What is the MVIS?
The MVIS provides Australian motor vehicle repairers with access to the information needed to service and repair vehicles. Under the MVIS, motor vehicle service and repair information must be made available for purchase by repairers and registered training organisations. The MVIS is implemented and compliance is mandatory under Part IVE of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) recently published updated guidance on the MVIS and is actively enforcing the law in this area – it issued its first infringement notices against Honda late last year.
What is the rationale behind the MVIS?
The MVIS is the first right to repair legislation in Australia. It came into effect on 1 July 2022, following recommendations made in the ACCC’s 2017 market study of the new car retailing industry, which found that manufacturers could:
Limit independent repairers’ access to technical information.
Steer consumers to use authorised dealers or preferred repairer networks.
The MVIS seeks to level the playing field, limiting self-preferencing and facilitating third-party competition by providing access to relevant technical information and by extension, providing consumers with more choice, value and convenience when servicing or repairing their cars. There is, however, a recognition that there are costs associated with compliance, which can be recovered through supply at fair market value.
What vehicles are covered by the MVIS?
The MVIS applies to scheme vehicles, which are passenger or light goods vehicles manufactured after 1 January 2002. The MVIS does not apply to two or three-wheeled vehicles, farm, construction or heavy vehicles, motorhomes or buses.
What information is covered by the MVIS?
Scheme information is information prepared by or for manufacturers of scheme vehicles for use in diagnosing faults with servicing or repairing those vehicles, including:
Information needed to service and repair cars or provide training.
Software updates that help to connect a new spare part with a car.
Information and codes for computerised systems from a car manufacturer.
It does not include any trade secrets, intellectual property, a source code version of a program or data generated by a vehicle regarding driver or vehicle performance.
Who does the MVIS affect?
Repairers: Anyone who carries on a business in Australia that involves diagnosing faults with, servicing, repairing, modifying or dismantling scheme vehicles. Consumers are not eligible to access information under the MVIS, although car manufacturers are not prevented from sharing information with consumers.
Registered training organisations (RTOs): A registered training organisation in Australia that provides training in diagnosing faults with, servicing, repairing, modifying or dismantling scheme vehicles. RTOs are included within the meaning of a ‘repairer’ under the MVIS.
Data providers: Anyone who carries on a business in Australia that includes supplying scheme information to Australian repairers, including within vertically integrated structures and within related body corporates. Examples of data providers could include a motor vehicle manufacturer (or an Australian subsidiary of an overseas manufacturer), an affiliated dealership, an information owner or licensee, a data aggregator, a scan tool provider or a vehicle importer.
What obligations does the MVIS impose?
The obligations under the MVIS apply to data providers who supply scheme information to any repairer or RTO. The key obligations are summarised below.
Obligation | Description | Consequences of breach | |
Offer to supply scheme information | A data provider must offer to supply the same scheme information to all Australian repairers (scheme offer). Scheme information that is supplied to affiliated repairers must also be made available to independent repairers. Scheme information must be offered in the same form in which it is supplied to other repairers or in an electronic form that is reasonably accessible to all repairers. | A pecuniary penalty of up to $10 million for a body corporate or $500,000 for an individual. | |
Scheme offer not to exceed fair market price | A data provider must offer to supply scheme information at a price (scheme price) that does not exceed the fair market value of the information. The fair market value is dependent on factors such as:
| A pecuniary penalty of up to $10 million for a body corporate or $500,000 for an individual. | |
Publication of scheme offer | The scheme offer must be provided in English, on the internet and in a form that is accessible free of charge. | A pecuniary penalty of 600 penalty units ($198,000) for a body corporate or 120 penalty units ($3,960) for an individual. Alternatively, an infringement notice of 60 penalty units ($19,800) for a body corporate or 12 penalty units ($3,960) for an individual. | |
Restriction of access to safety and security information | Safety information is scheme information relating to the hydrogen system, electric propulsion system or high voltage system installed in a scheme vehicle. Security information is scheme information relating to the security of the vehicle where that information is unique to the vehicle (such as a code used to cut a key that fits a particular vehicle) and/or only able to be used for a limited period (such as a reset code). A data provider must not provide safety or security information under the scheme to an individual unless they meet the relevant eligibility criteria. The data provider must request information about an individual seeking safety or security information and assess whether they are a fit and proper person to access and use the information solely for the purpose of a repairer’s business or providing an RTO course. A data provider must separate safety and security information from other scheme information to the extent that it is reasonably practicable to do so and it must keep a record of the supply of the security information for a period of five years. | A pecuniary penalty of up to 600 penalty units ($198,000) for a body corporate or 120 penalty units ($39,600) for an individual. Alternatively, an infringement notice of 60 penalty units ($19,800) for a body corporate or 12 penalty units ($3,960) for an individual. | |
