Consumer Rights Wiki

User:Louis/Jim Farley's right to repair safety claim: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
Source FTC, NHTSA, Cox, and MA ballot claims with verbatim quotations; expand the White House meeting and Farley remarks with cited detail; attach REPAIR Act and Alliance v. Campbell identifiers to primary records
Quote Cox study directly; add highlighted study screenshot; tighten prose
Line 9: Line 9:
<blockquote>''No, that's, that's fine, not for warranty work, though. These are very complicated cars, and we don't think that's safe, for many of the repairs on our vehicles, someone at home like myself could never do it. I have no problem working on a '73 Bronco, but to work on a brand-new Bronco? I need all sorts of specialty tools. That's something that, um, you know, we would put people's lives at risk.''</blockquote><ref name="thedrive" />
<blockquote>''No, that's, that's fine, not for warranty work, though. These are very complicated cars, and we don't think that's safe, for many of the repairs on our vehicles, someone at home like myself could never do it. I have no problem working on a '73 Bronco, but to work on a brand-new Bronco? I need all sorts of specialty tools. That's something that, um, you know, we would put people's lives at risk.''</blockquote><ref name="thedrive" />


I have spent my working life repairing electronics that the manufacturer said could not safely be repaired by anyone outside its network. The pattern in Farley's answer is the oldest one in this fight: name a real danger, attach it to independent repair without any data tying the two together, and present a business preference as a safety rule. The safety claim has no evidence behind it.<ref name="ftc" /> The people whose job is to find that evidence looked for it and did not find it.<ref name="nhtsa-aug" /> And the thing Farley calls dangerous is what tens of millions of vehicles already get, every day, from shops and owners who are not Ford dealers.
I have spent my working life repairing electronics that the manufacturer said could not safely be repaired by anyone outside its network. The pattern in Farley's answer is the same one the FTC documented in 2021: name a real danger, attach it to independent repair without any data tying the two together, and present a business preference as a safety rule. The people whose job is to find evidence for that danger looked for it and did not find it.<ref name="ftc" /><ref name="nhtsa-aug" /> And the thing Farley calls dangerous is what tens of millions of vehicles already get, every day, from shops and owners who are not Ford dealers.


==The regulators who went looking for the safety risk did not find it==
==FTC and NHTSA findings on the safety justification==


The Federal Trade Commission studied the exact justification Farley used. After a public workshop and thousands of pages of industry comment, its 2021 report to Congress, ''Nixing the Fix'', concluded that ''there is scant evidence to support manufacturers' justifications for repair restrictions.''<ref name="ftc">{{Cite web |author=Federal Trade Commission |title=Nixing the Fix: An FTC Report to Congress on Repair Restrictions |work=Federal Trade Commission |date=2021-05 |url=https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/nixing-fix-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictions/nixing_the_fix_report_final_5521_630pm-508_002.pdf |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref> The report addressed the safety justification directly. The Commission wrote that it had specifically asked manufacturers for data on the risks of repairs made by consumers or independent shops, and that the industry did not supply it:
The Federal Trade Commission studied the exact justification Farley used. After a public workshop and thousands of pages of industry comment, its 2021 report to Congress, ''Nixing the Fix'', concluded that ''there is scant evidence to support manufacturers' justifications for repair restrictions.''<ref name="ftc">{{Cite web |author=Federal Trade Commission |title=Nixing the Fix: An FTC Report to Congress on Repair Restrictions |work=Federal Trade Commission |date=2021-05 |url=https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/nixing-fix-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictions/nixing_the_fix_report_final_5521_630pm-508_002.pdf |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref> The report addressed the safety justification directly. The Commission wrote that it had specifically asked manufacturers for data on the risks of repairs made by consumers or independent shops, and that the industry did not supply it:
Line 17: Line 17:
<blockquote>''...other than citing to the mobile phone thermal runaway occurring in Australia in 2011, manufacturers provided no data to support their argument that injuries are tied to repairs performed by consumers or independent repair shops. This is so despite the fact that the Call for Empirical Research specifically asked for data concerning '[t]he risks posed by repairs made by consumers or independent repair shops'...''</blockquote><ref name="ftc" />
<blockquote>''...other than citing to the mobile phone thermal runaway occurring in Australia in 2011, manufacturers provided no data to support their argument that injuries are tied to repairs performed by consumers or independent repair shops. This is so despite the fact that the Call for Empirical Research specifically asked for data concerning '[t]he risks posed by repairs made by consumers or independent repair shops'...''</blockquote><ref name="ftc" />


