Source: U.S. PIRG Education Fund

With auto repair costs rising steadily, this report details how some manufacturers use wireless connections to cars to increase repair revenue at the expense of consumers.

Summary

Every car owner knows the feeling of seeing your check engine light flash: the unsettling prospect of a mechanical issue, a breakdown on your morning commute, or an impending repair bill.

The consequences of a check engine light are getting costlier. Software-related charges and restrictions have complicated repairs for consumers and third party mechanics. As independent repair has become more difficult, repair costs have skyrocketed: Auto repair costs increased 44% over the last five years, 1.8 times the inflation rate.

Competition is critical for containing costs in any market, and the car repair market is no different. When a manufacturer of a product can control where that product is repaired, they can steer consumers to their authorized dealers, where, without adequate competition, costs can quickly escalate.

Over the last few decades, our cars have become increasingly software dependent, which created new opportunities for manufacturers to impede repair competition. A recent addition to these emerging repair issues stems from vehicle telematics, or wirelessly transmitted data ranging from engine health to driving behavior.

This new technology has the potential to improve car repair, making it faster and cheaper. For example, mechanics with access to telematic repair data can remotely diagnose an issue, pre-order parts, and contact the car owner to schedule repairs well before the check engine light even turns on.

Unfortunately, not everyone is benefitting from these improvements. Across the automotive industry, manufacturers act as gatekeepers for telematic repair information. [1] Manufacturers have also aggressively opposed reforms that grant car owners control over the data, arguing that the manufacturer should retain ultimate control over how user data is stored, transmitted, and accessed.

Original manufacturers’ (OEMs) control over owner-generated data creates competitive advantages for dealerships at the expense of independent options, and could fundamentally alter repair in the future. This report analyzes three ways that restricting telematics access gives manufacturers and their dealers advantages over independent shops. First, manufacturers can use wireless data to proactively identify vehicle issues before they develop, steering upcoming repairs to authorized dealerships. Second, telematic repair data makes diagnosing and fixing issues easier in ways that cannot be replicated with traditional repair tools available to third parties. Lastly, some repairs can be conducted remotely using telematic access, raising concerns about whether independent repairers will be able to conduct certain repairs at all as this technology continues to move forward.

Mechanics fear the creation of a two-tiered repair model, where independent shops conduct repairs with less information, less powerful diagnostic tools, and higher associated costs than authorized dealerships.

When dealerships’ telematics-driven competitive advantages stifle competition from independent shops, they can charge more. Returning control of a car’s data to the owner of the car can foster a thriving local repair industry, driven by consumer choice.

Vehicle owners and mechanics deserve access to vital vehicle data, just as we can access odometer levels or error codes. Telematic repair data shouldn’t be any different. Standardized access to telematics will support a resilient, competitive repair industry that works for vehicle owners.

Telematic data gives manufacturers a marketing advantage

Access to telematic data allows for communication with vehicle owners before repairs are necessary. It is typical for manufacturers to include links or in-app features that let vehicle owners schedule servicing appointments with their dealer in these communications.

The following examples highlight how this system works:

One Lexus owner received a notification in the manufacturer’s companion app about their vehicle’s oil health. The notification begins with a large red exclamation point next to the words, “contact your Lexus dealer to schedule a maintenance appointment.” Further down, a large button titled “Maintenance Schedule” encourages the vehicle owner to get their vehicle serviced by dealership technicians, described as “those who know [your car] the best.”

Toyota, Lexus’ parent company, allows vehicle owners to check their vehicle health through the Toyota App and directly schedule dealership maintenance appointments through a button located in the app’s vehicle health section.

One Honda owner reported receiving a message about an issue with their brake system. The notification includes a large section titled “Recommended Service,” which alerts the driver of the issue. Immediately after outlining the potential issue, the recommended solution was to “have your vehicle checked by a dealer immediately.”

Car makers also contact customers about their vehicle repair needs via email, such as the monthly diagnostics reports GM sends to customers. In promotional content about these reports, GM claims it informs customers of potential service needs before an issue arises, and allows vehicle owners to conduct live diagnostic checks while in their vehicle at the push of a button. Diagnostics are paired with “dealer maintenance notifications,” where vehicles automatically notify a dealership when maintenance is required “so they can contact you to schedule an appointment”.

