Trade Groups Cite Cybersecurity and Safety Hypotheticals to Oppose Alaska's HB 162 Repair Bill

The Bill

Alaska HB 162 would expand consumer and independent repair shop access to parts, tools, and repair information for a range of products. The bill has drawn organized opposition from national trade associations and at least one company during legislative testimony.

What Opponents Argued

The Consumer Technology Association (CTA) testified against the bill, urging lawmakers to instead wait for a national "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) approach rather than passing state-level legislation. CTA warned of a "patchwork" of differing state repair laws.

The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association told lawmakers that broadening access to service information would create "enormous cybersecurity risks." EMA, a related industry group, went further, testifying that giving "untrained individuals and the public" access to service information is "dangerous and unnecessary."

The Papé Group, an equipment dealer, raised a hypothetical scenario in testimony: an untrained technician resetting the load parameters of a forklift while it operated more than 30 feet in the air, describing this as a potential safety risk if the bill passed.

The Alaska Farm Bureau argued that existing voluntary MOUs already in place with agricultural equipment manufacturers should be given a chance to work, rather than replacing them with enforceable legislation.

Context

The testimony was submitted as part of the legislative record on HB 162 in Alaska. The repair.org blog, which advocates for right-to-repair legislation, characterized the testimony as part of a recurring pattern of industry arguments used against repair bills in multiple states, though the specific claims documented here are limited to what these named groups and companies stated in their testimony.