Jim Farley isn't scared of Driver Safety, it's Competition & Accountability

Tyler Betthauser
Jun 23
5 min read

Infographic on HR 1566 automotive right-to-repair debate with car icons, charts, and sections on provisions, claims, and impacts.

Jim Farley continues to make public comments about the broader automotive industry that warrant closer examination. We have previously discussed his unusual take on the technician shortage in Rising Auto Repair Costs 2026: The Truth About Skimpflation, as well as his oversight of increasingly poor quality vehicles in Ford's ITM Recall is a Troubling Sign for the Future of Software Defined Vehicles. Now, Farley and other auto manufacturers are lobbying the Trump administration to oppose House Bill 1566. They argue this opposition is necessary under the pretense of protecting consumers, claiming modern vehicles are so complex that only authorized dealers can safely repair them. Examining HR 1566 at a high level reveals that the attempt to kill this bill is less about consumer protection and more about preserving anticompetitive advantages.

What HR 1566 Actually Requires

HR 1566, also known as the Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair Act or REPAIR Act, mandates that auto manufacturers provide independent aftermarket repair businesses with unrestricted access to vehicle generated data, critical repair information, and diagnostic tools. Introduced in the 119th Congress, the bill specifically prohibits manufacturers from employing technological or legal barriers that prevent vehicle owners or their chosen repair facilities from accessing data through on board diagnostic ports or wireless telematics systems.

Rather than listing exhaustive legal stipulations, the core of the bill establishes a fair competitive environment. It requires that independent shops and aftermarket parts manufacturers receive the same data at the same time and subject to the same cryptographic protections as authorized dealers. Ultimately, the bill attempts to instantiate a level playing field. The prototypical American economic ideal suggests markets are based on open competition. In reality, this particular legislation and the industry response serve as a prime example of how manufacturers and their dealer networks use regulatory gatekeeping to secure unfair advantages, a dynamic that has spurred significant inflation in vehicle repair costs over the years.

Currently, franchise agreements make critical service information, circuit diagrams, and specialized software unavailable to the public, including independent repair shops. While companies like Autel release aftermarket hardware and software that rivals dealer equipment, these tools remain highly expensive and are not consumer friendly. Consequently, an unfair advantage is granted to authorized businesses that subsequently monopolize local repair pricing because the data required to facilitate proper repairs remains locked behind proprietary walls.

Repair Act

The Dealership Economic Model

To understand the intense opposition to the REPAIR Act, one must look at the dealership economic model. Service departments account for up to 50 percent of a dealership's gross profit. The entire economic framework of the franchise dealer relies on a monopolistic exclusive agreement with the manufacturer. Their high profit margins exist precisely because service information and diagnostic data are not shared openly. There is no true competition in this space. Highlighting that the REPAIR Act threatens the primary profit center of the franchise dealer model explains the underlying financial motivation for their opposition.

Cybersecurity, Safety, and the Manufacturer Argument

Critics of the bill, including Farley and the National Automobile Dealers Association, argue that the legislation is not merely a competitive threat but a severe cybersecurity and safety risk. They argue that HR 1566 is overly broad and could allow aftermarket companies to reverse engineer proprietary tools. Addressing this concern provides a comprehensive view of the lobbying efforts against the bill. However, it is the responsibility of the auto manufacturers to ensure their software is secure and cannot be easily decompiled. The legislation does not demand that manufacturers surrender their source code. It only requires that the diagnostic data and repair information be made equitably available.

The manufacturer argument does carry some engineering weight. Modern vehicles integrate Advanced Driver Assistance Systems where a simple windshield replacement requires precise software calibration for cameras, radar modules, and forward collision sensors to ensure the automatic braking systems function correctly. Acknowledging this complexity provides a necessary counterweight to the primary argument and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the opposing viewpoint. Still, this is arguably a hollow point when discussing consumer repairs. Almost no one replaces a windshield in their own driveway. Drivers rely on dedicated glass shops to handle this work. If an independent glass shop needs to sublet the calibration to a specialist or even a dealer, they have that option. This engineering complexity does not justify blocking independent repair facilities from accessing the necessary diagnostic tools.

Farley makes a weak argument by conflating the genuine need for professional tools with a justification for data monopolies. HR 1566 does not mandate a relaxation of safety standards. Furthermore, a transparent automotive market does not inherently threaten the profitability of dealers or manufacturers. A YouGov poll from May 2025 indicates that nearly 59 percent of Americans do not bother performing their own maintenance and repairs. Transparency would not suddenly trigger a massive influx of drivers executing their own maintenance. Furthermore, nearly 20 percent of all automotive transactions are leases, which is a sector completely dominated by dealers for service scheduling.

How Manufacturers Should Respond

Auto manufacturers do not need to default to the regulatory lock out of their own consumers. A positive response to HR 1566 could generate substantial goodwill with drivers. Manufacturers could implement practical, cost effective solutions to comply with this initiative while maintaining security.

Most manufacturers already operate portals for owners to access remote functions, read manuals, view recalls, and schedule service. They could easily allow drivers the option to pay a reasonable fee for access to the existing service information sites. A few months of API development would enable drivers to access these systems directly. For tech savvy customers, the existing infrastructure for accessing software can be leveraged safely. Drivers with devices capable of flashing software could be authorized through API keys within the owner portal. Production signed certificates can be passed from existing manufacturer servers to the flashing device, ensuring software is securely downloaded. The legislation does not demand that manufacturers provide this information for free, only that it is made equitably available.

Furthermore, executives can use this legislative push to force their engineering and IT organizations to design solutions that remain secure but are fundamentally serviceable. Serviceability of design was a cornerstone of automotive engineering in the recent past. Title documents can be used to verify ownership in the portal, which can be scanned by a language model. Certificate generation already exists for dealers and remains a secure method of signing software. For higher risk procedures, such as those involving high voltage systems, manufacturers should either design safer parts with fewer hazards or require a basic online certification course to unlock the specific service procedure.

Impacts on the Industry

Assuming the legislation passes, the short term will likely see minimal disruption for dealers, manufacturers, and the aftermarket. Ideally, the increased competition will introduce deflationary pressure on repair costs. Aftermarket shops have already learned to adapt to technological hurdles, and their suppliers have evolved accordingly.

Digital Democracy Project

It will certainly become easier for the aftermarket to compete by developing high quality products of their own. Manufacturer licenses for proprietary service data currently impose significant financial burdens and usage limitations. By making this data accessible, smaller outfits can create unique diagnostic tools that might slightly increase the percentage of drivers performing their own maintenance.

Ultimately, the status quo will largely remain intact. The insistence by Farley that security will be compromised is a problem that can be solved entirely within his company and by the other manufacturers. American auto manufacturers realize they struggle to compete on a level playing field and are relying on government intervention to obscure their complicity in a languishing industry that has failed to innovate meaningfully outside of electric vehicle newcomers.