Committee hears competing views on motorcycle right-to-repair; bill laid over

Senate File 2484, which would add motorcycles to Minnesota's Digital Fair Repair Act, drew sharply contrasting testimony on March 12, 2026, and was laid over by the Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee for further consideration.

Sponsor Senator Seaburger framed the proposal as an owner-rights and competition measure, saying the 2023 Digital Fair Repair Act meant consumers and independent repair technicians could access parts, tools and diagnostics. "Minnesotans deserve a clear law that defines the right to fix the things they own, and that should include motorcycles," he said.

Supporters told personal stories of repair denials. Stu Lohrey (Minnesota Farmers Union) described being unable to have his 2023 motorcycle serviced by independent technicians on a long trip because software access was restricted; he said having access to repair resources could increase safety. "If I'd been able to fix my bike, I think I would have been significantly safer," he told the committee.

Julius Shih of the Public Interest Research Group argued repair restrictions have produced "a monopolized repair ecosystem" that hurts riders and independent mechanics and raises repair costs.

Industry witnesses opposed the expansion. Kyle Macarios, representing the Motorcycle Industry Council and related trade groups, urged rejection of removing the law's motorcycle exclusion, arguing that some motorcycle repairs affect safety systems, emissions and regulated equipment and should be performed by trained technicians. He cited federal emissions standards and told the committee motorcycles are regulated under "section 202 of the Clean Air Act," warning that untrained alterations could put riders and the public at risk and could cause noncompliance with safety and environmental rules.

Sponsor Seaburger emphasized owner choice and said the bill would be limited to motorcycles; he declined to pursue agriculture equipment in this vehicle-focused measure. After hearing proponents and opponents, the committee laid the bill over for further work; no final vote on passage was taken.

Next steps: Committee staff and legislators indicated more negotiation and technical drafting are expected before the bill returns for consideration.