New Right to Repair "Pact" seen as an attempt to confuse lawmakers

A new right to repair "pact" was recently announced with "independent auto repairers" and the Auto Care Association has come out in objection to it, claiming it doesn't represent the automotive aftermarket fully. 

The pact's signers, ASA, SCRS, and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, did not consult the Auto Care Association despite their being an original signatory to the 2014 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The Association was not a party to and does not support the agreement. 

ASA and SCRS, who didn't sign or support the 2014 MOU, represent only a small fraction of the independent repair market, while the Auto Care Association is a national trade association representing over 536,000 companies and affiliates that manufacture, distribute, and sell motor vehicle parts, accessories, services, tools, equipment, materials, and supplies. Those businesses include over 280,000 repair facilities and 915,000 technicians nationwide. 

Those at the Auto Care Association believe that the existence of the pact is merely a thinly veiled response by the automotive OEMs to HR 906: The REPAIR Act. 

While the signers of the agreement claim relevancy, it only seems to affirm the 2014 Memorandum of Understanding rather than implementing a solution to preserve the entire automotive aftermarket and the competition and consumer choice that it creates. 

Not only does the Auto Care Association believe the agreement between Alliance, ASA, and SCRS is designed to create confusion, but they also feel it has numerous flaws:

1. The agreement is non-binding. There is no way to force OEM participation or to enforce OEM compliance. 
2. The agreement doesn't cover all automakers (Tesla, for example) and there is no requirement for new OEMs to join. 
3. The agreement does not obligate OEMs to provide vehicle owners or aftermarket direct access to telematically generated repair and maintenance data; rather the OEMs have agreed to make repair and maintenance data available through OEM-controlled systems and tools. 
4. Regarding telematics and the wireless transmission of vehicle repair and maintenance data, the OEMs only agree to give access (not direct access) if the data "is not otherwise available" through the OBD-II port. This means an independent shop could be forced to subscribe to multiple third-party tools to get access to telematics data, rather than through a single direct source. 
5. The agreement also fails to address the safety and security of the wirelessly transmitted vehicle data.