The federal vehicle-safety regulator reached the same place, and its path there is worth tracing because it is the cleanest test of the cybersecurity version of Farley's claim. On June 13, 2023, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration wrote to vehicle manufacturers warning that opening up telematics could be dangerous.
The federal vehicle-safety regulator reached the same place. On June 13, 2023, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration wrote to vehicle manufacturers warning that opening up telematics could be dangerous.


<blockquote>''Open access to vehicle manufacturers' telematics offerings with the ability to remotely send commands allows for manipulation of systems on a vehicle, including safety-critical functions such as steering, acceleration, or braking...''</blockquote><ref name="nhtsa-june">{{Cite web |author=National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |title=Letter from NHTSA to Vehicle Manufacturers Regarding the Massachusetts Data Access Law |work=U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |date=2023-06-13 |url=https://www.asashop.org/assets/pdf/Letter+from+NHTSA+to+Vehicle+Manufacturers+Regarding+MA+Data+Access+Law+-+6-13-23/ |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref>
<blockquote>''Open access to vehicle manufacturers' telematics offerings with the ability to remotely send commands allows for manipulation of systems on a vehicle, including safety-critical functions such as steering, acceleration, or braking...''</blockquote><ref name="nhtsa-june">{{Cite web |author=National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |title=Letter from NHTSA to Vehicle Manufacturers Regarding the Massachusetts Data Access Law |work=U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |date=2023-06-13 |url=https://www.asashop.org/assets/pdf/Letter+from+NHTSA+to+Vehicle+Manufacturers+Regarding+MA+Data+Access+Law+-+6-13-23/ |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref>


That letter is the high-water mark of the automakers' safety theory, and it lasted about ten weeks. On August 22, 2023, the same agency, through the same assistant chief counsel, wrote to the Massachusetts Attorney General's office and reversed course.
That letter lasted about ten weeks. On August 22, 2023, the same agency, through the same assistant chief counsel, wrote to the Massachusetts Attorney General's office and reversed course.


<blockquote>''NHTSA strongly supports the right to repair. We are pleased to have worked with you to identify a way that the Massachusetts Data Access Law may be successfully implemented ... without compromising safety.''</blockquote><ref name="nhtsa-aug">{{Cite web |author=National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |title=Letter from NHTSA to the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office Regarding the Data Access Law |work=U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |date=2023-08-22 |url=https://www.autocare.org/docs/default-source/government-affairs/2023-08-22-nhtsa-letter-regarding-ma-data-access-law.pdf |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref>
<blockquote>''NHTSA strongly supports the right to repair. We are pleased to have worked with you to identify a way that the Massachusetts Data Access Law may be successfully implemented ... without compromising safety.''</blockquote><ref name="nhtsa-aug">{{Cite web |author=National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |title=Letter from NHTSA to the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office Regarding the Data Access Law |work=U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |date=2023-08-22 |url=https://www.autocare.org/docs/default-source/government-affairs/2023-08-22-nhtsa-letter-regarding-ma-data-access-law.pdf |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref>


The agency pointed to short-range wireless protocols such as Bluetooth as a compliant, safe way to give owners and independents access. So the one federal body with authority over vehicle safety looked at the precise scenario Farley invokes and concluded that repair access and safety are compatible. When the regulator whose job is safety says a thing is safe, a chief executive who says it is not should be asked to show his work.
The agency pointed to short-range wireless protocols such as Bluetooth as a compliant, safe way to give owners and independents access. So the one federal body with authority over vehicle safety looked at the precise scenario Farley invokes and concluded that repair access and safety are compatible.


