9 Min. read time<\/p>\n
The right to access readily available product data has been in effect since September 12, 2025 \u2013 covering the entire fleet, including existing machinery, provided the data holder already possesses the data. What changes on September 12, 2026, is Access by Design for newly placed connected products on the market.<\/strong> Direct access must then be structurally integrated. Existing products do not need to be retrofitted. The EU Data Act has been in force for a year. Chapter II governs user access \u2013 for owners, tenants, and lessees \u2013 to product data. The critical interface lies in procurement and operations.<\/p>\n Key Takeaways<\/p>\n Related<\/span>When the shop floor and data center become one network<\/a> \/<\/span> Supply chain obligations require a data architecture<\/a><\/p>\n In many OT and fleet deals, the data question lies in the fine print \u2013 or is missing entirely. The OEM delivers the machine. The raw data ends up in its portal. The operator receives dashboards and alarms, rarely structured exports for own systems or third parties.<\/p>\n Against this backdrop, the Data Act has applied since 12 September 2025. Chapter II grants users \u2013 owners, lessees, and leaseholders \u2013 the right to access readily available raw and pre\u2011processed data of connected products and related services. Derived or processed evaluations usually do not fall under this. Data holders must enable this access free of charge and easily; where feasible, directly. At the user\u2019s request, sharing with third parties is included \u2013 free of charge for the user, while for the recipient it is tied to fair conditions. Gatekeepers are excluded as recipients. Another strict rule: the data may not be used to develop a competing product.<\/p>\n The management question resides in the purchase, rental, lease, or service contract as soon as the manufacturer technically and organizationally holds the data. CIOs and CDOs steer this interface together with procurement. Whoever leaves it to the OEM inherits the manufacturer\u2019s defaults.<\/p>\n Trade\u2011off one: control versus speed. A standardized OEM\u2011portal access goes live quickly. A contractually enforced, machine\u2011readable export consumes negotiation time and often project budget for integration. Trade\u2011off two: scope of released data versus protection of trade secrets. The Data Act recognizes trade\u2011secret and security limits \u2013 they qualify the access, but they are poorly suited as a blanket exclusion in contract wording.<\/p>\n Ownership is often unclear in DACH organizations. IT knows cloud contracts. OT knows machine availability. Procurement signs off volume and SLA. Data formats and third\u2011party sharing fall between the cracks. That is exactly where the OEM gains leverage \u2013 and exactly where the statutory right of access already applies today, as soon as the data are readily available.<\/p>\n Typical contract practice (observation)<\/p>\n Data\u2011Act logic (Chapter II)<\/p>\n The left column is an industry observation from OT and fleet procurement. It is based on no survey. The right column follows the Chapter\u202fII logic: access for users to readily available data, sharing on request, obligation of the data holder. Where the line to derived data and related services lies in each case remains disputed in practice. Whoever leaves this open in the contract leaves the interpretation to the manufacturer \u2013 and forfeits a claim that has applied since September\u202f2025.<\/p>\n Two levels cleanly separate. First: Since 12 September 2025, the right of access to readily available product and related service data applies \u2013 also for existing machines, as soon as the data holder holds them. Second: Access by Design \u2013 the constructive obligation to provide direct access in the product \u2013 applies to networked products placed on the market in the Union after 12 September 2026. This is a design requirement for new products. Existing machines do not need to be retrofitted for this.<\/p>\n For operations, this means: The fleet remains mixed, the legal situation is not. Existing plants are subject to the right of access to the extent that data is readily available \u2013 often in the OEM portal or the service backend. New deliveries as of the cut\u2011off date must be designed so that constructive direct access becomes possible. Those planning larger replacement or expansion investments in 2026 and 2027 are thereby negotiating the data architecture of the next decade. Those who today leave portal\u2011only and blanket third\u2011party bans in place are giving up the lever that Chapter II has already opened.<\/p>\n Three risks are real and budget\u2011relevant. First: contracts that reduce the existing right of access to portal\u2011only and omit machine\u2011readable exports. Second: unclear user status in leasing, rental models and operator concepts \u2013 Chapter II ties to owners, tenants and lessees, not to the pure IT service provider. Third: a patchwork of existing plants with portal access and new plants with constructive direct access. The integration effort then shifts into your own architecture budget.<\/p>\n What remains intentionally vague: the exact scope of trade secrets and security limits on a case\u2011by\u2011case basis, national supervisory practice and future simplifications in the digital rulebook. The exemption for micro\u2011 and small enterprises, by contrast, is a hard rule. What is reliable: applicability since September 2025, the Chapter II access logic for readily available data, and the design cut\u2011off date for new products from September 2026.<\/p>\n Cloud and edge switching under Chapter VI is a separate track. For the procurement of machines and sensors, it is a sideshow. The primary decision lies with product data and related services \u2013 and with the question of which interface the OEM provides in the device and in the aftermarket.