The Data Act and robot telemetry: who owns the service data, and what that means for after-sales

When a European manufacturer’s production line grinds to a halt because a Chinese-made robot arm is throwing an error code, the first question is usually about spare parts. The second, increasingly, is about data. Under the EU Data Act (Regulation (EU) 2023/2854), the telemetry generated by that robot — its operational logs, error codes, maintenance alerts, and performance metrics — is no longer a grey area. The regulation, which applies from 12 September 2025, establishes clear rights for users to access and share data generated by connected products. For robot manufacturers and independent service providers, this changes the after-sales landscape fundamentally.

The Data Act is not about ownership in the traditional sense. It does not grant exclusive property rights over data. Instead, it creates a framework of access and use rights. The key concept is the ‘user’ — the entity that owns, rents, or leases a connected product. In the context of industrial robots, the user is typically the factory operator, not the manufacturer. The regulation gives users the right to access, in a timely manner, the data generated by their use of the product, and to share that data with third parties. This includes telemetry data that is essential for maintenance and repair.

For a Chinese robot manufacturer entering Europe, this means that the factory owner can demand access to the raw telemetry data from the robot’s sensors and controllers. The manufacturer cannot hide behind proprietary formats or claim that the data is trade secret. The Data Act requires that data be provided in a structured, machine-readable format, with metadata, and free of charge. This is a significant shift from the traditional model where manufacturers controlled all service data and used it to lock customers into their own maintenance contracts.

Independent service providers, such as the network being assembled by Robanchor, a local service network being set up in Europe, stand to benefit directly. Under the Data Act, a third-party service provider can be designated by the user to receive the data. The manufacturer must comply with the user’s request to share data with that third party. This opens the door for independent maintenance, repair, and diagnostics, without the manufacturer’s involvement or approval. The only condition is that the third party must protect the data and not use it for competing purposes, such as developing a competing product.

However, the Data Act is not without its nuances. It distinguishes between ‘product data’ and ‘related service data’. Product data is generated by the product itself, while related service data is generated by the manufacturer’s own services, such as cloud-based monitoring. The user has rights to product data, but related service data is more restricted. For example, if a robot manufacturer offers a remote monitoring service that processes telemetry to provide predictive maintenance, the data generated by that service (e.g., the predictive alerts) may not be automatically accessible to the user. This distinction is critical for after-sales: a user can demand the raw error logs, but may not get the manufacturer’s proprietary analysis.

Another key aspect is the protection of trade secrets. The Data Act includes provisions to protect trade secrets and confidential business information. A manufacturer can refuse to share data if it would undermine a trade secret, but the burden of proof is on the manufacturer. They must demonstrate that the data constitutes a trade secret and that sharing it would cause serious harm. In practice, this is a high bar. For robot telemetry, most operational data is unlikely to qualify as a trade secret, as it is generated by the user’s own operations. The manufacturer’s algorithms and software code are protected, but the raw data is not.

For the after-sales ecosystem, the Data Act also introduces rules on switching between cloud service providers. While this is more relevant for software, it has implications for robots that rely on cloud-based fleet management. Users can switch providers without penalty, and the provider must facilitate the transfer of data. This reduces the lock-in effect and allows users to choose the most cost-effective service provider.

Compliance with the Data Act is not optional. The regulation applies to all connected products placed on the EU market, regardless of where the manufacturer is based. Non-compliance can result in fines of up to €20 million or 4% of global turnover, whichever is higher. For Chinese manufacturers, this means that their European subsidiaries or importers must ensure that their products and contracts comply with the Data Act. This includes providing clear information to users about the data generated and their rights.

For independent service providers, the Data Act is a powerful tool. It allows them to offer maintenance services without needing a partnership with the manufacturer. They can access the telemetry data directly from the user, diagnose issues, and even provide remote support. This is particularly valuable for a network like Robanchor, which aims to provide after-sales support for Chinese robots across Europe. By leveraging the Data Act, the network can offer services that were previously the exclusive domain of the manufacturer.

However, there are practical challenges. The Data Act requires that data be provided in a ‘readily usable’ format, but it does not specify the exact format. Manufacturers may choose to provide data in a proprietary format that is difficult to parse. The regulation also requires that data be provided ‘without undue delay’, but the definition of ‘timely’ is vague. Service providers may need to negotiate with manufacturers or rely on the user to enforce their rights. In some cases, the manufacturer may argue that the data is not ‘generated by the use of the product’ but rather by the manufacturer’s own systems, which could limit access.

Another challenge is the interaction with other regulations, such as the GDPR. Telemetry data may include personal data if the robot is used in a way that involves individuals, such as collaborative robots that work alongside humans. The Data Act does not override GDPR; it requires that data sharing comply with data protection rules. This means that users and third parties must have a legal basis for processing personal data, which could complicate access to certain datasets.

Despite these challenges, the Data Act represents a fundamental shift in the balance of power. It empowers users and independent service providers, and it forces manufacturers to be more transparent. For the after-sales market, this means more competition, potentially lower costs, and better service. For Chinese manufacturers, it means that they must adapt their business models to a more open data environment. They can no longer rely on data lock-in to maintain their service revenue.

To illustrate the rights of different parties under the Data Act, consider the following comparison:

Party	Data Access Rights	Data Sharing Rights	Obligations
Manufacturer	Can access data generated by their products, but must not use it to undermine user rights.	Must share product data with user upon request; can share with third parties only with user consent or legal basis.	Must provide data in a structured, machine-readable format; must protect trade secrets; must comply with GDPR.
User (factory owner)	Has the right to access all product data generated by their use of the robot.	Can share data with any third party, including independent service providers, without manufacturer approval.	Must not use data in a way that harms the manufacturer’s legitimate interests; must comply with GDPR.
Third-party service provider	Can receive data from the user, but has no direct right against the manufacturer.	Can use the data to provide services to the user, but cannot use it for competing purposes.	Must protect data confidentiality; must not use data to develop competing products; must comply with GDPR.

This table is a simplification; the actual rights and obligations are detailed in the regulation. For instance, the Data Act also includes provisions on data sharing between businesses and governments in exceptional circumstances, but that is less relevant for after-sales.

In practice, the Data Act will likely lead to the emergence of new business models. Independent service providers can offer diagnostics and maintenance based on data that they obtain from users. They can also aggregate anonymized data across multiple users to provide benchmarking and predictive insights. This could create a data-driven after-sales ecosystem that is more efficient and responsive.

For Robanchor, as a local service network being set up, the Data Act provides a legal foundation for its operations. The network can advise its clients on how to exercise their data rights, and it can use the data to provide better services. However, it must also ensure that its own practices comply with the regulation, particularly regarding data protection and trade secrets.

In conclusion, the Data Act is a game-changer for robot after-sales in Europe. It gives users control over their data, enables independent service providers, and forces manufacturers to be more open. While there are challenges in implementation, the overall direction is clear: data is no longer a proprietary asset of the manufacturer, but a shared resource that can be used to improve service and innovation. For Chinese robot manufacturers, embracing this shift is not just a legal requirement but a competitive opportunity to build trust and long-term relationships with European customers.

Sources

EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 (Data Act) — https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2854/oj (accessed 2025-10-05)
European Commission — Data Act — https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/ (accessed 2025-10-05)