“A comprehensive voluntary solution to the issue of information remains elusive,” then-Federal trade Commission Chair Deborah Platt Majoras itold Congress n May 2006. Regrettably her testimony would still be accurate today.

Citing the billions of dollars American consumers spend annually on car repairs, Majoras said, “Consumers have a significant interest in automobile repair and maintenance markets that operate effectively and efficiently, consistent with safety and other quality standards.”

Majoras acknowledged access by independent repair shops to information and tools needed to diagnose, service and repair vehicles is “not as easy or inexpensive as it once was.”

“Auto manufacturers have adopted sophisticated technology to improve performance, comfort, safety and security of their products,” she said. “This technology requires expensive computerized tools to diagnose and repair problems, as well as knowledge of particular software access or computer codes. Independent repair shops claim that it can be difficult to acquire all of the equipment they need to repair all makes of cars or to access easily all of the information required to make timely repairs.”

Majoras continued, “Generally, the marketplace will provide strong incentives for automobile manufacturers to ensure that their customers have an appropriate range of repair options because manufacturers depend on repeat purchases of their products. With the increasing sophistication of automobiles, however, independent repair shops have been concerned about continued access to the high tech information and tools they need to repair motor vehicles.”

Under pressure from the aftermarket industry, some car manufacturers have agreed to participate in the National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF), which is intended to be an industry-wide effort to “provide information, training and tools to automotive service professionals.” In her testimony, Majoras described how the Council of Better Business Bureaus facilitated discussions as far back as 2005 to forge a broad agreement on NASTF. More than 60 hours of negotiations took place, but no final agreement was reached. The impasse continues today.

Disagreements back then – and now – center on:

• Information car manufacturers would be required to provide independent auto repair facilities;
• Restructuring NASTF to ensure all interests are “represented in a balanced manner;”
• A mechanism to resolve disputes regarding tools, including their cost;
• Calculating monetary remedies for aggrieved parties;
• Penalties assessed to non-compliant car manufacturers; and
• A means to provide key codes to the aftermarket without sacrificing vehicle security.

Majoras reported that some parties, including the Automotive Service Association (ASA), have acted unilaterally to bolster NASTF. Noting that “it may provide a first step toward a mutually acceptable agreement,” Majoras concluded, “We understand that any ultimate solution that does not involve the consent and participation of all the parties is not a perfect solution.”