<\/p>\n The sequence follows the logic of leverage. First, inventory: Which connected products are already in stock-and which related services are tied to them, where the data holder already manages data? In parallel: Which procurements are planned for 2026\/27 as purchases, rentals, leasing, or operator models? Without this list, it remains unclear where the right to access already applies today and where *access by design* will kick in after the deadline.<\/p>\n Next, procurement: A standardized data annex for tenders and framework agreements locks in data categories (readily available raw data, pre-processed data, metadata), formats, update frequency, direct access where feasible, onward sharing with designated third parties at the user\u2019s request, and the boundary for competitor product development. Phrases like \u201caccess at the manufacturer\u2019s discretion\u201d have no place here. They shift interpretive authority back to the OEM and undermine the existing right.<\/p>\n Then internal ownership: A designated owner-typically the CIO\/CDO together with OT leadership-decides where the data flows: MES, analytics, aftermarket partners, maintenance providers. Procurement signs off. Operations integrates. Without this division, parallel access points and shadow integrations emerge. The 90-day window is a realistic timeframe to finalize inventory, a template annex, and a pilot on an ongoing tender-before the next major order wave defaults to OEM settings.<\/p>\n In the DACH region, co-determination comes into play where machine data actually acquires personal references-such as through operator assignments or performance profiles. Machine data isn\u2019t automatically personal data. The Data Act governs product data rights. It doesn\u2019t replace data protection or works council processes. Anyone analyzing sensor data on the shop floor separates machine and personal data early, as soon as personal references become foreseeable.<\/p>\n Budget question: The costs rarely lie in the OEM\u2019s license line. They lie in integration, export quality assurance, and maintaining separate fleet pathways for legacy and new systems. Those treating this as a pure legal project underestimate the Capex and Opex share. Those approaching it as a procurement and architecture project can set the interface while the right to access is already in effect-and before the next investment wave hits.<\/p>\n Concrete steps in the first 90 days: Inventory list of existing and planned connected-product procurements. Template data annex with legal and OT review. Pilot on an ongoing tender-one production line, one OEM, one related service. Clear role matrix for users, data holders, and internal owners. Flag soft spots (trade secrets, boundaries of *readily available data*, related services) as negotiation points, without presenting them as settled legal matters.<\/p>\n The core question remains operational: What does the contract say when the manufacturer holds the data? Those who leave the right to access unresolved today and wait for *access by design* starting September 2026 will inherit the OEM\u2019s defaults-and foot the integration bill themselves.<\/p>\n The entitlement to access readily available product and related service data has been in effect since September 12, 2025, also for existing machines, provided the data holder retains the data. Access by Design \u2013 the constructive obligation for direct access \u2013 applies to networked products placed on the market in the Union after September 12, 2026.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n There is no general retrofitting obligation for Access by Design. Existing stock does not need to be modified to create direct access constructively. The entitlement to access readily available data nevertheless already applies today \u2013 for example, if the OEM holds the same data in the portal or service backend. Old and new installations often run in parallel in operation, with different integration paths.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n Access to readily available raw and pre\u2011processed data of networked products and related services \u2013 free of charge, simple, and direct where feasible. Derived evaluations are generally excluded. Upon user request, sharing with third parties is envisaged; gatekeepers are excluded as recipients. The recipient is subject to fair terms of use. The data may not be used to develop a competing product. Trade secrets and security may limit access on a case\u2011by\u2011case basis.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n Users are primarily owners, lessees, and leaseholders. In procurement, purchase, lease, leasing, and operator models must therefore be clearly distinguished. Anyone acting solely as an IT service provider without user status does not automatically inherit the same access.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n At a minimum: data categories (readily available data), formats, access routes including direct access where feasible, rules for third\u2011party sharing upon user request, distinction from related\u2011service data, prohibition on use for developing a competing product, and internal roles. Flex points such as trade secrets and case\u2011by\u2011case delineations remain subject to negotiation and are not suitable as blanket exclusion clauses. The leverage lies in the ongoing and the next deal, not only at the design cutoff date.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n
Contracts stay silent while manufacturers hold the data<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Access by Design from 12 September 2026 \u2013 Access already applies<\/h2>\n
Procurement and Operations Govern Data Access Within 90 Days<\/h2>\n
Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n
When does the data access right apply \u2013 and when does Access by Design apply?<\/summary>\n
Do existing machines need to be retrofitted?<\/summary>\n
What must data holders provide to users?<\/summary>\n
Who counts as a user under Chapter II?<\/summary>\n
What should be included in the procurement contract \u2013 already now?<\/summary>\n