Washington, D.C. — February 18, 2026 — The Automotive Body Parts Association (ABPA) yesterday submitted formal public-interest comments to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in response to General Motors’ Section 337 complaint seeking broad exclusion orders on aftermarket collision repair parts. The submission warns that the remedies requested by GM would raise repair costs, increase insurance premiums, delay vehicle repairs, and reduce consumer choice, all without delivering any corresponding public benefit.
The filing comes amid a rapid escalation in GM’s enforcement campaign, which now includes multiple federal court lawsuits and an expansive ITC complaint naming dozens of aftermarket manufacturers, distributors, and industry participants. Together, these actions represent one of the most aggressive attempts in recent years to use design patent enforcement to restrict competition in the automotive repair marketplace.
A Case That Reaches Far Beyond the Auto Parts Industry
In its submission, the ABPA emphasized that the parts at issue—headlamps, tail lamps, fenders, and other exterior components—are not luxury or discretionary items. They are safety-critical replacement parts used every day to restore damaged vehicles to safe operating condition following accidents. When competitive aftermarket options are removed, consumers are often left with higher-priced OEM parts, longer repair times, and in many cases, vehicles that are declared total losses even though they could otherwise be repaired economically.
Design patent enforcement that eliminates lawful aftermarket competition does not operate in a vacuum. It ripples through the entire claims and repair ecosystem—raising claim severity, increasing rental car usage, and ultimately driving up insurance premiums for millions of Americans.
Repair Delays, Rental Shortages, and Higher Premiums
The ABPA’s comments highlight several real-world consequences the ITC must weigh before granting the extraordinary remedies GM is seeking. These include longer repair cycle times as repairers wait for limited OEM-only parts availability; increased rental car demand and shortages, particularly during high-volume collision periods; higher insurance claim costs that insurers pass directly to consumers through premium increases; and more total-loss determinations that push drivers out of otherwise repairable vehicles.
These concerns are not theoretical. The aftermarket played a critical role during recent supply-chain disruptions, filling gaps when OEM parts were unavailable or delayed. Removing that competitive safety valve would make the repair system less resilient and more expensive.
No Domestic Manufacturing Solution
Contrary to suggestions that exclusion orders would promote U.S. manufacturing, the ABPA noted that OEM replacement parts are also largely produced overseas. An ITC exclusion order would not meaningfully shift production back to the United States. Instead, it would eliminate competition, consolidate pricing power in OEM distribution channels, and harm U.S.-based distributors, warehouses, and repair-supply businesses that depend on imported parts.
Flawed Legal Theories with Real-World Consequences
Beyond consumer harm, the ABPA raised serious concerns about the legal foundations of GM’s complaint, including reliance on design patents that appear facially defective and infringement theories that stretch well beyond established design-patent law. Granting sweeping exclusionary relief under these circumstances would destabilize competitive expectations across the repair industry and invite further misuse of design patents to block lawful alternatives.
The ITC’s mandate requires careful consideration of whether requested remedies would harm public health and welfare, competitive conditions, and U.S. consumers. The ABPA urged the Commission to recognize that this case sits squarely at the intersection of intellectual property enforcement and consumer affordability.
Why This Matters Now
The timing of the ABPA’s submission is significant. GM’s ITC complaint follows and reinforces a broader litigation strategy that could reshape how replacement parts are sourced, priced, and approved across the country. For consumers already facing rising vehicle prices, higher insurance premiums, and longer repair times, the stakes could not be higher.
This is not just an industry dispute. It is a test of whether design patent law will be used as a blunt instrument to eliminate competition at the direct expense of American drivers.
The ABPA will continue to monitor the ITC proceeding and related litigation closely and will remain engaged with policymakers, regulators, and the media to ensure that consumer interests remain front and center.
—
Attachments:
