President Trump signed Executive Order for Right to Fix

[Alan Applegate]

I'll lay a bet that ole John Deere is cheering from his grave. It is about time we got rid of repair subscription services, especially those for accessories like remote start. Shame on those manufacturers who still cling to it.

Sponsored

 

[mks]

He issued a memo, not even an executive order which in effect does very little.

I applaud the effort to establish a "right" to fix or have fixed my own vehicle (which one already has the right to do at some risk for warrantied cars). However, some of this effort feels like a bit of a nothing burger (so far).

Politics aside, the "memo" does a poor job of conflating two discrete issues. Its title suggests one thing, but it targets CA (CARB) while not really providing anything for other states (who can pass their own legislation) or the after-market industry (manufacturing, repair shops, etc) who want to (and can already) ignore CA's sizable automotive market. Perhaps the more significant congressional action to follow is the progress of HR 1566, whose scope and purpose is markedly different from the "freedom to fix" memo--which is not law but more in the vein of the concept of a plan to have the EPA "issue guidance," etc.

Per usual, it remains to be seen whether any of this will demonstrably improve things financially, practically, etc., for the everyday driver.

 

[Zig]

I applaud the effort to establish a "right" to fix or have fixed my own vehicle (which one already has the right to do at some risk for warrantied cars). However, some of this effort feels like a bit of a nothing burger (so far).

Politics aside, the "memo" does a poor job of conflating two discrete issues. Its title suggests one thing, but it targets CA (CARB) while not really providing anything for other states (who can pass their own legislation) or the after-market industry (manufacturing, repair shops, etc) who want to (and can already) ignore CA's sizable automotive market. Perhaps the more significant congressional action to follow is the progress of HR 1566, whose scope and purpose is markedly different from the "freedom to fix" memo--which is not law but more in the vein of the concept of a plan to have the EPA "issue guidance," etc.

Per usual, it remains to be seen whether any of this will demonstrably improve things financially, practically, etc., for the everyday driver.

When the punishment is nil (for a repair) how is it enforced?

 

[mks]

When the punishment is nil (for a repair) how is it enforced?

I apologize up front; I'm not sure what this question is asking. If the question is how 1566 will be enforced against manufacturers, the bill refers to enforcement actions the FTC will take (which could include redress of the complainant's concern and additional proscriptions the commission may impose). The bill also provides clauses, perhaps in the interest of fairness, that address relief and enforcement for plaintiffs who have not been subject to direct harm. Do all fed regulatory agencies have teeth (or use them if they do)? I'll just say it depends.

In any case, I'm not an expert. But as a matter of rights as they pertain to individuals, states, and the federal government, I'll bet this bill, which has strong bipartisan support, is tricky territory for legislators in light of the lobby they are up against. I've not followed the news on this bill (still in subcommittee), but I'll bet companies like Ford are not fans. To them, I'll bet they believe it infringes on some pretty sacred territory.

And, I'll just apologize again if I've missed the intent of your question--which I am not likely to qualified to answer.

 

[Zig]

I apologize up front; I'm not sure what this question is asking. If the question is how 1566 will be enforced against manufacturers, the bill refers to enforcement actions the FTC will take (which could include redress of the complainant's concern and additional proscriptions the commission may impose). The bill also provides clauses, perhaps in the interest of fairness, that address relief and enforcement for plaintiffs who have not been subject to direct harm. Do all fed regulatory agencies have teeth (or use them if they do)? I'll just say it depends.

In any case, I'm not an expert. But as a matter of rights as they pertain to individuals, states, and the federal government, I'll bet this bill, which has strong bipartisan support, is tricky territory for legislators in light of the lobby they are up against. I've not followed the news on this bill (still in subcommittee), but I'll bet companies like Ford are not fans. To them, I'll bet they believe it infringes on some pretty sacred territory.

And, I'll just apologize again if I've missed the intent of your question--which I am not likely to qualified to answer.

In the most straightforward, if the ‘punishment’ to the consumer for repairing their possession is nothing how is nothing enforced? An non-serviceable part is akin to an intake ‘carbon filter’, lifetime warranty otherwise i get to fix what they are incapable of guaranteeing.

 

[mks]

In the most straightforward, if the ‘punishment’ to the consumer for repairing their possession is nothing how is nothing enforced? An non-serviceable part is akin to an intake ‘carbon filter’, lifetime warranty otherwise i get to fix what they are incapable of guaranteeing

Ah, I think I follow. The logic is kinda reversed. The Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act enforced by the FTC is designed to protect consumers. The Repair Act covers more than just consumers. It provides a scope of coverage for the non-OEM market that includes parts and independent shops. It allows them access to materials (tools and data) for people to fix (or have fixed) their own cars. That and a few other provisions.

In short, this kind of legislation is designed explicitly to protect consumers from the often overwhelming power of the OEM industry, who as Congress has signalled, already "punish" consumers for behavior that forces owners into a kind of cattle shoot when it comes to having their cars repaired. OEMs will have to contend more competitively (and, according to Congress, fairly) for what is a huge piece of the automotive market share.

I still feel I'm not addressing your concern. But, I believe the logic here misses the point of consumer interest and protection on a fundamental level. Rather, why would the law seek to punish people for fixing material (cars, homes, cell phones etc) which they own? One answer to that question would breach the politics caveat in place on the forum. So not going there.

 

[Zig]

Ah, I think I follow. The logic is kinda reversed. The Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act enforced by the FTC is designed to protect consumers. The Repair Act covers more than just consumers. It provides a scope of coverage for the non-OEM market that includes parts and independent shops. It allows them access to materials (tools and data) for people to fix (or have fixed) their own cars. That and a few other provisions.

In short, this kind of legislation is designed explicitly to protect consumers from the often overwhelming power of the OEM industry, who as Congress has signalled, already "punish" consumers for behavior that forces owners into a kind of cattle shoot when it comes to having their cars repaired. OEMs will have to contend more competitively (and, according to Congress, fairly) for what is a huge piece of the automotive market share.

I still feel I'm not addressing your concern. But, I believe the logic here misses the point of consumer interest and protection on a fundamental level. Rather, why would the law seek to punish people for fixing material (cars, homes, cell phones etc) which they own? One answer to that question would breach the politics caveat in place on the forum. So not going there.

An non-serviceable part is akin to an intake ‘carbon filter’, lifetime warranty otherwise i get to fix what they are incapable of guaranteeing.

 

[mks]

@Zig, I confess, IDK. There is something in your position that I am not capable of understanding. I'm sure someone can address whatever nuance I am missing. I'm out.

 

[Zig]

@Zig, I confess, IDK. There is something in your position that I am not capable of understanding. I'm sure someone can address whatever nuance I am missing. I'm out.

If they’re gonna hold me accountable for their failure they are prevented from levying a ‘punishment’ on me.

 

[Racer57]

The punishment for the individual was when car, ag equipment etc had an issue and the dealer found an unauthorized download, your warranty was voided. The bill has little to do with changing air filters, oil, brake pads etc. It’s primarily the tech side. Among other things it will allow me to download and install updates and fixes for my $800,000 combine while in the field. Last year it cost me a lot of wasted timed waiting for a tech to show up which wasn’t cheap..

 

[DarkHorsePremium]

California's draconian emission laws are pathetic. I can say that since I've lived here all my life. I was really hoping to see CARB abolished. Somehow they're hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

Sponsored