Automakers Ask Judge to Block Pending Enforcement of Massachusetts' Right-to-Repair Law (bostonglobe.com) 64
"Beginning next Thursday, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell plans to start enforcing the state's automotive right-to-repair law," reports the Boston Globe.
"But this week, the world's top automakers asked a federal judge to stop her."
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a car industry trade group, sued to block enforcement of the law almost from the moment it was passed by voter referendum in 2020. Ever since, the law has been tied up in the courtroom of US District Judge Douglas Woodlock. Now the alliance has asked Woodlock to grant a temporary injunction that would stop Campbell from enforcing the law until he issues a final ruling in the case.
Campbell's predecessor, now-Governor Maura Healey, repeatedly refrained from enforcing the law, pending Woodlock's decision. But Healey always reserved the right to reverse this policy if a ruling took too long. In March, Campbell said she would start enforcing the law effective June 1. "The people of Massachusetts deserve the benefit of the law they approved more than two years ago," she said in a document filed with the court.
But the carmakers say that only the federal government has the authority to enact such a law. They claim the law is so poorly drafted that they can't comply with it, and even if they could, compliance would weaken vehicle security, making it easier for cyber criminals to steal digital data about vehicles and their owners. Two carmakers, Kia and Subaru, have tried to comply with the law by switching off the telematic services in their cars. But the carmakers argue that this deprives consumers of the right to use these features, which include emergency roadside assistance that could potentially save lives.
Campbell's predecessor, now-Governor Maura Healey, repeatedly refrained from enforcing the law, pending Woodlock's decision. But Healey always reserved the right to reverse this policy if a ruling took too long. In March, Campbell said she would start enforcing the law effective June 1. "The people of Massachusetts deserve the benefit of the law they approved more than two years ago," she said in a document filed with the court.
But the carmakers say that only the federal government has the authority to enact such a law. They claim the law is so poorly drafted that they can't comply with it, and even if they could, compliance would weaken vehicle security, making it easier for cyber criminals to steal digital data about vehicles and their owners. Two carmakers, Kia and Subaru, have tried to comply with the law by switching off the telematic services in their cars. But the carmakers argue that this deprives consumers of the right to use these features, which include emergency roadside assistance that could potentially save lives.
Full Faith and Credit Clause (Score:4, Interesting)
>But the carmakers say that only the federal government has the authority to enact such a law.
I wonder if they might not have a point, here. Certainly Massachussetts can ban the *sale* of closed-source cars. But if the automakers simply shrug and stop selling cars in Massachussetts, can the state government legally prevent Bostonians from driving an hour to Providence, buying a car there, and driving it back home? And does anybody *want* such a situation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The law doesn't sound difficult to comply with. But it might cause these companies to have to spend a few cents on every car. We certainly can't have them losing precious pennies on yet another year of record profits.
Re: Full Faith and Credit Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Full Faith and Credit Clause (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Another law in California: you can't re-register a car bought in another state until it has at least 7500 miles on it. This is mostly to prevent people from going out of state and getting a car lacking a catalytic converter or something. Yes, people will really do that for the extra 5 horsepower.
It doesn't matter if you are moving to California with the car, either. You can't change the registration until you have the 7500 miles racked up, but you may be in violation for NOT switching the registration in ti
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter if you are moving to California with the car, either. You can't change the registration until you have the 7500 miles racked up, but you may be in violation for NOT switching the registration in time.
Yes, it does matter. If you buy a new car in another state while you are a resident of another state and then move to California before it hits 7500 miles, you can still register it. See Form 256F [ca.gov], Section 2. And stop telling us about how registration works in California when you clearly don't actually know, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem we had was that the cars were purchased by a company and dedicated to a single employee because they were field service vehicles with custom equipment installed. If that employee moved to California, they took the car with them and it was exactly as I described. The registration had to wait, and the insurance carriers stopped asking why they mismatched on a fairly frequent basis. In the meantime, that person got puled over a lot and asked why they still had out of state plates. The state did not
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose I should mention that the longest I saw a car stuck in registration limbo was a year and a half. The car was assigned to an executive and it wasn't custom, so they probably should have given that car to someone else outside California and given the executive a company car already in California. But they didn't, and it took a full 19 months for him to rack up the required 7500 miles -- 18 months longer than one law requires, but fully compliant with the other!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that California's emissions laws flat out stopped some cars/models from being imported to the US, though they were OK on the federal level. The '84-89 Porsche 911 Turbo for example (which is how the M491 Turbo Look option got created).
Re:Full Faith and Credit Clause (Score:4, Interesting)
can the state government legally prevent Bostonians from driving an hour to Providence, buying a car there, and driving it back home?
Massachusetts can make it damn difficult to be sure. A friend of mine bought a car from a dealer in Wisconson. We flew out to Wisconson, took posession of the car and drove it back to Mass. Well, to Connecticut anyway as Massachusetts was the only state to not recognize the temporary registration. Apparently some kind of local dealer protectionism. So in Conn we rented a uhaul with a car hauler and carried the car over the border to his driveway, where it sat for 3 months trying to get Mass DMV to process the title. I'm in favor of right to repair, but Massachusetts can be a super pain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Liberty...for corporations? The people of MA just care more about the freedom for the consumers than for auto companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I assumed your comment was about the original topic since only an insane person would suggest that some extra paperwork was "the exact opposite of liberty", but I guess I was wrong
Re: (Score:3)
"But the carmakers say that only the federal government has the authority to enact such a law"
I trust no one is naive enough to believe the automakers wouldn't vigorously oppose such a law if Biden tried to enact one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ironically, the automakers would complain that the things they bought (legislators) aren't behaving as promised.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a competing car manufacturer who does allow your customers to maintain the vehicles they buy from you, then yes, you do want that situation.