Drivers can also be contacted in their own vehicles via notifications on the vehicle display. In one example, a message shown on a Dodge prompts the driver to “visit an authorized dealer” for a service. In another, a dashboard message on a Toyota says that “vehicle maintenance is required” without specifying the issue, prompting drivers to call the dealer at the click of a button.

In the examples we found, the description of potential faults are vague, if present at all. Without access to the data which prompted the warning, an independent mechanic might have to spend extra time and money determining the exact cause.

Manufacturers can insert messaging beyond owners’ smartphones and email accounts as well – on modem-equipped vehicles, manufacturers can now send advertisements for a variety of products and services directly to the dashboard.

This array of marketing tools that promote dealership repair worries independent mechanics.

Glenn Wilder, owner of Wilder Brothers Tire Pros in North Scituate, MA, emphasized that when a dealership can get a customer through the door for a diagnosis, independent mechanics often lose out on that business, arguing that most people won’t “look [the dealer] in the face and say, ‘I’m going to take that to my guy and get that checked out for a second opinion.’” [2]

Clearly, OEMs should be allowed to contact car owners, but communications about unspecific and serious faults, which are based on vehicle diagnostic insights only accessible by manufacturers, gives manufacturers an unfair advantage in steering repairs to their dealers.

With access to standardized telematic data, mechanics and aftermarket developers can create equivalent systems to proactively communicate with their own customers when services are required, leveling the marketing playing field. Car owners could also review diagnostic information themselves to determine if they indeed need to schedule vehicle service. Standardizing access is important to ensure aftermarket tools are cost-effective and can navigate the variety of car makes that independent mechanics service.

Telematics access makes repair more efficient

Telematics can make repairs easier and cheaper. However, without competition, OEMs can upcharge for exclusive telematics-enabled repair services while restricting these services to those who are able to pay.

As described above, telematics allow for real-time and predictive diagnostics that can identify potential issues before they develop. This data is already used in fleet management for trucks and corporate vehicles. For example, Ford markets tools that let fleet managers use telematic data to check vehicle health in real time. When warning signs arise, managers can bring the vehicle in for preemptive maintenance to prevent bigger, more expensive issues.

The widespread adoption of predictive diagnostics in personal vehicles can reduce roadside breakdowns and costly emergency repairs. Imagine a scenario where you are planning a family road trip, and review the telematic data in case the car detects an upcoming service issue. You notice your car predicts you will need a new starter motor in the next 1,000 miles, so you preemptively replace it, and ensure a bad starter doesn’t interfere with your vacation.

Additionally, telematics can make necessary services quicker and cheaper by allowing technicians to proactively prepare for repairs.

Independent mechanics are excited about this opportunity to provide better service for their customers. Chad Bechtel of Precision Tune Auto Care imagines that with telematics access, as soon as a check engine light turns on, he could “[call] the customer and [say] ‘We already [have] the parts ordered, how far away are you?’” [3]

When OEMs alone have access to telematics, these benefits become restricted. Manufacturers have a track record of using telematics to enable paywalls for vehicle features, allowing them to charge owners for use of heated seats, in-car navigation or other features (see Figure 1). Many manufacturers use paid subscriptions for their telematics diagnostic and maintenance scheduling programs, often giving vehicle owners free access for the first few years of ownership and charging monthly fees after a trial period ends.

When repair restrictions went unchecked in other industries, consumers suffered

We believe that manufacturers’ telematics-powered advantage undermines independent repair shops’ ability to compete. Without a competitive market for repair services including both dealerships and local independent repair shops, customers will end up paying inflated prices, as we see in other industries.

In the consumer electronic industry, electronics manufacturers employ a variety of tactics to inhibit third party repair. The number of independent repair shops for electronics has decreased sharply, and many shops report that manufacturer restrictions to repair reduce their ability to hire staff or serve their customers.

Without independent options, consumers are increasingly reliant on manufacturers’ “authorized” centers for repairs, which often offer a more limited range of services for higher prices. In many cases, a lack of repair options have also driven consumers to throw away their products and purchase something new.

