Australia's competition regulator has launched its first Federal Court case under the country's motor vehicle right-to-repair scheme, alleging Subaru Australia denied independent repairers access to technical information on the same terms as its authorised dealerships.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission filed proceedings against Subaru Australia on Friday, alleging the carmaker breached the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme (MVIS) between July 1, 2022 and August 31, 2024. The MVIS is a mandatory scheme introduced under the Competition and Consumer Amendment Act that requires vehicle manufacturers and data providers to make diagnostic, service and repair information available to all Australian repairers at no more than fair market value.
The ACCC alleges Subaru failed to offer independent repairers the same software and technical information it provided to its dealership network. Specific allegations include requiring independent repairers to purchase certain hardware to connect diagnostic software to vehicles, offering scheme information only on an annual basis when the law requires daily or monthly options to also be available, and failing to provide requested information to two independent repairers at all.
ACCC commissioner Luke Woodward said the case goes directly to consumer choice: "As a result, consumers may have been unable to use an independent, local or family-run repairer rather than using Subaru's dealerships."
Subaru Australia had not publicly responded to the allegations when the proceedings were filed. The ACCC is seeking declarations, penalties, costs and other Federal Court orders. The case marks the first time the regulator has taken a data provider to court under the MVIS since the scheme became mandatory in July 2022. A prior action against Honda Australia was resolved through an infringement notice rather than litigation - Honda paid an $18,780 penalty in September 2024 for failing to make its diagnostic software available via daily or monthly subscription.
The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, which represents independent workshops and dealers, welcomed the court action. VACC chief executive Peter Jones (pictured) said withholding repair data "is not a technicality - it's a safety and competition problem," and argued compliance "can't just be a box-ticking exercise."
The case lands in the middle of a live debate about repair costs that directly touches motor insurance. A Treasury review released in February 2026 found the MVIS had been associated with a $2.4 billion annual increase in automotive industry turnover - evidence that independent workshop access to repair data produces real market activity. The Insurance Council of Australia told Treasury earlier this year that the scheme's impact on repair costs remained limited by manufacturers' continued control over parts and software-enabled parts pairing, and called for the rules to be expanded beyond information to cover access to parts themselves.
Restricted access to diagnostic data narrows the pool of workshops able to service late-model vehicles. That restriction pushes insured repairs toward dealer networks, which carry higher hourly labour rates than independent workshops, and can extend turnaround times in ways that compound rental and storage costs on a claim. For motor insurers managing claims on complex late-model vehicles - and in particular on electric vehicles, where OEM-controlled software and component systems are a growing source of access friction - the Subaru case is a live illustration of why repair information access matters to claims economics, not just to consumer choice.
The EV dimension is already showing up in premium pricing. RACV general manager of insurance Bill Bloodworth has noted that EVs' unique components, including batteries and charging equipment, need to be factored into how cover is priced and applied. RACV reported that BYD insurance quotes rose 134% and Tesla quotes rose 54% in March 2026 compared with the same month a year earlier.
The ICA has called for the MVIS to be extended to cover parts access, arguing that information alone does not guarantee independent repairers can complete repairs. The Federal Court's findings in the Subaru case will determine whether the existing information-sharing obligations, as written, carry real enforcement weight - or whether a more fundamental expansion of the scheme is needed to produce the competitive repair market the MVIS was designed to create.