The only problem is that an hour isn't enough. But maybe some day, RI residents will want their vehicles to be maintainable, too.
Looks like all Auto makers agree! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
dealer only oil and light changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Light changes are automatic
I inferred that in context, "light changes" meant "replacement of headlamps and taillamps". How is that automatic?
weaken the dealer repair income is the real issue (Score:5, Insightful)
weaken the dealer repair income is the real issue.
as well letting them load cars with DLC.
Re: (Score:2)
If dealers weren't complete fuckers then maybe they would deserve some sympathy. Fuck those fucking fucks. Maybe 1 in 100 doesn't gouge everyone on everything, and even that's an extremely optimistic figure.
"deprives consumers of the right to use features" (Score:3)
That choice argument cuts both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Safety (Score:2)
Re:Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
> customer safety
90% of people want safety, not freedom and will beg for it.
In 13 years of school they were never taught what happens when they lose freedom.
Re: Safety (Score:2)
Wait until they are made to goosestep and have to fear the knock in the middle of the night. But then, it will be too late.
"That stuff only happens to other people in faraway places", thought the people who ultimately ended up goosestepping and anticipating the nocturnal knock.
Re: (Score:2)
Quote: "In 13 years of school they were never taught what happens when they lose freedom."
Well... you must have been quite educated and polite in school if they never punish you without recess... you know, having to stay inside a closed room instead... because you lost your freedom (temporarily).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> In 13 years of school they were never taught what happens when they lose freedom.
They were taught time and time again what happens when they lose safety.
https://k12ssdb.org/all-shooti... [k12ssdb.org]
https://www.edweek.org/leaders... [edweek.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why teach it in school, when they can learn it through experience? DMCA (the bizarre law which car manufacturers rely upon, in order to prevent unauthorized maintenance) has been a thing for nearly twice that long.
At least by using state law to undermine/frustrate the federal government's interference with citizens' rights, the people of that state are slightly clawing their freedom back.
The government started this conflict ove
telematics (Score:3)
"...making it easier for cyber criminals to steal digital data about vehicles and their owners. Two carmakers, Kia and Subaru, have tried to comply with the law by switching off the telematic services in their cars."
1. There is no credible reason to have digital owner information tied to the car
2. Telematics is something the OWNER should be able to switch off themselves in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
besides which you could have an emergency button along with sensors to switch it on, only to indicate there is an emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Including the car maker. All the more reason to turn that shit off.
Re: telematics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. There is no credible reason to have digital owner information tied to the car
The infotainment system gets data from your phone, and you may give it your home address for nav.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also a plate with a unique number on the back of the car which can be looked up to find the owner and address
Re: (Score:2)
On that subject (Score:2)
The crack dealers are going to ask judge to stop Massachusetts cops from busting them for selling their wares around schools and NA meetings.
They don't want anyone to know (Score:2)
Like their whining over backup cameras (Score:1)
...and seat belts before that, that it was too too too costly. At a time when smartphones with screens and cameras was already commonplace and the components were cheap. This is what the relentless drive for every last nickel in corporate dividends gets you.
Re: (Score:3)
I can assure you that the lawyers and bean counters ran the numbers and found lobbying and court stalling to be cheaper than compliance.
Re: (Score:1)
And? Someone at GM thought it was great to save 50 cents per vehicle by putting in faulty ignitions, until it cost them more money after they, you know, killed 124 people and had to pay out massive settlements. The beef industry was set on using meat reclamation to harvest every last scrap of protein off a carcass, but then an e-coli breakout cost them a couple billion in profits.
Capitalism has a long history of Midas Touch/Killing the golden goose.
We need a change (Score:2)
Isn't it about time we introduced the practice of taking the occasional corporate CEO out to a convenient town square for a good, old-fashioned introduction to a horse whip?
I'm so sick and tired of these corporate leeches sucking the country dry.
"Waaah, why won't you let us price-gouge people?!" (Score:2)
Das Blinken Lights (Score:3)
As someone who develops and sells hardware, I've seen people violate the Das Blinken Lights rule and then try to claim that it was broken when they got it or that it mysteriously failed and try to make a warranty claim. Mind you, I'm all for not forcing the customer of a product to have to go through only one available (read: expensive) channel to get something fixed but it seems to me that proponents of right-to-repair haven't thought that aspect of it through.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen people violate the Das Blinken Lights rule
Nicht defingerpoken at das blinkenlichten?
This just in! (Score:2)
Company fights back after being told to break up repair oligarchy!
Ladies and gentlemen, we bring you this news straight from our desks. A large company that posts record profits doesn't want anything stopping it from making even more money. We at the nofekkinduh news agency can't believe it either, and we turn to our reporter in the field, former navy man Capt. Obvious for more details. Cap, it would appear that a giant corporation doesn't want anything that would / checks notes/ prevent it from making as m
Childish behavior (Score:1)