Right to repair

❗Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub

Notice: This Article Requires Additional Expansion

---

This article is underdeveloped, and needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Issues may include:

• This article needs to be expanded to provide meaningful information
• This article requires additional verifiable evidence to demonstrate systemic impact
• More documentation is needed to establish how this reflects broader consumer protection concerns
• The connection between individual incidents and company-wide practices needs to be better established
• The article is simply too short, and lacks sufficient content

How You Can Help:

• Add documented examples with verifiable sources
• Provide evidence of similar incidents affecting other consumers
• Include relevant company policies or communications that demonstrate systemic practices
• Link to credible reporting that covers these issues
• Flesh out the article with relevant information

This notice will be removed once the article is sufficiently developed. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, visit the Discord (join here) and post to the #appeals channel, or mention its status on the article's talk page.

---

Right to repair is a legal right for owners of devices and equipment to freely modify and repair products such as automobiles, electronics, and farm equipment. Right to repair may also refer to the social movement of citizens putting pressure on their governments to enact laws protecting a right to repair.

There are several forces that result in interference with a right to repair, some intentional and some incidental. The Consumer Action Taskforce generally focuses on practices that are intentional. The motivations for interference in a right to repair are sometimes but not limited to direct financial benefit or market control.

Key principles

The Digital Right to Repair Coalition, an independent nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating for right to repair legislation, has outlined the essential components of such laws:

1. Access to Diagnostic Tools: The right for consumers and independent repair shops to access the same diagnostic and repair tools that are available to the original manufacturer.
2. Replacement Parts: Ensuring that consumers can purchase genuine replacement parts at fair market prices, either directly from the manufacturer or through third-party vendors.
3. Software and Firmware: Granting the ability to bypass software locks that prevent repairs, as long as it doesn't infringe upon proprietary software or intellectual property rights.
4. Documentation: Providing comprehensive repair manuals, schematics, and other documentation to facilitate effective repairs.
5. Anti-Retaliation: Protection against voiding warranties or other retaliatory measures from manufacturers when consumers or independent shops perform repairs.
6. Contracts: Addressing the role of unfair and deceptive contracts like EULAs that are non-negotiable and alter the intent of the purchase. The legislative focus is on combating the abusive nature of these contracts rather than the technology itself.
7. Exemptions: Understanding that certain industries or product categories, like motor vehicles, may be exempt due to existing agreements or laws. These exemptions can inadvertently create repair monopolies and should be carefully considered.
8. Enforcement: Utilizing the power of the state Attorney General for law enforcement and issuing fines as incentives for state-led compliance. Alternative enforcement mechanisms can also be considered.

In states that have enacted Right to Repair laws, the legislation often involves a multi-faceted approach. It's not just about passing the law; it also includes implementing an enforcement mechanism, engaging with manufacturers for compliance, and educating consumers and repair shops about their rights and responsibilities.

Industries affected by anti-repair practices

1. Agricultural equipment: Farmers face significant challenges due to restrictive practices by manufacturers like John Deere, which locks vital repair tools and software behind proprietary systems. While John Deere previously agreed to provide access to repair tools by 2021, it has largely failed to uphold this promise, forcing many farmers to turn to unauthorized software just to perform basic repairs. Industry groups argue that allowing such access could bypass emissions and safety controls, but this leaves farmers financially dependent on dealers for critical repairs.
2. Consumer electronics: Companies are implementing restrictive measures, like serialization and pairing of parts, which prevent the use of third-party components. This practice raises repair costs and limits options for consumers, reinforcing a disposable culture in electronics.
3. Medical equipment: Hospitals and healthcare providers encounter repair restrictions that delay the maintenance of critical devices. Limited access to diagnostics and proprietary parts exacerbates costs and impacts patient care, with some hospital technicians calling for legislative action to improve repairability.
4. Home appliances: Many household devices, such as refrigerators and washing machines, are increasingly difficult to repair because of proprietary parts and software locks. Advocates argue that this trend contributes to unnecessary e-waste and financial strain on households.^{[citation needed]}
5. Automobiles: The automotive industry has historically restricted repairs by limiting access to diagnostic tools and proprietary systems. Massachusetts’ Right to Repair law has been a key legislative victory, enabling consumers and independent mechanics to access the tools needed for vehicle repairs.^{[citation needed]}

Anti-repair practices

Practices by companies and organizations that result in interference with right to repair often have other stated goals than to interfere with repair, or argue the importance of that goal supercedes any repair considerations that may be interfered with. Common stated goals used in the examples of this wiki are for security, to make warranty possible, to indemnify, safety, compliance with other regulation, or quality control. Right to repair advocacy seeks to challenge the validity of the stated goals, both on its merit and on its truthfulness as the motivation for the practice, due to the resulting interference with a consumer's right to repair. These goals are argued to be a mask for other outcomes that are meant to benefit that organization in other ways, often for financial benefit by limiting access to repair resources that result in higher costs to the consumer and fewer choices in repair options.

Parts

Access to tools and parts

Many manufacturers restrict access to parts and tools, making them only available to their own dealers’ repair shops. This practice locks independent shops out of repairs and enables manufacturers to set artificially high prices. Most manufacturers don’t publish the related instructions, already created for their internal use. Withholding repair documentation makes DIY repairs more difficult and more dangerous. In some cases, repair isn't even an option, leaving consumers to purchase another device.