Timeframes for the supply of scheme information | Scheme information must be supplied to a repairer within prescribed timeframes. Immediately: if the scheme information has been supplied to any repairer previously in that form or it is readily accessible by the data provider and can be provided in the form requested. Two business days: if the requested scheme information contains safety or security information from a data provider and that data provider has not previously determined whether the individual is eligible to access that type of information. Five business days: if a data provider has not previously supplied the requested scheme information to any repairer and it is not readily accessible in the requested form. | A pecuniary penalty of up to $10 million for a body corporate or $500,000 for an individual. Alternatively, an infringement notice of 600 penalty units ($198,000) for a body corporate or 120 penalty units ($39,600) for an individual. | |
Prohibited terms and conditions of supply | A data provider must not enter into a contract for the supply of scheme information that contains any term:
| A pecuniary penalty of up to 600 penalty units ($198,000) for a body corporate or 120 penalty units ($39,600) for an individual. Alternatively, an infringement notice of 60 penalty units ($19,800) for a body corporate or 12 penalty units ($3,960) for an individual. | |
Paying compensation to third parties that hold copyright | A data provider must supply scheme information even if it may result in an infringement of copyright, a breach of contract or a breach of an equitable obligation of confidence. If a third party holds copyright in relation to the scheme information, the data provider must pay compensation to the copyright holder. An existing licensing arrangement with a third-party copyright holder does not exempt the data provider from liability under the scheme. | N/A | |
Notifying the Scheme Adviser of relevant matters | A data provider must notify the Scheme Adviser of:
| A pecuniary penalty of up to 600 penalty units ($198,000) for a body corporate or 120 penalty units ($39,600) for an individual. Alternatively, an infringement notice of 60 penalty units ($19,800) for a body corporate or 12 penalty units ($3,960) for an individual. |
The MVIS also provides for a dispute resolution procedure for disputes about operation of the MVIS, including matters such as:
What is or is not scheme information.
The timeliness of access to scheme information.
Whether the price charged for scheme information exceeds its fair market value.
This does not preclude data providers or repairers from separately taking legal action or complaining to the ACCC.
More details about obligations under the MVIS are available in the updated guidance to data providers published by the ACCC in June 2025.
Who is responsible for administering the MVIS?
The Australian Automotive Service and Repair Authority (AASRA), comprising members from four industry stakeholder groups, was appointed by the Minister as the Scheme Adviser. In that role, it is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the MVIS, including:
Being the first point of contact for general information and advice about the MVIS.
Collecting information about scheme offers from data providers.
Reporting to the Minister, ACCC and via publication of annual reports on its website.
The ACCC is responsible for investigating alleged breaches and taking compliance or enforcement action where appropriate.
What enforcement outcomes have been achieved under the MVIS?
In September 2024, the ACCC issued Honda with an infringement notice for an alleged breach of information sharing requirements under the MVIS on the basis that Honda only offered to supply diagnostic software on a yearly basis, without offering cheaper daily or monthly subscription options. While Honda did not directly admit to breaching those requirements, it paid the penalty of $18,780.
This is the first, and so far only, enforcement action for alleged contravention of the MVIS.
One of the ACCC’s enduring compliance and enforcement priorities is ensuring that small businesses (which would include most independent repairers) receive the protections of competition and consumer laws, such as the MVIS.
The ACCC has stated that it is continuing to conduct compliance checks and will take appropriate enforcement action for non-compliance, which may include commencing proceedings in the Federal Court. In considering enforcement action, the ACCC will consider whether a data provider has:
Made little or no effort to comply.
Unnecessarily or intentionally withheld or delayed the provision of scheme information.
Consistently not complied with the main obligations.
Engaged in systemic conduct which could result in substantial harm to repairers, including storing or accessing personal information obtained from repairers outside of Australia.
Maintained or gained an advantage through non-compliance.
What is the broader policy context for the MVIS?
In recent years, there has been an increasing focus by competition law regulators and plaintiffs on breaking down so-called ‘walled gardens’ – that is, closed ecosystems of products and services.
This is reflected in:
The tenth and final report of the ACCC’s Digital Platform Services Inquiry, which referred to conduct with distortionary competitive effects such as denying interoperability, self-preferencing and tying, exclusivity agreements and withholding access to important hardware, software and data inputs.
The recent judgment in the Epic proceedings against Apple and Google found that forced usage of their respective app stores and in-app payment systems (which entailed hefty commissions), amounted to misuse of market power (for further details, see our article here).
The concept of walled gardens is not restricted solely to the digital context, also finding application to physical products, which are becoming increasingly sophisticated (including due to use of proprietary hardware and software) and extending to repairs of those products.
For example, in 2018, Apple was ordered to pay $9 million in penalties for making false or misleading representations to customers with faulty iPhones and iPads about their consumer guarantee rights under the Australian Consumer Law – specifically, error 53, which rendered devices inoperable after downloading an update to the iOS, with Apple asserting that customers were no longer eligible for a remedy if their device had been repaired by a third party.
In parallel, the right to repair movement has also been gaining traction from a consumer perspective, aligning with other policy priorities such as sustainability, given that it also has the effect of reducing waste and resisting planned obsolescence, consistently with the move towards a circular economy.
The right to repair has been enshrined in legislation overseas, including in:
The UK from July 2021.
The EU from July 2024.
There is no general right to repair under Australian law, but the MVIS is an important example of an industry-specific obligation which has similar effect for the motor vehicle industry.