Dealer Data Rights Center

It is your data. Here is what actually protects it.

Six states have written dealer data rights into law. A decade of federal antitrust litigation put a price on access to your own records. This is the working reference: every statute with its official citation, the case timeline that explains why the statutes exist, and the contract language to use before you sign anything.

The short answer

A dealership owns the customer, deal, and service records it creates. What dealerships have historically lacked is not ownership but control: the ability to export those records, authorize their own integrations, and stop a vendor from reusing the data elsewhere. Arizona, Montana, Oregon, Utah, North Carolina, and Washington now address that by statute. Everywhere else, the protection you have is the protection you negotiated.

The practical move is the same in all fifty states: get ownership, standing export, AI training limits, fee caps, and a termination data return in writing.

State dealer data laws

Each entry links to the official legislative text. Where an enactment year could not be confirmed against a primary source, the entry says so rather than guessing. Statutes get amended, so confirm the current text before relying on it in a contract.

Arizona

2019 (HB 2418)

A.R.S. sections 28-4651 to 28-4655

The template other states follow. No third party, including a DMS vendor or a manufacturer, may access, share, sell, copy, use, or transmit protected dealer data without the dealer's prior express written consent, and no contract or technical measure may restrict a dealer from storing or sharing its own data. Dealer data vendors must provide open, standardized API access for integrators the dealer authorizes.

What it gives the dealer

  • Written consent required before any third party uses protected dealer data
  • Dealer may authorize its own integrators
  • Open, standardized API access using STAR or compatible standards
  • No contractual or technical barriers to a dealer sharing its own data

CDK Global and Reynolds & Reynolds sued to block enforcement. The District of Arizona denied a preliminary injunction in 2020 and the Ninth Circuit affirmed on October 25, 2021 in CDK Global LLC v. Brnovich. The statute stands.

Read the Arizona statute on Arizona Revised Statutes

Montana

2019 (HB 617)

Mont. Code Ann. sections 30-11-717 to 30-11-720

Prohibits third parties from accessing, sharing, selling, or using protected dealer data without prior written consent, and prohibits fees or technical restrictions that limit a dealer's ability to use its own data. Dealer data vendors and authorized integrators may use the data only as the dealer's contract permits.

What it gives the dealer

  • Written consent required before third-party use
  • No fees or technical measures that limit the dealer's use of its own data
  • Vendor use limited to what the dealer's contract allows
Read the Montana statute on Montana Code Annotated

Oregon

2019 (HB 3152)

ORS 650.120 to 650.170, as amended by 2019 HB 3152

Focuses on the toll booth. Regulates the access fees a DMS provider may charge a dealer or an integrator for access to protected dealer data, and limits the conditions a provider may place on a dealer's ability to receive, share, copy, use, or write its own data.

What it gives the dealer

  • Limits on access fees charged for dealer data
  • Limits on conditions placed on dealer or integrator access
  • Covers write access, not only read access
Read the Oregon statute on Oregon Legislature, enrolled HB 3152

Utah

Signed March 2024, effective May 1, 2024

Motor Vehicle Consumer Data Protection Act (S.B. 215, 2024)

The most recent entry. Restricts franchisors and third parties from limiting a dealer's control of its own consumer and dealer data, and from conditioning system access on the dealer giving up data rights. Confirm the codified section numbers against the Utah Code before citing the act in a contract.

What it gives the dealer

  • Dealer control of its own consumer and dealer data
  • No conditioning of system access on surrendering data rights
Read the Utah statute on S.B. 215 summary record

North Carolina

Enactment year not confirmed from a primary source

N.C. Gen. Stat. section 20-305.7

Aimed at the factory rather than the DMS. A manufacturer, factory branch, or distributor may not require a dealer to hand over customer lists, customer contact information, transaction data, or service files except as expressly authorized, and dealer consent is required for access to dealership information.

What it gives the dealer

  • Manufacturer cannot compel customer lists or service files
  • Dealer consent required for access to dealership information
Read the North Carolina statute on North Carolina General Statutes

Washington

Enactment year not confirmed from a primary source

RCW 46.96.270

Provides that notwithstanding contrary contract terms, when a manufacturer, distributor, DMS vendor, or third party grants preferred status to certain integrators, the dealer retains rights over the release of dealer and customer data and over access to its management computer system, with immunity for dealers who share data as permitted.

