” report to what they identified in the automotive industry as the growing lack of choice for the consumers on how to fix their vehicles. What they pointed out was two issues:
- It's the increasing lack of access to data that's being transmitted telematically.
- it was the proliferation of design patterns in the collision repair market.
What they stated was there was a need for Congress to legislate or pass new law that might amend current design patent law, so tweaking some language here and there that allows for competition of parts is really what the SMART Act does. Then, the Repair Act would allow the FTC to enforce law that allows for competition in the repair market and access to consumers and, quite frankly, protect small businesses that exist in the independent repair world.
AS: How can we get involved?
IM: That's a terrific question. We hear that all the time from legislators: “What do the consumers think about this? What about those small businesses back at home. What are their opinions?”
Often, they don't have the ability or know how to come to Washington and speak to members of Congress who are working on these policy changes, so what they can do is go to the CAR Coalition website, carcoalition.org and sign up. There's a couple of buttons that they hit, maybe enter their zip code, and what will pop up is their member of Congress’ contact information. They can digitally sign a letter that goes directly to that member of Congress. It says fight for our rights, ensure that we have the right to choose. It’s only about three clicks, and it takes just a few minutes to become a part of the movement.
AS: How has support been so far?
IM: Two years ago in November 2020, there was a ballot initiative that was introduced in the state of Massachusetts that said, "Please amend existing memorandum of understanding on the Right to Repair to include updates such as over the air data transmission, make that data available to independent service centers, allow the consumer to choose who works on their vehicles.” That passed overwhelmingly with 75 percent support. On a federal level, where we see national polling, Right to Repair and specifically around repair and maintenance, overwhelmingly favored at 80 percent. That’s 80 percent of consumers who say, “We want to control where our vehicles get repaired and by whom.”
