Boston Globe, Consumer Reports Endorse Right to Repair

This post is sponsored and contributed by a Patch Community Partner. The views expressed in this post are the author's own, and the information presented has not been verified by Patch.

Two separate independent sources have supported Question 1, also known as Right to Repair. The Boston Globe and Consumer Reports have both endorsed the Right to Repair, while Tufts University Center for State Policy Research authored a study which states that Question 1 will increase competition and does not create digital security risks. All three of these organizations criticized the scaremongering attack ads funded by the big automakers.

The Boston Globe wrote, “The reason the new Right to Repair measure should pass is simple: It is inherently unfair for car manufacturers to have sole access to a vehicle’s mechanical data, because it gives their dealerships an advantage over independent auto-repair shops. That ultimately hurts consumers, because with limited options come higher prices.” Later on in their endorsement, the newspaper’s editorial board criticized the, “fear-mongering ads about stalking and sexual predators,” that automakers have spent over $24 million putting on Massachusetts’ televisions.

Consumer Reports, the nation’s oldest consumer advocacy publication and one of the first organizations to support seat belt laws and expose the dangerousness of cigarettes, is similarly supportive of Question 1. They are longtime advocates for the consumer’s Right to Repair. Recently, Consumer Reports wrote, “Consumers, farmers, and others who have fixed their own

cars, machinery, or appliances, or worked with a neighborhood repair shop or mechanic, know

well how important it is to maintain meaningful ownership over the products that they buy,

including the right to safely repair, alter, tinker with, or resell them.”

Later on, the organization wrote, “That’s why Consumer Reports supports the Right to Repair—in other words, expanding access to the information and tools necessary for repair, on the same terms as it is offered to authorized repairers. Ensuring that consumers and independent repairers have this access will not only preserve ownership rights, but it will expand consumer choice in the marketplace, save consumers money, and reduce waste as well.”

Finally, the Tufts University Center for State Policy Research wrote an independent analysis of Question 1. While they did not formally endorse the referendum, they criticized the security claims made by carmakers. They wrote, in part, “repair shops likely won’t have access to

your location history, your favored gas stations, or your garage door codes, as that isn’t repair-relevant. Instead, they’d be able to see information about things like the use of supplemental restraint systems.” This is contrary to the television ads run by Question 1’s opponents, which inaccurately claim that Right to Repair would expose personal data to hackers and other predators.

These endorsements are the latest example of the broad support enjoyed by Right to Repair. Question 1 is supported by over 100 independent repair shops, former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis, and one of the nation’s largest electronic privacy advocacy groups. These different supporters are united by their shared belief that car owners, not dealerships, should decide where to go for repairs.

This is a sponsored post contributed by a Patch Community Partner, a local sponsor. To learn more, click here.