Court Refuses Request for Temporary Restraining Order Barring Enforcement of Right to Repair Law Pending Decision in Case

The Massachusetts federal judge in the Alliance for Automotive Innovation v. Attorney General action denied today a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin the Massachusetts Attorney General’s forthcoming enforcement of the 2020 ballot initiative amending the state’s Right to Repair Law.  Newly-elected Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell gave the court notice in March that effective June 1, 2023, her office intends to begin enforcing the Right to Repair Law, bringing an end to the Attorney General’s stipulated stay of enforcement pending the outcome of the lawsuit brought by the Alliance challenging the constitutionality of the law.

On May 25, 2023, the Alliance filed an emergency motion to enjoin the Attorney General from enforcing the law until Judge Douglas Woodlock issues a final ruling in the case. Ruling from the bench during a hearing today on that motion, Judge Woodlock acknowledged that the provisions of the Right to Repair Law “are quite significant and chilling,” but said that he found the Attorney General’s reading of the statute “plausible” and “reasonable.” He also found that the Alliance had shown “some” likelihood of success on the merits of its claims, but “not [a] fairly robust” likelihood.  Similarly, he found some potential harm to OEMs if he did not grant the TRO, but found that harm also was not “fairly robust.” In balancing the hardships between the parties, Judge Woodlock noted that the state “has a right not to be interfered with,” and that the balance between the interests of the parties “is at best equal and probably leans in the direction of more hardship to the Attorney General.”

Finally, Judge Woodlock considered the public interest in enjoining the Attorney General’s enforcement of the Right to Repair Law.  On the one hand, he noted the Attorney General’s argument that “a vote is a vote is a vote, and people have voted on this and this is the result.”  But Judge Woodlock conceded that the new law “is demanding” and “in its current form it is probably unobtainable” and “imposes standards in ways that simply haven’t been resolved,” suggesting that he agrees that complying with the law is currently impossible.  Nevertheless, he blamed both sides for taking a “wait and see” approach to complying with the law, which has made it difficult for him to evaluate the respective responsibilities of the parties and how that effects the public interest.

Judge Woodlock said that he would entertain a motion for preliminary injunction in the future and that he expected both parties to inform the court if they learned of any litigation brought by either consumers under the law’s private right of action, or enforcement actions by the Attorney General’s office, hinting that if such actions were imminent, he may be willing to act while the case remains pending.  When asked if he could advise the parties on when a ruling on the merits may be forthcoming, Judge Woodlock said that he “wished [he] could be prepared to do that” but it would be “inappropriate for me to say how long it is going to take,” saying that it will take “as long as it is necessary to reach the right result.”