Blocking and locking third party parts

Some manufacturers are actively blocking third party parts from being used in repairs in different ways:

• Persistent Alerts: Discouraging third party parts by showing intrusive “unable to verify” warnings, making users feel like their device is compromised. A notable example are Apple practices with third party battery and screen replacements.
• Software Lockouts: Replacing a part will result in an error message that can only be cleared with manufacturer's exclusive software. For example, this happens in John Deere tractors.

Pairing parts to the motherboard

One way of deterring repairs is to match components to the motherboard of the device. Replacing one faulty part with another will not be welcomed by the central board. Replacing the faulty part is possible only if one finds a matched part for a new central board, increasing the cost and complexity of repair. Apple's Self Repair initiative ties parts to a serial number of a device, preventing independent repair and end-of-life refurbishment in a significant way. Manufacturers generally can re-code those parts for new ones. Software pairing for that purpose is used by their own authorized repair facilities.

Engineering parts to prevent replacements

Manufacturers often use specialized parts in different ways:

• An off the shelf part that has had a slight change that causes it to be its own unique part number
• A part that isn't used in any other device
• A specialty part with no function of its own other than codependency with another part that is necessary and could technically function without it.

In the case of a company making their own unique part number, this causes the part to be exclusively offered to the company that 'created' it and unavailable for 3rd-party repairs. This now makes the company the exclusive repairer of the device and they can charge whatever they want, or the device is unrepairable since the company doesn't repair that device and the part can't be readily sourced.

In the case of parts that aren't used in other devices, this can cause repair prices to shoot up, since there isn't an incentive for repair shops to have this part readily available. Using phones as an example, Phone A and Phone B are both from the same manufacturer, and are physically indistinguishable. However, on the inside Phone A uses a completely different screen connection than Phone B, and Phone B has a completely different battery shape than Phone A. The parts are no longer interchangeable between the phones, and more parts need to be stocked as a result. As well, the repair shop takes a risk on keeping a stock of parts that may or may not sell because they are exclusive to a certain phone. This can also lead to people not wanting to have their phone repaired, since they will be without their phone for a week or two while the shop waits for a part to ship.

Designing unrepairable products

Manufacturers often make design choices that precludes or discourages repair. They have proprietary screw heads, so that they need special tools to use. Batteries are epoxied in with industrial-strength adhesive, so regular maintenance is more complicated than it should be. Pieces are soldered into clunky assemblies, so you must replace, e.g., an entire top case to replace a single key on a keyboard.

Use of "warranty void if removed" stickers

These stickers, commonly found on electronic devices and appliances, are intended to prevent consumers from tampering with products, often in relation to repairs or modifications. However, their use has raised concerns about whether they unfairly limit consumer rights, particularly their right to repair, and circumvent warranties.

Under U.S. consumer protection law, particularly the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, manufacturers are prohibited from voiding warranties solely due to the removal of labels, including "warranty void if removed" stickers. Companies cannot require consumers to use specific parts or services to keep warranties unless offered for free or cleared by the FTC. Offenders will be enforced by law if they fail to comply within 30 days. This shields consumers from exorbitant fees and enables small businesses to provide competitive products. This rule aims to ensure that consumers have the right to repair or modify products without fear of losing warranty coverage. Despite this, many manufacturers continue to use such stickers, and some place them over screws or other components necessary for standard use, leading to potential issues with warranty claims.

Software

Some ways that companies can and (some) have been making software worse for consumers is among the following:

• Requiring a subscription for software which doesn't need constant updates or cloud content to function
• Introducing proprietary protocols or file types without any innovation or real addition of features (for instance, if a company introduces a word processor which doesn't have any more features than a standard .odt or .docx file, then there likely isn't a real reason for it to use its own proprietary format).
• Not providing troubleshooting or issue workaround information on reasonable terms (for instance, requiring an absurd amount of money and/or technical certificates for said information is beyond what would be reasonable)
• Making software needlessly dependent on cloud infrastructure
• Regressing features and usability for unnecessary reasons

These can interfere with daily lives and the ability of professionals to rectify any software issues. For instance, a company charging an absurd amount of money for information on the location of one checkbox in one of their settings dialog can lead to a professional spending an extra hour or two to locate the dialog and the specific checkbox.

Proprietary filetypes and protocols can make hardware useless if the company who made it closes their business without disclosing the software, protocol, or filetype to the public or surviving entity before doing so.

Why anti-repair practices are a problem

1. Economic and environmental costs: Repair restrictions force consumers to pay excessive fees or replace entire products, contributing to financial burdens and increased e-waste.
2. Undermining consumer rights: These practices challenge the basic principle of ownership. By limiting access to tools, parts, and repair guides, manufacturers erode consumers' ability to service the products they own.
3. Cultural shift toward disposability: Restrictive repair policies foster a disposable culture, where repairing a product is no longer an option, and purchasing new items becomes the default solution.

Self-repair programs

In response to the passage of Right to Repair legislation, many companies have introduced their own self-repair programs. While these programs are marketed as initiatives to expand repair options, they often come with significant limitations. Below is a list of such companies, along with their related articles:

• Samsung self-repair program restrictions
• Apple authorized service provider program
• Google asserts the right to seize your phone during a repair

What can be done

To address the challenges of Right to Repair, consumers and lawmakers must act:

1. Support legislation: Policies like Massachusetts’ Right to Repair law and the FAIR Act are essential for securing repair rights across industries.^{[citation needed]}
2. Raise awareness: Educating the public about the implications of repair restrictions can help build momentum for change.
3. Choose repairable products: Supporting manufacturers that prioritize repairability can encourage better practices across industries.