Collision repairers' access to OEM diagnostic and calibration data remains in flux as the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026 (H.R. 7389) awaits a House floor vote, with the Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) and independent shop owners continuing to argue that existing industry agreements already give repairers what they need.
The bill cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee on a 48-1 vote May 21, codifying two existing industry agreements on vehicle data access rather than advancing the broader Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR) Act in its original form.
The committee action set up the latest flashpoint in a fight that has direct implications for collision shops working with ADAS calibration, diagnostics and telematics-equipped vehicles.
Bill codifies two existing data-access agreements
The bill writes two existing industry agreements on vehicle repair data into federal law under Section 202: a 2014 agreement covering vehicles 14,000 pounds or less, and a 2015 agreement covering heavier commercial vehicles. The 2014 deal requires independent shops to get the same diagnostic and repair information automakers give franchised dealers.
The approach is narrower than the original REPAIR Act, which would have required manufacturers to give owners and shops direct access to vehicle-generated data and barred interference with aftermarket parts production.
Not all corners of the industry view the MOUs the same way. The National Automobile Dealers Association has argued the REPAIR Act is unnecessary, saying the 2014 MOU and a 2023 industry commitment already address independent shops' data access concerns and that a resolution panel exists to handle disputes where a manufacturer fails to provide required service information. The association also cited a 90% resolution rate reported by the National Automotive Service Task Force, which oversees that panel.
MEMA Aftermarket Suppliers President Emily Poladian said that without further congressional action, 155 million Americans will have significantly fewer repair choices by 2035, raising costs by more than $200 per vehicle annually.
CAR Coalition Executive Director Justin Rzepka said in a statement that "codifying a 2014 MOU does nothing to expand consumer choice and instead hands automakers a costly repair monopoly," citing a 48% increase in repair costs since 2020.
SCRS, shop owners cite insurer pressure over data access
Aaron Schulenburg, executive director of the Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS), told Autobody News the existing MOU framework already gives shops what they need, pointing to OEM service portals and third-party aggregators such as Alldata and Repair Logic as evidence the system functions in practice. Repair businesses can subscribe directly to OEM repair information systems for calibration procedures, position statements, wiring diagrams and diagnostic requirements, he said, and that access has become standard for proper repair planning.
Schulenburg said the data point most often cited by REPAIR Act supporters, that roughly 70% of vehicles are serviced by non-dealer repair businesses, "is actually proof that it works in practice" rather than evidence of a gap.
On whether collision repairers need telematics data to complete a proper repair, Schulenburg was direct: "They do not, and the answer of 'why not?' is simple...repair procedures don't require access to telematics data to fix vehicles."
Schulenburg said SCRS members have told the organization, and members of Congress, that REPAIR Act proponents do not understand the actual challenges facing independent repair businesses. "While the stated intent of that proposal is to expand access to repair information, SCRS agrees with our members that the REPAIR Act does not accurately reflect or resolve the real-world challenges facing consumers or repair professionals who work to restore safety to America's roadways," he said.
He argued the REPAIR Act's earlier, broader form would have created new burdens without solving the problems shops actually face. "Independent collision repairers already have access to original equipment manufacturer (OEM) repair information and instructions, diagnostic tools, and training resources," Schulenburg said. "The primary obstacles to safe and proper repairs are not access-related, but rather economic and systemic pressures that incentivize cost-cutting at the expense of OEM-required repair procedures."
Schulenburg said SCRS sees an opening for further work on the SAFE Repair framework, a proposal developed jointly by repairers and OEM stakeholders that he said reflects the actual barriers to proper repairs, which he characterized as commercial pressure on consumer choice rather than data access. "Increased access to vehicle data, without increased accountability to using the information or data to provide the consumer with more proper repairs and safer outcomes isn't a win," he said.
Schulenburg pointed to commentary from independent shop owners as evidence the access problem cited by REPAIR Act supporters does not match what repairers experience day to day.
Justin Lewis, who owns Accurate Auto Body Inc. in Redmond, Wash., said his shop is certified to make repairs by more than 10 automakers. He wrote in DC Journal that he has "never had an issue getting exactly what I needed to properly repair a vehicle" in more than three decades in business. Lewis, whose shop repairs about 1,800 vehicles a year, said that "repair instructions, tools and diagnostic codes are still easily available — not just to dealers but to independent repairers like me, too."
Lewis argued the REPAIR Act's data provisions go beyond what repair work requires, raising concerns about vehicle location and driving data reaching insurers or other third parties. "If there needs to be a law addressing repairs, it should look like this: Treat dealers and independent repairers the same," he said. "Protect vehicle owners' personal information and prevent it from getting into the hands of people who shouldn't have it. Guarantee vehicle owners are entitled to safety and get to choose the parts that go into their car and how the car is repaired."
Kyle Bradshaw, director of fixed operations at K & M Collision in Hickory, N.C., made a similar point in Carolina Journal, saying that his shop has "never lacked the information, diagnostic access, or repair procedures needed to restore a vehicle" and that local dealers rely on his team for specialized collision work.
Bradshaw said that the more pressing issue for his customers is insurer pressure on parts and procedures, not data access. "I've had way too many tough conversations with customers when insurers refused to cover original manufacturer parts, or when they deny critical steps in the repair process that are necessary to properly restore vehicle safety," he wrote. "This leaves families to pay out-of-pocket if they want their vehicle restored to pre-accident safety standards."
Floor vote, Massachusetts question still unresolved
H.R. 7389 now heads toward floor consideration as part of the broader BUILD America 250 Act (H.R. 8870), a five-year, $580 billion surface transportation reauthorization package that could be taken up by the full House as early as this month. The Senate has not yet advanced its own reauthorization proposal, adding uncertainty to the timeline ahead of a Sept. 30, 2026, deadline.
A separate dispute over the bill's effect on Massachusetts' voter-approved right-to-repair law remains unresolved. Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA) argued during the markup that the bill's language could allow courts to find that it overrides the state law even without saying so explicitly; Guthrie has said the bill contains no such override.
No protective language was added, though Guthrie and Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) committed to consulting the Massachusetts attorney general before a floor vote. Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) cast the committee's lone no vote.