What it gives the dealer

  • Contract terms cannot override the dealer's release rights
  • Dealer retains control of management system access
  • Immunity for permitted data sharing
Read the Washington statute on Revised Code of Washington

States often assumed to have a dealer data law, but do not

We could not verify a dealer data control statute comparable to the six above in Hawaii, Illinois, Nebraska, Texas, Colorado, Virginia, Maine, Minnesota. Several of these have general consumer privacy laws or dealer franchise statutes, which is a different thing. If you operate in one of them, your data rights come from your contracts.

Litigation timeline

What the courts established about dealer data

Eight years of federal litigation over who controls the pipes between a dealership and its own records, and what that access was worth. Each entry links to the underlying filing or opinion.

  1. November 6, 2017

    Seventh Circuit vacates the Authenticom injunction

    In Authenticom, Inc. v. CDK Global, LLC, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court order that had required CDK and Reynolds to restore Authenticom's data access, holding Authenticom had not shown irreparable harm.

    Why it matters to a dealer: An independent integrator was cut off from dealer data and the courts did not restore access on an emergency basis. Dealers learned that the plumbing between their systems could be shut off faster than a court could reopen it.

    Seventh Circuit opinion
  2. December 11, 2017

    Cox Automotive sues CDK Global

    Cox Automotive and eight of its brands, including Dealertrack, VinSolutions, vAuto, and Xtime, filed an antitrust complaint against CDK in the Western District of Wisconsin alleging a scheme to eliminate competition in data integration.

    Why it matters to a dealer: The largest buyers of dealer data integration went to court over access. If companies that size had to litigate for a data feed, a single rooftop was never going to negotiate one.

    Complaint as filed
  3. October 25, 2021

    Ninth Circuit upholds Arizona's dealer data law

    In CDK Global LLC v. Brnovich, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction sought by CDK and Reynolds against enforcement of Arizona's 2019 dealer data statute, including their copyright preemption argument.

    Why it matters to a dealer: The template statute survived its first serious constitutional challenge, which is why other states copied Arizona rather than starting over.

    Ninth Circuit opinion
  4. June 29, 2023

    Dealership class claims cleared for trial

    In In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation, MDL 2817, the Northern District of Illinois denied CDK summary judgment against AutoLoop and allowed the Dealership Class claims to proceed toward trial.

    Why it matters to a dealer: The court accepted that dealerships themselves, not only integrators, had a case worth trying over what they were charged for access to their own data.

    Memorandum opinion and order
  5. August 2024

    CDK settles with dealerships for $100 million

    CDK agreed to pay $100 million to settle the nationwide Dealership Class antitrust action in MDL 2817 over alleged overcharges, with preliminary court approval later that month.

    Why it matters to a dealer: A nine-figure number attached to the cost of dealer data access. It is the clearest available benchmark for what the toll was worth.

    Reuters report
  6. January 28, 2025

    CDK settles with the vendor class for $630 million

    CDK reached a $630 million settlement with a certified class of automotive technology vendors, including AutoLoop as a class representative, who alleged CDK and Reynolds inflated prices for data integration services. Preliminary approval was sought in the Western District of Wisconsin.

    Why it matters to a dealer: Six times the dealership settlement, paid over the price of moving dealer data between systems. Every dollar of that integration cost was ultimately carried in the vendor prices dealers paid.

    Reuters report

Six things to do this month

None of these require a statute in your state or a lawsuit. They require a renewal date and someone willing to ask.

01

Ask every vendor for a written data map

Which fields they pull from your DMS and CRM, how often, where the data is stored, and which downstream systems or subprocessors receive it. If a vendor cannot produce this in a week, that is your answer.

02

Demand a standing export in an open format

Not a screen you can look at. A scheduled delivery of your own records as CSV or Parquet to storage you control, at no incremental fee, for as long as the contract runs and for a defined window after it ends.

03

Put AI training rights in writing

State plainly that your customer, deal, and service data may not be used to train shared or multi-tenant models, and may not be aggregated into products sold to other dealers or to your competitors.

04

Cap integration and access fees

Fees for third-party access to your own data are the most common toll dealers pay twice. Fix them in the contract or prohibit them outright.

05

Set a termination data-return clause

A full export delivered within a defined number of days of termination, plus certified deletion afterwards. Without it, leaving a vendor means leaving your history behind.

06

Name a data owner at the store

One person accountable for who has access, what leaves the building, and what gets signed. Data rights that nobody owns internally get traded away at renewal.