==Independent and do-it-yourself repair is the norm, not a fringe==
==Scale of independent and owner repair in the U.S.==


Farley framed self-repair as something exotic, a thing only a few people would attempt. The market says the opposite. A 2025 Cox Automotive study found that dealerships are losing service customers to independent shops, quick-oil-change outlets, and mobile services. In the study's words, ''Dealerships handle 12% fewer service visits than they did in 2018.''<ref name="cox">{{Cite web |author=Cox Automotive |title=New Cox Automotive Study Finds Dealerships Have Lost 12% of Service Visits to Competition Since 2018 |work=Cox Automotive |date=2025-11-11 |url=https://www.coxautoinc.com/insights/new-cox-automotive-study-finds-dealerships-have-lost-12-of-service-visits-to-competition-since-2018/ |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref> Among owners of cars two years old or newer, the share returning to their selling dealer for service fell from 72% in 2023 to 54% in 2025.<ref name="cox" /> The large majority of service happens somewhere other than a dealer. Independent shops perform about 70% of post-warranty repairs, and roughly 292 million vehicles are in operation in the United States, most of them serviced outside dealer networks.<ref name="autocare-rtr">{{Cite web |author=Auto Care Association |title=Auto Care Association Joins the Global Right to Repair Movement for Vehicles |work=Auto Care Association |date=2023-03-09 |url=https://www.autocare.org/news/latest-news/details/2023/03/09/auto-care-association-joins-the-global-right-to-repair-movement-for-vehicles |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref> The U.S. light-vehicle aftermarket was projected to reach $435 billion in 2025.<ref name="autocare-aftermarket">{{Cite web |author=Auto Care Association |title=U.S. Light Vehicle Automotive Aftermarket Projected to Reach $435 Billion in 2025 |work=Auto Care Association |date=2025-06-12 |url=https://www.autocare.org/news/latest-news/details/2025/06/12/u.s.-light-vehicle-automotive-aftermarket-projected-to-reach-$435-billion-in-2025 |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref>
[[File:Cox_Automotive_dealer_service_visit_decline_2025.png|thumb|right|400px|Highlighted excerpt from Cox Automotive's 2025 Service Industry Study on dealership service-visit decline.<ref name="cox" />]]


A sector that large, servicing a fleet that big, is not a safety experiment. It is how Americans keep their cars on the road. If independent and owner repair were the menace Farley describes, the bodies would be everywhere by now, and the FTC and NHTSA would have the data. They do not.
Farley framed self-repair as something exotic, a thing only a few people would attempt. The market says the opposite. A 2025 Cox Automotive study found that dealerships are losing service customers to independent shops, quick-oil-change outlets, and mobile services. In the study's words, ''Dealerships handle 12% fewer service visits than they did in 2018.''<ref name="cox">{{Cite web |author=Cox Automotive |title=New Cox Automotive Study Finds Dealerships Have Lost 12% of Service Visits to Competition Since 2018 |work=Cox Automotive |date=2025-11-11 |url=https://www.coxautoinc.com/insights/new-cox-automotive-study-finds-dealerships-have-lost-12-of-service-visits-to-competition-since-2018/ |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref> The same study measured how often owners of newer cars return to the selling dealer:


==The complexity and specialty-tools framing is a choice the industry makes==
<blockquote>''In 2025, only 54% of people with cars two years old or newer went back to the dealership where they purchased for service, which is down from 72% in 2023.''</blockquote><ref name="cox" />
 
The large majority of service happens somewhere other than a dealer. Independent shops perform about 70% of post-warranty repairs, and roughly 292 million vehicles are in operation in the United States, most of them serviced outside dealer networks.<ref name="autocare-rtr">{{Cite web |author=Auto Care Association |title=Auto Care Association Joins the Global Right to Repair Movement for Vehicles |work=Auto Care Association |date=2023-03-09 |url=https://www.autocare.org/news/latest-news/details/2023/03/09/auto-care-association-joins-the-global-right-to-repair-movement-for-vehicles |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref> The U.S. light-vehicle aftermarket was projected to reach $435 billion in 2025.<ref name="autocare-aftermarket">{{Cite web |author=Auto Care Association |title=U.S. Light Vehicle Automotive Aftermarket Projected to Reach $435 Billion in 2025 |work=Auto Care Association |date=2025-06-12 |url=https://www.autocare.org/news/latest-news/details/2025/06/12/u.s.-light-vehicle-automotive-aftermarket-projected-to-reach-$435-billion-in-2025 |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref>
 
A sector that large, servicing a fleet that big, is how Americans keep their cars on the road. If independent and owner repair were the menace Farley describes, the bodies would be everywhere by now, and the FTC and NHTSA would have the data. They do not.
 
