DMS Partner Programs and the EU Data Act
Dealerships across Europe are indirectly bearing fees that DMS providers impose on third-party SaaS vendors, who in turn pass these costs down to dealers. By embedding unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory clauses into their partner contracts, DMS providers are stifling innovation, creating an uneven playing field, and acting in conflict with recent legislation.
Executive Presentation
A concise overview of DMS Partner Programs and their conflict with the EU Data Act — covering the regulatory context and its implications for dealerships and software providers.
The situation, in a nutshell
The Data Act fundamentally reshapes the automotive data ecosystem. While Chapter II empowers users of connected products—such as connected cars—to access and share co-generated data with third parties of their choice , the Act's impact on automotive software extends much further. Crucially, Chapter VI regulates data processing services and explicitly protects a customer's right to use multiple software systems in parallel . For dealerships, this directly disrupts traditional vendor lock-in between their core Dealer Management System (DMS) and peripheral platforms . By mandating ongoing interoperability and the removal of technical and contractual obstacles, the Act forces DMS providers to maintain open interfaces that allow seamless, continuous data exchange with third-party applications of their choice.
See: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/factpages/data-act-explained
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the EU Data Act apply to DMS (and other SaaS)?
Yes, the EU Data Act applies to DMS (and other SaaS). The Regulation defines these types of platforms as "data processing services," a category that explicitly includes Software as a Service (SaaS), as well as Platform as a Service (PaaS) and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). As a SaaS, a Dealer Management System (DMS) is fully subject to the obligations, especially those in Chapter VI of the law, regardless of whether the provider is inside or outside the EU, as long as it offers services to European customers.
Do FRAND clauses and cost reductions apply to DMS (and other SaaS)?
Yes, FRAND clauses and cost reductions apply to DMS. Regarding contractual conditions for mandatory data sharing, the regulation requires that terms be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND). As for costs, the law requires a gradual reduction of switching fees and fully prohibits switching charges as of January 12, 2027. During the current transition period, any charges must be limited strictly to the direct technical costs incurred to facilitate data transfer. However, there is an exception: if the dealership keeps its DMS but connects it to use other services simultaneously (parallel use), the DMS may continue to charge for the costs associated with continuous data extraction (data egress) even after 2027, provided that these charges do not exceed the actual costs incurred, are not profit-generating, and are not prohibitive.
Does the dealership have the right to request that the DMS share the data hosted in the DMS with third parties it designates?
Yes, the dealership has the right to request that the DMS share its hosted data with third parties it designates. The law explicitly establishes the right of customers to switch providers or to use services from different providers at the same time. To enable this, cloud service providers (such as DMS) are required to remove any technical, commercial, contractual, or organizational obstacles that prevent customers from porting their exportable data to another provider or to their own infrastructure. In addition, the contract must require the provider to offer reasonable assistance to the customer and to any third parties authorized by the customer to facilitate access to and transfer of the data.
Does Chapter 6 require Data Processing Services (SaaS) to continuously share data via API (or similar) with a third party, or does it only apply in the context of data migration when switching providers?
Chapter 6 explicitly supports continuous data flow (parallel use), not just data migration when switching providers. The regulation is not limited to a one-time data export at the end of a contract (migration); it explicitly recognizes the customer's right to engage in "parallel use" of multiple data processing services simultaneously. To ensure this right and prevent vendor lock-in, the Data Act requires SaaS and PaaS providers to offer open interfaces (such as APIs) and structured formats that enable interoperability and communication with other services. Both the wording of the regulation and supporting legal analyses conclude that interoperability and data access are continuous and structural obligations throughout the entire lifecycle of the service. Requiring that data can only be exported at contract termination would go against the purpose of the law; therefore, the original provider must allow mechanisms for repeated or continuous access ("data highway") to the third party designated by the customer.
What can a dealership or software vendor do if they are affected?
Start by documenting the specific clauses or fees you believe are non-compliant. You can then file a complaint with your national data authority or the relevant sectoral regulator. Joining a collective effort — such as the discussion on this repository — also helps build a shared evidence base. The Data Act empowers affected parties to seek redress, and regulatory scrutiny increases as more cases are reported.
Related cases in the USA 🇺🇸: DMS Class Action Lawsuit
The tensions between DMS providers and dealerships are not unique to Europe. In the United States, a class action lawsuit was filed against major DMS providers alleging anti-competitive data access practices — including charges for third-party integrations, restrictive data sharing terms, and lock-in mechanisms that prevent dealers from freely choosing their software vendors. The case offers a useful parallel to the EU Data Act debate, demonstrating that these are systemic industry-wide concerns recognised on both sides of the Atlantic.
- vendordmslitigation.com — information for software vendors affected by the litigation
- dealershipclassdmssettlement.com — information for dealerships regarding the class settlement
Related cases in Australia 🇦🇺: Titan DMS vs Pentana Solutions
Australia has already seen legal disputes similar to the interoperability and switching concerns addressed by the EU Data Act. In ongoing Federal Court litigation, Titan DMS accused competitor Pentana Solutions of using contractual and technical barriers to discourage dealerships from switching DMS providers, including alleged restrictions around data access and migration. The case highlights how dealer data portability and vendor lock-in can become competition-law issues in automotive software markets.
The matter remains contested and no final finding of liability has been made against Pentana. A recent procedural ruling only confirmed that Pentana could not withdraw certain earlier admissions in the proceedings.
Related cases in the Netherlands 🇳🇱: Keyloop's New Partner Fees Spark Market Backlash
Keyloop has introduced a new strategy requiring external software providers that connect to its DMS through its API to pay a commission of up to 30% of the revenue generated through Keyloop. Providers also report being asked to grant access to their accounts and sign strict confidentiality agreements.
The changes have caused significant dissatisfaction. Many providers consider the terms excessive but believe Keyloop's dominant market position leaves them with few alternatives. Some expect to pass the additional cost on to dealers, potentially requiring price increases of almost 40%. Because switching DMS providers is difficult and some brands work exclusively with Keyloop, most parties may ultimately accept the terms, although there are concerns that Keyloop could be abusing its dominant position.
- Achtergrond: DMS-leverancier Keyloop speelt powerplay — Automotive Online (NL)
- PDF version of the article
Further Reading: Legal Analysis
Independent legal experts are reaching the same conclusions. The following publication by a law firm specialising in technology and competition law corroborates the analysis presented on this site and confirms that DMS data-access practices are under serious legal scrutiny.
Data access in the automotive sector: Practices contrary to Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 (Data Act)
EJASO · Luis Miguel Prieto Expósito & Luis Mª Latasa Vassallo · May 2026
This legal analysis by Spanish law firm EJASO identifies the same patterns documented here: DMS providers acting as gatekeepers who impose API fees, volume-based multipliers, revenue-share levies, and non-compete clauses on complementary software vendors. The authors conclude that these practices are incompatible with the Data Act's FRAND requirements, expose providers to damages claims, complaints before the CNMC for abuse of a dominant position, and unfair competition actions. Their estimate of the financial impact — tens of thousands of euros in additional costs per dealership per year — illustrates the concrete harm these practices cause.