Q: What information do Revv and shops have access to now, and how does Right to Repair help expand that information access? 

“Let’s say a 2026 model goes into repair, and Revv produces the calibration report of required ADAS functional safety procedures that need to be performed on that vehicle based on the repairs that are happening and based on that particular car. Now, the level of information that is accessible to us, independent shops, and everybody for new vehicles coming into the car parc is limited, or is delayed, basically. So, what our technology does is let the technicians who are repairing the cars in real time give us feedback on the output generated. So, the Right to Repair movement will bring more information to shops and this improved access means shops aren’t waiting on secondhand or delayed information to determine what a new vehicle actually requires for repair.” 

Q: What is the information gap between independent shops and manufacturers that you feel the bill doesn’t address? 

“Telematics is another piece of the puzzle. Take two 2025 BMW 330i xDrives - same make, model, year, same trim. One was ordered with the Driving Assistance Professional package, the other wasn’t. Those are physically different cars. The optioned one has forward radar and camera hardware that the base car simply doesn’t have. Now that car comes in for front-end damage. On one of them, replacing the bumper cover triggers a radar recalibration. On the other it doesn’t. Same year, same trim, same line on the estimate - completely different functional safety requirements. And you can’t tell which is which from the RO. 

In order to get to complete certainty at the point of repair when the car comes into the shop, you not only need the manufacturer-level of repair information, but you also need real-time data about the car around what's equipped in terms of systems and features to be able to be completely certain and accurate. If that's not there, there's going to be manual steps to figure it out, but that again adds to the cycle time and the willingness of the shop to take up that work, which creates this gap in how well the car is repaired. Telematics was in the original REPAIR Act. It got stripped out of the version that advanced this spring, and Massachusetts has been litigating its telematics provision for years. So, the piece the industry needs most for calibration precision is the exact piece that keeps falling out of the bill.” 

Q: Is this problem exclusive to independent shops, or does it affect MSOs as well? 

“The information gap isn't unique to independents; MSOs face the same OEM data access issues. This is really a broader collision repair industry problem, not just an independent shop problem. The main difference is that larger MSOs have more resources to work around the gap, so independents feel it more acutely. But the gap itself is industrywide.” 

Q: Are there any resources or tools shops can use to access telematics data without manually figuring it out themselves? 

“Right now, telematics is quite the black box for independent shops, and independent shops are already being squeezed in terms of margins. They already must use a plethora of software to aid their efforts to complete the repair and put the safest car back on the road. So, I do not believe that shops need a new piece of software to have this level of access. At the end of the day, what they end up doing is inspecting the car and spending more time physically validating what's equipped and what's not equipped in the car, which can be a pretty painful job given the extent of repair that is being. A lot of these components require a thorough disassembly to really figure out whether they're equipped or not. The scan tool doesn't give you the full picture. It's tedious and they do end up missing some things that might be very important to get the repair done properly. So, I think access is number one, but access doesn't really fix the whole issue…. synthesizing that information and being able to utilize it at the point of repair efficiently is a completely different ballgame.”

Q: What is Revv doing to try to address this issue?  

“What we have noticed time and again is that the industry on the repair side of things is extremely fragmented and just the sheer number of players in the ecosystem has one disadvantage – it's very hard to have a collective voice from that side of the industry coming together and aiming the right thing to do with the right stakeholders at the right point in time. At Revv, we are trying to fundamentally solve this by bringing the most expert, powerful voices with good intentions together to have a collective voice. This doesn't really apply to the specific Right to Repair movement or the addition that we need to make to the Right to Repair movement. I do think that it's a great step forward… and it's going to lead to better access to data, which is going to be great for everybody. Adding telematics to it might just be a natural next step.” 

Q: Aside from telematics, are there any other information gaps? 

“[Yes]. The usability of the data is how I would categorize it. So, the data will come; they will have access, but it's going to be very fragmented. It's going to be difficult to navigate. It's not going to be presented in a way that is practical for the technicians and, with data on new cars being met new as well, there becomes a steep learning curve for technicians, no matter how skilled you are, or whether you're just at the entry point of starting your repair career. So, the usability of the data matters so much, [but that’s] not a legislative thing to solve for, but it's more on companies like Revv to help technicians quickly identify the right procedures, complete required steps about those procedures, and then the ability to document that work with confidence.” 

Q: Any final comments or remarks?

“If this access materializes the way it’s described, it’s a real step forward for shops. But it hasn’t happened yet - the telematics piece was cut; Massachusetts is still in court, and the version moving through the House mostly codifies a handshake agreement the industry has had since 2014. Worth celebrating when it lands, not before. The industry should keep on advocating for more data, the right data, and I would urge the major players in the hardware and technology side of things to utilize this as an opportunity to provide a better service to the industry. As we get more data, we need to also show that there's a real impact that we can make with this data.”