==Specialty tools, the 2014 MOU, and what the industry agreed to provide==


Farley's strongest-sounding move is the Bronco contrast: a 1973 Bronco he can fix, a brand-new Bronco he says he could not, because it needs ''all sorts of specialty tools.'' The example works against him. The 2026 Bronco is a ladder-frame, gas-engine truck, which the journalist who transcribed his remark called ''one of the most primitive new cars you can buy right now.''<ref name="thedrive" /> If the conventional truck is the example of impossible complexity, the argument is in trouble before it starts.
Farley's strongest-sounding move is the Bronco contrast: a 1973 Bronco he can fix, a brand-new Bronco he says he could not, because it needs ''all sorts of specialty tools.'' The example works against him. The 2026 Bronco is a ladder-frame, gas-engine truck, which the journalist who transcribed his remark called ''one of the most primitive new cars you can buy right now.''<ref name="thedrive" /> If the conventional truck is the example of impossible complexity, the argument is in trouble before it starts.


The specialty-tools point is also not a fact of physics. It is a business decision, and the industry has already promised to undo it. In a 2014 national memorandum of understanding, automakers agreed to make available for purchase by owners and independent repair facilities all diagnostic repair tools incorporating ''the same diagnostic, repair and wireless capabilities'' that they make available to their own dealers, for Model Year 2002 vehicles and thereafter.<ref name="mou2014">{{Cite web |author=Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association |title=Right to Repair Memorandum of Understanding (as signed) |work=Alliance for Automotive Innovation |date=2014-01-15 |url=https://www.autosinnovate.org/about/advocacy/right-to-repair/2014%20R2R%20MOU%20as%20signed.pdf |access-date=2026-06-11 |quote=For Model Year 2002 motor vehicles and thereafter, all diagnostic repair tools incorporating the same diagnostic, repair and wireless capabilities that such manufacturer makes available to its dealers.}}</ref> When the same tools are available to everyone, ''someone at home like myself could never do it'' stops being a description of modern cars and becomes a description of what the manufacturer chooses to withhold.
The specialty-tools point is a business decision, and the industry has already promised to undo it. In a 2014 national memorandum of understanding, automakers agreed to make available for purchase by owners and independent repair facilities all diagnostic repair tools incorporating ''the same diagnostic, repair and wireless capabilities'' that they make available to their own dealers, for Model Year 2002 vehicles and thereafter.<ref name="mou2014">{{Cite web |author=Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association |title=Right to Repair Memorandum of Understanding (as signed) |work=Alliance for Automotive Innovation |date=2014-01-15 |url=https://www.autosinnovate.org/about/advocacy/right-to-repair/2014%20R2R%20MOU%20as%20signed.pdf |access-date=2026-06-11 |quote=For Model Year 2002 motor vehicles and thereafter, all diagnostic repair tools incorporating the same diagnostic, repair and wireless capabilities that such manufacturer makes available to its dealers.}}</ref> When the same tools are available to everyone, ''someone at home like myself could never do it'' stops being a description of modern cars and becomes a description of what the manufacturer chooses to withhold.


==The warranty carve-out is the whole game==
==The warranty-period carve-out and the REPAIR Act==