Ten questions to ask before you sign

  1. 01Who owns the data your platform collects, stores, or derives from our systems?
  2. 02Can we export the full dataset, including derived and enriched fields, at any time and in an open format?
  3. 03Do you sell, license, syndicate, or share our data with any third party, including aggregated or de-identified forms?
  4. 04Will our data be used to train models that serve other dealerships?
  5. 05What fees apply when we connect a third-party system to our own data through your platform?
  6. 06What happens to our data on termination, and how quickly do we get a complete copy?
  7. 07Which subprocessors touch our data, and in which countries is it stored?
  8. 08What is your breach notification window, and what do you notify us about?
  9. 09Do you hold SOC 2 Type II, and will you share the current report under NDA?
  10. 10Will you sign our data addendum, or tell us in writing which clauses you refuse and why?

Dealer data rights, answered

Who owns dealership customer data?

The dealership generates and, in commercial terms, owns its customer, deal, and service records. The practical question is control, not ownership: whoever holds the keys to the system of record decides how easily you can extract, move, and reuse that data. Several states have passed dealer data laws specifically because ownership on paper was not producing access in practice.

Does my DMS vendor own my customer data?

No. Your DMS vendor is a processor of records your dealership created. What vendor agreements have historically controlled is access: which third parties can integrate, at what price, and through which certified program. That is why dealer data statutes focus on access, export, and prohibitions on unauthorized sharing rather than on the word ownership.

What is a dealer data law?

A state statute that limits what a dealership technology vendor may do with protected dealer data and what it must allow the dealer to do. The common provisions are: the dealer may authorize third-party access to its own data, the vendor may not share or sell protected data without consent, the vendor must provide the data in a usable format, and the vendor may not impose unreasonable barriers or fees on authorized integrations.

Which states have dealer data protection laws?

Arizona was first and is widely treated as the template. Several other states have since adopted statutes covering protected dealer data, and the state tracker on this page lists each one with its citation and a link to the official text. Because legislatures amend these provisions, always confirm against the primary source before relying on it.

Can a vendor charge us to access our own data?

In practice many do, through integration, certification, or per-record access fees. Dealer data statutes in several states restrict fees and conditions that function as barriers to authorized access. Regardless of your state, the durable protection is contractual: cap or prohibit access fees in the agreement before you sign it.

Can a vendor use dealership data to train AI models?

Only if your agreement permits it, and most standard vendor agreements are written broadly enough to permit exactly that. If your customer and deal data trains a shared model, the pattern you paid to create becomes available to the store across town. Address it with an explicit clause prohibiting use of your data in shared or multi-tenant model training.

What is protected dealer data?

Statutory language varies, but it generally covers the dealership's customer information, transaction and deal records, service history, employee and financial data, and any data derived from those records inside the vendor's system. Definitions matter: read the definition section of your state statute first, because it determines what the rest of the law protects.

What was the DMS antitrust litigation about?

A long-running set of federal cases alleging that the two largest DMS providers restricted independent data integration and raised the cost of third-party access, harming both integrators and dealerships. The case timeline on this page lists the major filings, decisions, and settlements with links to the underlying documents.

Do dealer data laws apply if my vendor is out of state?

That depends on the statute's scope and on the contract's choice-of-law and venue terms, which is precisely why vendors negotiate those clauses. Statutory protection and contractual protection are not substitutes. Get the terms you need in the agreement so your rights do not depend on which state's law applies.

How do I audit our current data rights?

Inventory every system that holds customer data, request each vendor's data map, test whether you can actually export a complete dataset yourself, and read the assignment, termination, and data-use sections of each agreement. The Data Ownership Scorecard on this site walks a store through that audit in a few minutes.

What should we put in a vendor contract to protect data rights?

At minimum: dealer ownership of dealership data, a standing export right in an open format at no incremental fee, a prohibition on selling or sharing data including de-identified forms, a prohibition on shared-model training, capped or eliminated integration fees, a defined data return and deletion process on termination, named subprocessors, and a breach notification window. The free Dealer Data Addendum on this site contains that language.

Is this legal advice?

No. This page is a research reference for dealership operators, built from public statutes and court filings. Statutes change, and how any provision applies to your agreements is a question for your own counsel.

Rights on paper are worth nothing without a copy of your data.

QoreCloud lands your DMS, CRM, F&I, service, and marketing data in a warehouse your dealership controls, so an export is not a favor you have to ask a vendor for.

This page is a research reference for dealership operators, compiled from public statutes and court filings. It is not legal advice. Statutes change, and how any provision applies to your agreements is a question for your own counsel.