Right to repair

Right to repair is a modern movement against anti-competitive practices carried out by many electronic, industrial, and automotive manufacturers. To maintain a competitive advantage in the market, many companies intentionally make their devices difficult or impossible to examine and repair without proprietary tools unavailable to the public. This practice forces consumers to use inconvenient or expensive repair services provided by the manufacturer, or to purchase a new device to replace their damaged one. In 2022, US president Joe Biden signed an executive order asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to create new laws and regulations protecting consumers’ rights to repair and modify their own property.

Background

The history of the right to repair movement can be traced back to the 1920s. During that decade, the automotive company General Motors realized that if it complicated the process of repairing the vehicles it manufactured, the consumer would be pushed to purchase new vehicles instead of maintaining their old ones. For this reason, General Motors began to make yearly changes to their automobile models, reducing the supply of workable parts for older models and forcing consumers to purchase new automobiles. Though this process was effective, it angered consumers. Other automobile companies, such as Ford, made repair parts easily available for consumers.

Soon, other industries realized that by restricting the ability of consumers to repair their own products, they could both encourage the consumer to purchase new products and charge them for repair services. Some of these companies were sued by consumers, who thought the practice was anticompetitive. In 1956, the Department of Justice found that computer chip manufacturer IBM was a monopoly. It issued the IBM Consent Decree, which required IBM to both allow for a secondary used market for its products and permit independent repair services for computer parts. The Consent Decree remained in existence through 1996.

In 1975, the camera company Kodak began a policy of only selling repair parts to direct purchasers of its equipment. Additionally, the company maintained a policy of only issuing maintenance service contracts on used equipment if the equipment was first inspected by Kodak. Many independent repair services alleged that Kodak had taken measures to ensure that only its chosen direct sellers had access to a steady supply of parts for its products to ensure that third-party repair services for Kodak products could not exist. In 1992 the US Supreme Court ruled on the issue. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. rejected this complaint, arguing that Kodak has the right as a manufacturer to choose with which customers it wishes to do business, regardless of any potential adverse effects on customers. This precedent proved an important landmark in the history of right to repair law.

The next significant attempt at legislating consumers’ right to repair their property was the Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act of 2001. This law would have required motor vehicle manufacturers to disclose to both repair facilities and vehicle owners all information necessary to diagnose, service, and repair vehicles. Though the bill allowed for special protections for trade secrets, it would have forced automobile manufacturers to share significant amounts of information about their products that was previously kept from consumers. Though the bill failed, some Congressional representatives continued to push the topic.

As technology continued to grow more complicated, so did the rights of consumers to repair and modify their own products. For example, though a consumer may own a cell phone, they may only be able to legally interact with the device’s software in particular ways. Most notably, phones from several carriers included specialized software locks that stopped the device from functioning on any other network carrier service. In 2008, the US Supreme Court confirmed that phone owners had a right to unlock their phones, allowing them to utilize whatever network the consumer preferred. In 2012, the US Library of Congress issued a ruling that unlocking cellphones was a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and companies were allowed to restrict their phones to their own networks. Later many major phone manufacturers began to voluntarily sell unlocked versions of their devices. In 2014, President Barack Obama signed the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act. The law once again made it legal for consumers to unlock their cell phones.

In 2021, President Joe Biden used executive power to support right to repair laws. He ordered the FTC to draft right to repair rules, ensuring that consumers would retain the right to repair their own devices or have their property repaired at aftermarket shops. Additionally, he asked the US Department of Agriculture to examine intellectual property rights, potentially addressing prominent situations in which farmers were unable to legally repair or modify their farming equipment. Later the FTC announced that it would increase its enforcement of regulations regarding illegal repair restrictions and pursue penalties for companies that limit the types of repairs that can be conducted by independent shops.

Overview

The right to repair movement refers to a subset of political activism seeking to reinforce consumer ownership over their products. Though it originally referred solely to the ability to repair used products, the right to repair movement has since broadened to include the ability to modify any product that has been purchased. This is particularly true in the era of electronics, when computer manufacturers have sought to maintain control of preowned devices.

Right to repair activists have several primary demands for modern products. They argue that all devices should be constructed in a manner that allows them to be repaired easily and efficiently. They insist that companies should provide replacement parts for devices at fair market rates, ensuring that these products are available to both individual consumers and aftermarket repair shops. They argue that neither the design of a device nor its software should be intentionally created in a way that prohibits modifications or repairs. Finally, they argue that all device manufacturers should clearly communicate the degree to which a device can easily be repaired, allowing consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.

Many electronic goods have a shorter lifetime than consumers would prefer. In complex devices such as smartphones, computers, and tablets, the failure of a single part can cause the entire device to suddenly fail. Additionally, these devices are often priced as expensive luxury items. Many consumers prefer to repair their devices instead of spending large sums to regularly replace smartphones or computers.

Some activists argue that consumers have a moral right to modify their goods in any way they deem necessary. They argue that once an object has been purchased by consumers, the original manufacturer should not be able to maintain any control over the product. Instead, the object should be open to repair, modification, and any other changes carried out by its owner. Some companies argue that while consumers own the physical device, they do not own the rights to the intellectual property of the device’s designs, and that modifying the device or opening it to study its functions may violate the company’s intellectual property rights.

