Relating To Automotive Repair.
HB1464 would create a new chapter in the Hawaii Revised Statutes governing motor vehicle mechanical systems and telematics access. Beginning with model year 2022 vehicles sold in Hawaii, including heavy-duty vehicles, manufacturers that use telematics systems would have to provide an interoperable, standardized, open-access platform across their makes and models. That platform would need to securely transmit vehicle-specific mechanical data and allow the vehicle owner to access that data through a mobile application. With the owner’s authorization, independent repair facilities would also be able to access the data for diagnosis, maintenance, and repair, including sending commands to in-vehicle components when needed for repair work.
The bill also requires the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to create a standardized telematics notice for prospective buyers and lessees. Dealers selling or leasing vehicles with telematics systems would have to provide the notice, obtain the buyer’s signed acknowledgment, and give the buyer a copy. Failure to comply could subject a dealer to licensing action, including possible revocation. The bill further states that manufacturers are not required to disclose trade secrets, and it preserves existing franchise agreement terms except to the extent those agreements try to waive or limit compliance with the new chapter.
HB1464 would also create enforcement and remedy provisions. Violations would be treated as unfair competition and a restraint of trade under chapter 480. Before filing suit, an owner or independent repair facility generally must notify the manufacturer through the National Automotive Service Task Force process and allow 30 days to cure. If access to mechanical data is denied in violation of the bill, the owner or authorized repair facility could bring a civil action and recover treble damages or $10,000, whichever is greater. Dealers would generally have the same rights and remedies as independent repair facilities, except in disputes arising from their own franchise agreements.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly pro-consumer and pro-repair access, with the measure designed to expand vehicle owners’ control over telematics data and improve access for independent repair shops. At the same time, the bill includes several protections for manufacturers and franchise relationships, suggesting an attempt to balance repair access with intellectual property and contractual concerns. No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded discussion or voting history to indicate additional support or opposition.
The main points of contention likely involve whether the required open-access platform would impose burdens on manufacturers, whether it could expose proprietary systems or trade secrets, and how it would affect dealer-manufacturer franchise arrangements. Independent repair facilities and vehicle owners would likely support the bill because it expands access to diagnostic and repair data, while manufacturers and possibly some dealers may object to the mandated data-sharing platform, enforcement exposure, and potential liability for noncompliance.
The bill would add a new chapter to the Hawaii Revised Statutes regulating telematics-equipped motor vehicles and repair-data access. It would impose new obligations on manufacturers, require a consumer notice process administered by the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, authorize licensing consequences for noncompliant dealers, and create a private right of action with enhanced damages for denied access to mechanical data. It would also interact with chapter 480 by deeming violations unfair competition and a restraint of trade, while preserving trade secret protections and most franchise agreement terms.
The bill appears generally favorable to consumers, vehicle owners, and independent repair businesses because it expands access to vehicle mechanical data and repair tools. The structure of the bill suggests an effort to address concerns from manufacturers and dealers by preserving trade secrets and franchise agreements, but the core policy direction is clearly toward broader repair access. Because no committee testimony or votes were provided, there is no direct record of formal support or opposition in the available materials.
Likely areas of dispute are the mandate that manufacturers provide an interoperable, standardized, open-access telematics platform; the requirement that dealers deliver and document a telematics notice at sale or lease; and the bill’s private enforcement scheme, including treble damages or a $10,000 minimum award for denied access. Manufacturers may argue the bill risks exposing proprietary systems or creating compliance burdens, while independent repair facilities and consumer advocates would likely support the measure as a right-to-repair and repair-access bill. Dealers may also be concerned about licensing penalties tied to notice compliance, though the bill attempts to limit conflict with existing franchise agreements.