Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government

Right-to-Repair Laws Gain Political Momentum Across America (cnbc.com) 26

"California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Connecticut, Oregon and Washington have all passed comprehensive right-to-repair regulations," reports CNBC, "covering everything from consumer electronics and farm equipment to wheelchairs and automobiles."

And the consumer movement "continues to gain political momentum" across America... As of this year, advocates are tracking 57 right-to-repair bills across 22 states. In Maine, the state senate just advanced a bill that would bring the right to repair to electronics in the state. Texas's new right-to-repair law kicks in on Sept. 1 and covers phones, laptops, and tablets, but excludes medical and farm equipment, and game consoles.... [U.S.] Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) are unlikely political bedfellows but have joined together to sponsor the REPAIR Act... The REPAIR Act would require automakers to give vehicle owners, independent repair shops, and aftermarket manufacturers secure access to vehicle repair and maintenance data, preventing manufacturers from funneling consumers into their own exclusive and more expensive dealership repair networks... Hawley criticized big corporations in his arguments in favor of right-to-repair legislation.

"Big corporations have a history of gatekeeping basic information that belongs to car owners, effectively forcing consumers to pay a fixed price whenever their car is in the shop," Hawley told CNBC. "The bipartisan REPAIR Act would end corporations' control over diagnostics and service information and give consumers the right to repair their own equipment at a price most feasible for them." The largest small business lobby in the U.S., the NFIB, says 89% of its members support right-to-repair legislation, making it a top legislative priority for 2026.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Right-to-Repair Laws Gain Political Momentum Across America

Comments Filter:
  • by sinkskinkshrieks ( 6952954 ) on Monday April 27, 2026 @12:14AM (#66113912)
    Look at their actions and their interests.
  • One of the counter arguments - that I don't agree with by the way - is that if people are allowed to even try to repair stuff that they will "wreck it". My response is that if they do, that's on them as the "right to repair" means that it is repairable, not that anyone and everyone can do it.
  • by wpiman ( 739077 ) on Monday April 27, 2026 @07:03AM (#66114098)
    In theory I am not opposed to this, but 50 states stitching their own cobweb of laws together on this is going to be impossible to navigate. Only the lawyers will win. This should be part of the UCC.
    • Re:Different states (Score:4, Interesting)

      by unrtst ( 777550 ) on Monday April 27, 2026 @10:24AM (#66114340)

      In theory I am not opposed to this, but 50 states stitching their own cobweb of laws together on this is going to be impossible to navigate. Only the lawyers will win.

      This should be part of the UCC.

      You're right, in that only the lawyers win now. However, this may be the only viable path to getting such in place federally.

      I happen to disagree strongly with the Texas version, which excludes medical equipment, farm, and game consoles. It's blatantly obvious what is keeping those locked down, and it's not safety (game console excluded, but you can mod your car at home?). And what happens when my implanted medical device suddenly loses all support due to tariff reactions or a foreign company going belly up etc. etc..? Codifying that now will give it a foothold that will be hard to break.

      HOWEVER, since that's a state law, other states will hopefully have different requirements. If others include farm equipment in right to repair (which, IMO, is one of the biggest and most obvious targets for such action), it would be increasingly difficult for John Deere to maintain their lockdown in neighboring states. That helps push the industry towards more universal rules that may not be as heavily laden with exceptions.

      A cobweb of laws may encourage companies to find the common denominator and meet that level in all states. For example, some states have strict laws about how quickly employees must be paid after their payroll cycle ends. This forces large companies to meet those deadlines for employees in those states. In doing so, the company processes all align to get paychecks out the door faster. Another example - employee lunch break rules. Many states require that employees be offered 30min unpaid lunch, and if an employee takes less than that (let's say they only take 20min), then the employer must pay for that time (because that's just a break, not a lunch). That encourages company policies that benefit those across all states, because it's too much damned worked to do them state-by-state, let alone the risk of edge cases where an employee lives in one state and works in another state just across the state line, or those working from home in other states. Cobwebs can be good :-)

