hot legal action – GreatOldTrucks.com

<img data-attachment-id="1695672" data-permalink="https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2019/11/states-begin-dealing-with-driving-data-right-to-repair-laws/shutterstock_727276279/" data-orig-file="http://greatoldtrucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/massachusetts-passes-right-to-repair-protections-5.jpg" data-orig-size="1000,667" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}" data-image-title="vehicle diagnostics repair auto repair laptop" data-image-description="

CAT SCAPE/Shutterstock

Independent repair shops and aftermarket parts retailers have been pitted against major automakers and their dealer networks in Massachusetts for years. The state has served as the primary battleground for right-to-repair legislation that would permit/prohibit customers and independent entities from working on or modifying vehicles. However, a major victory came on Tuesday after voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure updating existing right-to-repair laws to give vehicle owners and small shops better access to vehicle data typically reserved for industry giants.

The resulting decision gives consumers substantially more control over what’s done with the data being harvested by the industry (often without their knowledge) and frees up their options on who to go to when their vehicle needs fixing.

Full disclosure: this is one of those topics where I fall so hard on one side of this issue that I have to admit to my bias upfront to avoid looking like I’m acting in bad faith. I staunchly support right-to-repair laws in all forms and find the industry opposition to them reprehensible. Owners should absolutely have access to the data their vehicles generate and independent repair shops should have access to the tools used by branded service centers.

With that out of the way, it’s at least fairly obvious why industry players want to discourage the right-to-repair movement. They want the impunity to harvest driving data without someone looking over their shoulder and nullify the scant amount of competition that comes from do-it-yourself types and independent garages.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (which represents practically every car manufacturer currently selling in the U.S.) has repeatedly stressed the importance of modernizing vehicles with “mobility” features, like data acquisition. But it hasn’t been too keen on sharing said data with customers. It has claimed that the accumulated info could be dangerous and open consumers up to privacy/security concerns. While this begs the question of why they’re harvesting on-road data if it’s so freaking dangerous, only the most naive person would come to any answer other than it making them money.

Of course, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (AAI) can blame businesses for being greedy too. It’s has been claiming aftermarket retailers and small shops just want the data for themselves. While technically true, some amount of data procurement is required just to work on modern vehicles and it’s not like anybody truly believes one business entity is going to act more responsibly with consumer info than another.

John Bozzella, CEO of AAI has also said government regulators have shared concerns about security — referencing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration specifically, according to Automotive News. He claimed the NHTSA shared concerns about some of the language used in the ballot measure.

“Automakers have made available all the diagnostic and repair information that is needed to service a vehicle safely and securely. That consumer choice will not change,” he said. “Moving forward, automakers will continue their work to protect our customers and prioritize their safety, privacy and vehicle security.”

From AN:

The updated law expands access to mechanical data related to vehicle maintenance and repair by requiring automakers to make available all mechanical information needed to diagnose and repair vehicles as well as perform routine maintenance starting with 2022 models. It also gives vehicle owners and independent repair shops access to real-time mechanical data from telematics — systems that collect and wirelessly transmit information such as crash notifications, remote diagnostics and navigation from the vehicle to a remote server.

Meanwhile, right-to-repair supporters (including the Auto Care Association and retailers like O’Reilly Auto Parts) have claimed the passed initiative closes a loophole in the current law that exempts data transmitted wirelessly through telematics system from being shared and will ultimately give vehicle owners more choice and control over how their data is used.

The ballot passed with 75 percent of voters in Massachusetts supporting. Right-to-repair advocates have called it an important victory and feel the state should continue setting a national example.

[Image: CAT SCAPE/Shutterstock]

<img data-attachment-id="1732976" data-permalink="https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/08/cash-in-your-chips-automakers-ask-ftc-to-seek-appeal-after-losing-qualcomm-case/shutterstock_1369505351/" data-orig-file="http://greatoldtrucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/cash-in-your-chips-automakers-ask-ftc-to-seek-appeal-after-losing-qualcomm-case-5.jpg" data-orig-size="1000,681" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"1"}" data-image-title="Qualcomm sign" data-image-description="

Michael Vi/Shutterstock

Frequently on the cutting edges of technology, the automotive industry has been slamming chips into vehicles to facilitate communications ever since General Motors launched OnStar back in 1996. This evolved into cars boasting reliable navigation systems and remote vehicle diagnostics until they literally started becoming mobile internet hot spots.

Now the industry wants to further ingrain connectivity by equipping all vehicles with 5G — opening the road for new features and the ability to harvest your personal data more effectively.

This has required deals with tech chip manufacturers like Qualcomm, which requires companies to sign a patent license agreement before actually selling any of its hardware or software. But regulators around the globe worried the practice may be monopolistic, violating antitrust laws. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought a case against the business in 2017. Despite winning that case in 2019, a U.S. appeals court overturned the decision earlier this month, deciding Qualcomm could continue conducting business as usual. Now, tech companies (mainly Qualcomm rivals) and a gaggle of automakers are urging the FTC to seek an appeal following the loss.

In May of 2019, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California sided against Qualcomm after stating it had engaged in extensive anti-competitive behavior against smartphone makers and automakers in need of chip modems, threatening to withhold suppliers and service if it didn’t like the way it bundled the fees associated with wireless patents.

She decided the best course of action was to issue an injunction limiting Qualcomm’s business practices, ordering it to renegotiate the licensing agreements.

However, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District overturned that ruling in August of 2020 after deciding there wasn’t enough evidence against the chip manufacturer. “We decline to ascribe antitrust liability in these dynamic and rapidly changing technology markets without clearer proof of anticompetitive effect,” Consuelo M. Callahan, circuit judge for the ninth district, explained.

According to Reuters, the automotive sector is concerned that giving Qualcomm a pass will increase the price of their products. It also diminishes an automaker’s ability to have control over the equipment installed into vehicles to network them, though that aspect has been downplayed in both the courts and the press.

From Reuters:

Automakers have increasingly put chips in vehicles to connect them to the internet, which requires them to sign patent agreements for communications standards such as 5G. The companies had previously argued that connected car prices could go up if Qualcomm won its case.

Qualcomm won its appeal of that ruling before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an Aug. 11 ruling by a three-judge panel. In a letter sent Monday, the automakers, as well as Qualcomm rivals Intel Corp and MediaTek Inc, urged the FTC to seek an “en banc” rehearing of the case by the full appeals court.

“If allowed to stand, the panel’s decision could destabilize the standards ecosystem by encouraging the abuse of market power acquired through collaborative standard-setting,” the group said.

In addition to tech companies and cell-phone manufacturers, the letter was signed by Tesla Inc, Ford Motor Co, Honda Motor Co and Daimler AG.

“This decision would endanger domestic competitiveness, as well as weaken the ability of the FTC to protect consumers through future enforcement actions,” reads the letter. “Qualcomm’s licensing practices reinforced its product monopoly, excluded rivals, and harmed the competitive process.”

Ironically, loads of the names that have signed on to ask the FTC to keep up the fight seem to have flirted with monopolistic practices themselves. But wanting to buy a product from a company like Qualcomm and then not wanting to be smacked with licensing fees or restrictions on how its utilized seems a fair request. Hopefully automakers remember that as they roll out egregious concepts (like placing already-equipped features behind a paywall using the same 5G technology they’re fighting for now) — because several of the automakers included in the letter are already flirting with the concept.

[Image: Michael Vi/Shutterstock]

Tag: hot legal action

Massachusetts Passes Right-To-Repair Protections

Related

Cash in Your Chips: Automakers Ask FTC to Seek Appeal After Losing Qualcomm Case

Related