3 ms·

This is great news as it will push into other states even if they don't have right to repair. I'm am glad that these scare tactics from the opposition failed.

hobofan 6y ago
I don't know why you think it will push into other states. The manufacturers will continue to fight this tooth and nail and will only open this up as much as they are forced to.
- cosmie 6y ago
  Logistically and operationally speaking, it'd be incredibly difficult to gate it to a single state. People move in/out of state, people split time living between multiple states, students may temporarily move states for the school year, cars are frequently purchased in one state and shipped to another, used vehicles auctions redistribute cars all over the place, people pass in/out/through the state while traveling. All of which ultimately has to be taken into account for the entire lifespan of the vehicle. Even ignoring the cost and complexity of the logistics, the manufacturers will open themselves up to an expensive and drawn out stream of lawsuits litigating every conceivable edge case (such as the above examples). All with little minimal upside for themselves, since right-to-repair primarily harms dealerships and minimally harms manufacturers (since most if not all states make it illegal for auto manufacturers to own dealerships). Plus all of the above leads to higher costs the manufacturers have to bear, which will ultimately get pushed down to dealers/consumers. And isn't limited to just Massachusetts, due to the ripple effect of increasing overall complexity in their manufacturing/distribution/sales processes. Which could decrease sales volume across the entire market if everyone went this route, or result in loss of market share if other manufacturers do implement it nationwide and you can't maintain competitive pricing. At the end of the day, it'll end up going nationwide, because there's no real reason not to. And every reason to go nationwide. Auto manufacturers would love to be able to have direct-to-consumer sales, and starving the primary profit stream of dealerships makes that easier to happen. It's drastically cheaper - every car rolls off the production lane exactly the same, there's no enforcement mechanism to maintain, and no potentially costly class action lawsuits to worry about. All while having a perfectly valid rationale to show they aren't deliberately harming the independent dealership model, and are simply complying with their legal requirements as efficiently as feasible.
- burkaman 6y ago
  Because that's what happened last time: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/automobiles/carmakers-to-share-repair-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/automobiles/carmakers-to-... Massachusetts passed a law, and car manufacturers voluntarily made it a national standard a year later. They aren't going to build different cars for one state, and they aren't going to stop selling cars in one state.
  - asdff 6y ago
    In some cases, they do make different cars for different states if the market is large enough. The fiat 500e for example is only sold in CA and OR.
raxxorrax 6y ago
It is ridiculous to even discuss this but you are correct of course. If one state does it I think there is little choice for the others.
- TheCraiggers 6y ago
  Or more likely, the proponents of this will go the federal courts. Doesn't matter how many states say yes if the feds say no.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    No... California has its own stricter emissions laws and car manufacturers build to California standards as a result.
    - TheCraiggers 6y ago
      California is also the worlds fifth largest economy.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      Because the feds allows California - only California - to set stricter standards than the rest of the country. Several other states (5 last I checked but that was 10 years ago) require California standards for all cars in their state. They don't have the option of creating their own standard as the feds haven't given it to them.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    MA already ignores the feds on weed and guns with no apparent ill affects. They could probably do it for cars too without much issue.

hobofan 6y ago

I don't know why you think it will push into other states. The manufacturers will continue to fight this tooth and nail and will only open this up as much as they are forced to.

cosmie 6y ago
Logistically and operationally speaking, it'd be incredibly difficult to gate it to a single state. People move in/out of state, people split time living between multiple states, students may temporarily move states for the school year, cars are frequently purchased in one state and shipped to another, used vehicles auctions redistribute cars all over the place, people pass in/out/through the state while traveling. All of which ultimately has to be taken into account for the entire lifespan of the vehicle. Even ignoring the cost and complexity of the logistics, the manufacturers will open themselves up to an expensive and drawn out stream of lawsuits litigating every conceivable edge case (such as the above examples). All with little minimal upside for themselves, since right-to-repair primarily harms dealerships and minimally harms manufacturers (since most if not all states make it illegal for auto manufacturers to own dealerships). Plus all of the above leads to higher costs the manufacturers have to bear, which will ultimately get pushed down to dealers/consumers. And isn't limited to just Massachusetts, due to the ripple effect of increasing overall complexity in their manufacturing/distribution/sales processes. Which could decrease sales volume across the entire market if everyone went this route, or result in loss of market share if other manufacturers do implement it nationwide and you can't maintain competitive pricing. At the end of the day, it'll end up going nationwide, because there's no real reason not to. And every reason to go nationwide. Auto manufacturers would love to be able to have direct-to-consumer sales, and starving the primary profit stream of dealerships makes that easier to happen. It's drastically cheaper - every car rolls off the production lane exactly the same, there's no enforcement mechanism to maintain, and no potentially costly class action lawsuits to worry about. All while having a perfectly valid rationale to show they aren't deliberately harming the independent dealership model, and are simply complying with their legal requirements as efficiently as feasible.
burkaman 6y ago
Because that's what happened last time: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/automobiles/carmakers-to-share-repair-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/automobiles/carmakers-to-... Massachusetts passed a law, and car manufacturers voluntarily made it a national standard a year later. They aren't going to build different cars for one state, and they aren't going to stop selling cars in one state.
- asdff 6y ago
  In some cases, they do make different cars for different states if the market is large enough. The fiat 500e for example is only sold in CA and OR.

raxxorrax 6y ago

It is ridiculous to even discuss this but you are correct of course. If one state does it I think there is little choice for the others.

TheCraiggers 6y ago
Or more likely, the proponents of this will go the federal courts. Doesn't matter how many states say yes if the feds say no.
- busterarm 6y ago
  No... California has its own stricter emissions laws and car manufacturers build to California standards as a result.
  - TheCraiggers 6y ago
    California is also the worlds fifth largest economy.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Because the feds allows California - only California - to set stricter standards than the rest of the country. Several other states (5 last I checked but that was 10 years ago) require California standards for all cars in their state. They don't have the option of creating their own standard as the feds haven't given it to them.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  MA already ignores the feds on weed and guns with no apparent ill affects. They could probably do it for cars too without much issue.