To encourage consumers to purchase new devices when their electronics break, electronics manufacturers have taken several measures to discourage repair. Many smartphones require specialized tools to open or disassemble them without further damaging the devices. Additionally, smartphones are often constructed with proprietary parts that are not available on the secondary market. Both the toolsets required to safely repair the device and the parts themselves may only be available at specialized repair facilities owned by the electronics manufacturer. These facilities may charge a higher rate for device repairs than many aftermarket shops.

The right to repair movement grew more complicated as mechanical parts were combined with electronics and specialized software. For example, throughout the latter half of the twenty-first century, electronics were integrated into John Deere tractors, which are commonly used in the American agricultural industry. The tractor company refused to allow farmers or third-party mechanics to work on their tractors and used a variety of methods to restrict this practice. This included restricting access to John Deere’s proprietary software tools, parts, and the instructional manuals required to repair the machines. With these restrictions in place, farmers were only able to repair their devices through a small number of authorized John Deere shops. Having so few options significantly slowed the repair process and hindered farmers’ production, thus harming their businesses. In 2023, John Deere recanted its previous position and stated that it would allow additional shops access to the diagnostic tools and parts necessary to maintain and repair John Deere machinery. John Deere noted that the additional shops allowed to perform maintenance and repairs would still be bound to maintain trade secrets. Many farmers remained skeptical that the company would continue to stand by the agreement. They noted that the company’s new policies included a provision that would allow it to revoke this policy if Congress passed a new right to repair bill.

Many activists working toward the creation of new right to repair laws note the high environmental cost of regularly replacing devices with new goods. Many electronic devices require the use of rare earth elements, finite resources that are both expensive and environmentally harmful to mine. By repairing devices instead of purchasing new ones, fewer new electronic devices need to be created, limiting the damage to the environment. However, critics of this movement argue that many individuals will continue to purchase new devices as they seek to own the latest and most powerful technology.

Large companies have many reasons to oppose right to repair laws. Most prominently, companies can maximize their profits by encouraging consumers to continually buy new devices and by limiting the lifespan of the devices they sell. Additionally, when repairs are necessary, companies can continue to maximize their profits by handling the repairs in-house and charging consumers for the parts and labor. This creates a secondary source of revenue associated with high-end products. Companies say that carrying out such repairs themselves ensures that the devices continue to function properly, safeguarding the company’s reputation.

Companies also argue against right to repair laws on the grounds that they must protect their intellectual property and trade secrets. They worry that by sharing the methods required to repair their products, competitors will more easily reverse engineer the devices. This could allow competitors to make similar products without paying for the research and engineering required to develop them. By keeping all repairs at strictly controlled, authorized facilities, companies can limit access to information about how the products function.

Finally, some manufacturers of vehicles and specialized equipment argue that consumers and third-party facilities should not be allowed to repair their products for safety reasons. They note that if repaired improperly, construction equipment, automobiles, and many electronics can pose serious dangers to the user. Companies argue that third-party technicians and consumers may be unable to properly carry out the necessary repairs, even when provided with the correct tools and manuals. They also note that the process of repairing these products may be difficult and dangerous to the users, and that many of these consumers and third-party technicians have not received the same specialized training as dedicated industry repair workers.

Both activists and lawmakers have painted anti-right-to-repair policies as anti-competitive practices. Following President Biden’s executive order, additional companies announced provisions to allow for future right to repair laws. Many experts predicted that within a decade, companies would be forced to allow consumers to modify and repair their products.

Bibliography

Dano, Mike. “Under Settlement, AT&T to Unlock Phones—but Not the iPhone.” Fierce Wireless, 25 May 2010, www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/under-settlement-at-t-to-unlock-phones-but-not-iphone. Accessed 27 Apr. 2023.

Hernandez, Joe. “John Deere Vows to Open Up Its Tractor Tech, but Right to Repair Backers Have Doubts.” National Public Radio, 10 Jan. 2023, www.npr.org/2023/01/10/1147934682/john-deere-right-to-repair-farmers-tractors. Accessed 27 Apr. 2023.

“History.” The Repair Association, 2021, www.repair.org/history. Accessed 27 Apr. 2023.

Ortiz, Sabrina. “Right to Repair: What It Means and Why It Matters to You.” ZDNET, 3 Feb. 2023, www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/sustainability/right-to-repair-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters-to-you/. Accessed 27 Apr. 2023.

Piepgrass, Stephen C., and Abbey M. Thornhill. “President Biden Doubles Down his Support for ‘Right to Repair’ Movement.” Regulatory Oversight, 8 Feb. 2022, www.regulatoryoversight.com/2022/02/president-biden-doubles-down-his-support-for-right-to-repair-movement/. Accessed 27 Apr. 2023.

Roth, Emma. "Right to Repair: All the Latest News and Updates." The Verge, 5 Dec. 2024, www.theverge.com/2023/5/28/23738770/right-to-repair-updates-laws. Accessed 17 Dec. 2024.

Whittaker, Zack. “US Carriers Will Now Unlock Your Phone, Thanks to Law Change.” ZDNET, 11 Feb. 2015, www.zdnet.com/article/as-new-law-comes-into-effect-carriers-can-now-unlock-your-phone-for-free/. Accessed 28 Apr. 2023.