Listen to where Farley drew his line. He said self-repair is fine, ''not for warranty work, though.'' That carve-out is the federal fight in one phrase. The point of withholding tools and data during the warranty period is to keep the owner inside the dealer channel for the years when the car needs the most service. That is the pressure the federal REPAIR Act is written to relieve, by requiring access to the data, parts, and tools an owner or independent shop needs. The current version, H.R. 1566 in the 119th Congress, was introduced February 25, 2025 and was forwarded by subcommittee to the full Energy and Commerce Committee by voice vote on February 10, 2026.<ref name="repair-act">{{Cite web |title=H.R.1566 - REPAIR Act, 119th Congress (2025-2026) |work=Congress.gov |publisher=U.S. Congress |date=2025-02-25 |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1566 |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref> The bill is alive. The carve-out Farley defended is exactly what it targets.
Farley drew his line at warranty work. He said self-repair is fine, ''not for warranty work, though.'' That carve-out is the federal fight in one phrase. The point of withholding tools and data during the warranty period is to keep the owner inside the dealer channel for the years when the car needs the most service. That is the pressure the federal REPAIR Act is written to relieve, by requiring access to the data, parts, and tools an owner or independent shop needs. The current version, H.R. 1566 in the 119th Congress, was introduced February 25, 2025 and was forwarded by subcommittee to the full Energy and Commerce Committee by voice vote on February 10, 2026.<ref name="repair-act">{{Cite web |title=H.R.1566 - REPAIR Act, 119th Congress (2025-2026) |work=Congress.gov |publisher=U.S. Congress |date=2025-02-25 |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1566 |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref> The bill is alive. The carve-out Farley defended is exactly what it targets.


==Telematics data, parts revenue, and the service channel==
==Telematics data, parts revenue, and the service channel==
Line 53: Line 59:
==Days before the interview, the automakers asked Washington to restrict repair==
==Days before the interview, the automakers asked Washington to restrict repair==


The timing matters, and it is documented. Farley made his remark days after Ford and General Motors executives met President Trump at the White House on June 3, 2026.<ref name="cbtnews">{{Cite news |last=Campbell |first=Jaelyn |title=Trump weighs in on right-to-repair debate after meeting with automakers, dealers |work=CBT News |date=2026-06-05 |url=https://www.cbtnews.com/trump-weighs-in-on-right-to-repair-debate/ |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref><ref name="carscoops" /><ref name="autoblog" /> The meeting included General Motors chief executive Mary Barra, Ford Blue and Model e president Andrew Frick, representatives of the National Automobile Dealers Association and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio, a former dealership owner.<ref name="autoguide">{{Cite news |title=Trump Is Now Weighing In on Who Can Fix Your Car |work=AutoGuide |date=2026-06-05 |url=https://www.autoguide.com/auto/auto-news/trump-is-now-weighing-in-on-who-can-fix-your-car-44633788 |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref><ref name="aftermarket">{{Cite news |last=Merwin |first=Rob |title=Trump Endorses Right to Repair Legislation After Meeting With Automakers |work=Aftermarket Matters |date=2026-06-09 |url=https://www.aftermarketmatters.com/national-news/trump-endorses-right-to-repair-legislation-after-meeting-with-automakers/ |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> Ford confirmed that Frick attended the meeting to discuss vehicle repair and declined to comment further.<ref name="carscoops" />
Farley made his remark days after Ford and General Motors executives met President Trump at the White House on June 3, 2026.<ref name="cbtnews">{{Cite news |last=Campbell |first=Jaelyn |title=Trump weighs in on right-to-repair debate after meeting with automakers, dealers |work=CBT News |date=2026-06-05 |url=https://www.cbtnews.com/trump-weighs-in-on-right-to-repair-debate/ |access-date=2026-06-11}}</ref><ref name="carscoops" /><ref name="autoblog" /> The meeting included General Motors chief executive Mary Barra, Ford Blue and Model e president Andrew Frick, representatives of the National Automobile Dealers Association and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio, a former dealership owner.<ref name="autoguide">{{Cite news |title=Trump Is Now Weighing In on Who Can Fix Your Car |work=AutoGuide |date=2026-06-05 |url=https://www.autoguide.com/auto/auto-news/trump-is-now-weighing-in-on-who-can-fix-your-car-44633788 |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref><ref name="aftermarket">{{Cite news |last=Merwin |first=Rob |title=Trump Endorses Right to Repair Legislation After Meeting With Automakers |work=Aftermarket Matters |date=2026-06-09 |url=https://www.aftermarketmatters.com/national-news/trump-endorses-right-to-repair-legislation-after-meeting-with-automakers/ |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> Ford confirmed that Frick attended the meeting to discuss vehicle repair and declined to comment further.<ref name="carscoops" />


