Earlier this month, Deere & Company, more commonly also known as John Deere, agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and several states, which accused the agricultural equipment company of “illegally requiring farmers to use its network of authorized dealers for repairs, rather than use independent service providers or do the work themselves.” This was just one of several cases originally brought by the Biden administration to address “alleged anti-competitive activity in agriculture.”
So today, let’s talk about the right to repair and why it matters.
Oh Deere!
According to the FTC, U.S. antitrust laws, established in 1890 and 1914, have a simple objective: “to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.” That’s exactly what they did in the case of Deere & Company. The FTC claimed it amassed an illegal monopoly over repairs that prevented competition, ultimately leading to higher prices for consumers and greater profits for the company.
As part of its settlement with the FTC and the states, Deere agreed to pay “$1 million to cover the states’ legal fees and costs.” This is in addition to the $99 million it agreed to pay in April for a class action settlement. The FTC settlement terms require Deere to provide farmers and independent service providers with the same repair resources and applicable software capabilities it currently provides to its authorized dealers. It will have to share future repair resources as well once they are distributed to more than 50% of its authorized dealers. Though it is expected to follow these terms and adhere to “strict reporting and oversight requirements” for 10 years, this may be extended if Deere violates the agreement.
The right to repair
The Deere settlement agreement is a win for the “right to repair” movement, which aims to secure the right for consumers to repair or service the items they purchase either on their own or at the independent provider of their choice. There are many ways that companies have seriously limited or prevented independent repairs, including but not limited to: restricting access to the necessary parts and resources, creating product designs that make repairs more complicated or dangerous, incorporating software locks or firmware updates, and establishing policies or user agreements that direct customers to manufacturer-only repairs.
Though the establishment of repair monopolies is lucrative for businesses, with an estimated 10-40% of revenue for industrial companies coming from repairs and aftermarket sales, it can come at great social costs according to critics who believe it “drives up costs for consumers, increases wait times, drives out independent repair shops, produces unnecessary waste, and inhibits broader innovation and self-reliance.”
Companies argue that third-party repairs would put customer data security at risk, infringe upon their intellectual property (IP) rights, and that improper repairs could endanger consumers and third-party repair workers. However, cybersecurity experts have found the data security argument to be “both disingenuous and false,” while the FTC has noted that by not making repair resources properly available, “manufacturers may be exacerbating the very safety concerns they have raised” and that the “assertion of IP rights does not appear to be a significant impediment to independent repair.”
Protecting consumers
Deere isn’t alone in facing legal action for restricting repairs. Other recent examples include the grill maker Weber, motorcycle manufacturer Harley-Davidson and Westinghouse outdoor generator maker MWE Investments, LLC, all of which were found to have included illegal terms in their consumer warranties that indicated they would be voided if consumers used independent parts or repair services. Other companies that have also faced scrutiny include Apple, Microsoft, Lexmark and HP.
One example that has been attributed with greatly empowering the right to repair movement and pushing lawmakers to act is the supply issues and repair wait times experienced for essential life-saving medical devices like ventilators and proper safety equipment during COVID-19. With manufacturers restricting independent repairs, hospitals around the world were left with an inadequate supply in a time of crisis.
Several U.S. states and international countries have recently established right to repair legislation to further protect consumers. Notable examples in the U.S. include New York’s 2022 Digital Fair Repair Act, Minnesota’s 2023 right to repair law (the first to include household appliances in the U.S.), and Oregon’s ban on parts pairing in 2025. In 2021, France established a repairability index as a way of increased transparency for consumers before they buy, while the U.K. made a law establishing that replacement parts and repair information must be available for 10 years for certain products, such as televisions and washing machines.