The restrictions are even more pronounced for farm equipment. Many repairs on newer John Deere equipment require proprietary software to diagnose or complete, software that only dealerships have full access to. Without third-party repair competition, farmers are forced to wait weeks or months for dealership technicians to complete simple repairs. Our research estimates anti-repair practices by farm equipment manufacturers cost farmers over $4 billion per year in equipment downtime and added repair costs.

Where there’s software, there are restrictions

The debate over telematic repair access is similar to the debate around the original Right to Repair campaign for automobiles.

In 2012, growing software hurdles for utilizing the physical diagnostic port in cars led to the first automotive Right to Repair campaign. The goal was to require that manufacturers make all the software tools and documentation used in conjunction with that port available to consumers and independent mechanics. At the time, according to Ray Magliozzi, co-host of the popular radio show Car Talk, “repairers [did] not have access to the information, and the customer pays big for that disadvantage.” He asserted that the first Right to Repair law was necessary to protect “consumer choice and level the playing field for independent repair shops.”

The resulting law and industry agreement exempted diagnostic information transmitted wirelessly — and new techniques have emerged that undermine competition in the repair market.

For example, OEMs engage in “VIN burning,” where parts are electronically paired to an individual vehicle. This means that any part needs to be programmed to work on a specific vehicle, and will not work in any other. This makes it difficult for independent mechanics to recycle parts or source parts in the aftermarket, pushing them to buy replacement parts from the OEM, which increases costs.

Manufacturers also use software locks that make it more difficult to use aftermarket tools to diagnose issues and conduct repairs. These locks force mechanics to purchase pricey OEM-specific software that often requires expensive, proprietary adapters.

These costs can add up – yearly costs for most OEM diagnostic software licenses can soar into the thousands – and over half of mechanics report passing as many as 5 repairs a month to dealerships due to vehicle data limitations (see figure 2).

Additionally, when customers become doubtful about local mechanics’ ability to complete repairs, they may decide to skip going to an independent shop altogether. The FTC, in their complaint against John Deere, argued that “uncertainty… as to whether a given equipment issue will require a [dealership] repair” has led some farmers to “bring their equipment to Deere dealers for repairs that do not actually require dealer involvement.”

Service revenue is important to car manufacturers, telematics present a new opportunity for manufacturers to gain a competitive advantage. As long as that incentive exists, it will tilt the market to favor the manufacturers’ brand-controlled service stations.

It could be tilted to the point where repairs rely on telematic access, and local shops are faced with repairs they can’t complete. Already, manufacturers telematically control vehicle hardware to conduct certain repairs. Tesla, for example, claims it trains service technicians to “diagnose and repair 80% of issues remotely,” and has used telematics to fix a recall issue with the tire-pressure monitoring system for 700,000 vehicles.

In the future, manufacturers could use telematic connections to “verify” replacement parts, similar to parts pairing practices in the electronics and agriculture industry. They could, for instance, require telematic tools to install the embedded software which allows a spare part to communicate with the car’s computer, and then withhold access to undermine competitors. Without regulation to prevent this conduct, there is a clear incentive for manufacturers to expand telematic control over the repair process.

Recommendation: Give the owner control over their car’s data

The best way to protect consumers is to return data ownership to vehicle owners, as was standard in the auto industry before computerized data collection.

Similar to mileage tracked on an odometer, telematic data is produced by the driver, collected by mechanisms on the vehicle they own, and should be controlled by the vehicle owner. Vehicle owners have never had to pay to check how much gas or oil they have, and they should not be restricted from seeing vehicle service data that is critical to repair just because it’s stored in software. Telematics should not change our rights as property owners.

Creating a standardized platform for accessing telematic data will allow the aftermarket to develop affordable tools that allow independent mechanics to compete with manufacturers and bring the benefits of telematics to all customers. Furthermore, it ensures that repairs requiring telematic intervention do not undermine the aftermarket ecosystem. Protecting consumers’ ownership over their own data ensures their ability to independently and affordably fix their vehicles.

—

Footnotes:
[1] From January 29, 2026 interview with a representative of Subaru USA
[2] From November 5, 2025 panel discussion at AAPEX Show
[3] From November 5, 2025 panel discussion at AAPEX Show