Trump described that meeting publicly the next day, and the Detroit Free Press broke the story on June 4, 2026 under the headline ''Trump says Ford, GM want bill to restrict owners from fixing their own vehicles''.<ref name="freep-trump">{{Cite news |title=Trump says Ford, GM want bill to restrict owners from fixing their own vehicles |work=Detroit Free Press |date=2026-06-04 |url=https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2026/06/04/trump-says-ford-gm-want-bill-to-restrict-owners-from-fixing-their-own-vehicles/90410359007/ |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> According to that reporting, he said the automakers had asked him to help restrict consumers from fixing their own vehicles.
Trump described that meeting publicly the next day, and the Detroit Free Press broke the story on June 4, 2026 under the headline ''Trump says Ford, GM want bill to restrict owners from fixing their own vehicles''.<ref name="freep-trump">{{Cite news |title=Trump says Ford, GM want bill to restrict owners from fixing their own vehicles |work=Detroit Free Press |date=2026-06-04 |url=https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2026/06/04/trump-says-ford-gm-want-bill-to-restrict-owners-from-fixing-their-own-vehicles/90410359007/ |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> According to that reporting, he said the automakers had asked him to help restrict consumers from fixing their own vehicles.
Line 63: Line 69:
<blockquote>''As we testified before the committee in January, independent auto repairers, collision repair experts, and leading automakers all support the right to repair. Always have, always will. ... Those same independent repairers and collision experts will tell you they have no problem getting exactly what they need to properly and safely repair a vehicle.''</blockquote><ref name="thestreet">{{Cite news |last=Owusu |first=Tony |title=Ford, GM get a White House message on car repair |work=The Street |date=2026-06-09 |url=https://www.thestreet.com/automotive/ford-gm-trump-white-house-message-car-repair-act |access-date=2026-06-12 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260610053951/https://www.thestreet.com/automotive/ford-gm-trump-white-house-message-car-repair-act |archive-date=2026-06-10 |url-status=live}}</ref>
<blockquote>''As we testified before the committee in January, independent auto repairers, collision repair experts, and leading automakers all support the right to repair. Always have, always will. ... Those same independent repairers and collision experts will tell you they have no problem getting exactly what they need to properly and safely repair a vehicle.''</blockquote><ref name="thestreet">{{Cite news |last=Owusu |first=Tony |title=Ford, GM get a White House message on car repair |work=The Street |date=2026-06-09 |url=https://www.thestreet.com/automotive/ford-gm-trump-white-house-message-car-repair-act |access-date=2026-06-12 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260610053951/https://www.thestreet.com/automotive/ford-gm-trump-white-house-message-car-repair-act |archive-date=2026-06-10 |url-status=live}}</ref>


A company that was, the same week, asking the federal government to make consumer repair harder is not a neutral witness to whether consumer repair is safe. The ''big advocate for the ability to repair a vehicle'' and the executive lobbying to restrict it are the same man, in the same week.
The ''big advocate for the ability to repair a vehicle'' was, the same week, asking the federal government to restrict it.


==What the evidence shows==
==What the FTC, NHTSA, and the court found==


Farley's claim is not supported by the safety regulator, by the trade regulator, by any data either of them could find, or by the federal judge who heard the industry's version of it. What supports it is a service-revenue model that depends on keeping owners and independent shops out of the warranty channel and away from the car's data. Saying ''we would put people's lives at risk'' is the most effective way to defend that model, because no one wants to argue against safety. But a safety claim with no evidence behind it is not a safety claim. It is a marketing position wearing a safety claim's clothes, and the people who fix 70% of America's cars deserve to have it called what it is.
Farley's claim is not supported by the safety regulator, by the trade regulator, by any data either of them could find, or by the federal judge who heard the industry's version of it. What supports it is a service-revenue model that depends on keeping owners and independent shops out of the warranty channel and away from the car's data. Saying ''we would put people's lives at risk'' is the most effective way to defend that model, because no one wants to argue against safety. But the safety claim has no evidence behind it, and the people who fix 70% of America's cars deserve to have it called what it is.


''Louis Rossmann''
''Louis Rossmann''
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/w/User:Louis/Jim_Farley%27s_right_to_repair_safety_claim"