  • by FeelGood314 ( 2516288 ) on Monday April 27, 2026 @09:37AM (#66114252)
    Most large companies suck at innovating. They don't get crushed by smaller companies mainly because small companies don't have the money to navigate regulations and large supply chains. I might be able to build a better widget and have a contract manufacturer make it for less than the large established companies because I'm using newer cheaper parts that use less power. What I can't do is sell in volume around the world because I can't meet the explicit and implicit regulations. Meeting the explicit regulations is hard enough but my sales channels also have regulations that cause them to create even more rules for me to pass. Some devices are going to be so cheap or they will require so much time to diagnose that they aren't worth fixing even if the required part is only pennies. I have no idea when a part will become obsolete. When it does, I rework my design to use a newer part. Adding a right to repair for many things will require me to make my device more robust and to store replacement parts. Since I don't know what parts might be needed I'm likely going to store way to many parts. The robustness adds to my design time and costs. None of these things will make my device more attractive. For most of my devices, even if a non-trivial number of my devices are repaired, the extra plastics in my device and the stored parts will lead to far more e-waste.

    Look around small towns in rust belt USA. 100 years ago they used to be filled with small companies that could make a wide variety of fairly complicated things. They could make them and ship and sell them all over the world. If you look at the founders of these companies, the founders often were not that old.
    • by unrtst ( 777550 )

      ... I have no idea when a part will become obsolete. When it does, I rework my design to use a newer part. Adding a right to repair for many things will require me to make my device more robust and to store replacement parts. Since I don't know what parts might be needed I'm likely going to store way to many parts. ...

      I doubt I'm entirely right about this, but...
      While there many versions of these bills, AFAICT they're not saying the parent company must keep enough spare parts around for N years of service; That's just how companies are getting around the rules. John Deere settled a large right-to-repair case by agreeing to provide digital tools, software, and diagnostic access for 10 years. But if they hadn't been proactively locking users out of doing such work, it wouldn't have been an issue. There are no such repair

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      Only badly written right to repair. A good right to repair law should block you from contracting a special variant only sold to you, or require you to stockpile spares, but shouldn't require you to stockpile a commodity part. Of course, small businesses are unlikely to be ordering custom chips with pins swapped around compared to the commodity part like Apple does. More likely a small business' design will not feature anything not available from DigiKey or Mouser.

      If you decide you no longer wish to support

    • by xpyr ( 743763 )
      Right to repair is not about requiring companies to make electronic devices easier to repair. But it shouldn't allow companies to make an electronic device harder or more expensive to repair.

      Such as Samsung gluing the battery to the display so the cost of replacing the battery is not economically viable, since now you pay for both the battery and the screen when the screen was already working, and you just needed the battery to be replaced.

      Digital locks should also not be allowed since they're only the

  • Their "but but security" arguments were atrociously insulting to intelligence. The vast majority of even government and corporate employees will never face an issue where there is a justification for "protecting them" from someone disassembling an iPhone and sneaking compromised components into the device. Those that have to worry about that have entire corporate and government security departments focused on actively providing countermeasures to ensure the employee doesn't create an opening into the infras

  • As Cory Doctorow's been writing and fighting for this for 20 years - he's clearly explained that IT'S A RACKET that they stuffed into the DCMA. The laws are coming, until that part of the DCMA is repealed. I mean, you *bought* and *own* something, but you can't repair it because if violates anti-circumvention in the copyright laws? Tell me again who owns it?

    And I note that Texas exempted farm implements, so farmers *still* would not have the right to fix their own tractors.

  • Right to repair is gaining momentum, but it keeps getting watered down to the point of almost being useless.

    Case in point - Colorado. They passed one of the better right to repair laws not terribly long ago. Just recently Cisco and IBM dumped $600k into lobbying in that state, and all of a sudden that law now has an exemption carved out for "critical infrastructure." Which sounds nice on the surface, but it allows the manufacturer to define which devices are critical infrastructure. They can point to any
    • by sodul ( 833177 )

      Indeed, the most recent right to repair law in California is close to useless.

      Last year I purchased a premium dual wall oven from LG. A very small plastic cover on the door hinge was damaged. I asked LG support to ship me a replacement part, which they promised to send but never did. After a lot of back and forth they offered to send a technician but that I would pay for the tech and the part unless I could prove they were at fault. I only wanted a plastic piece the size of a lego, which they do not provide

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      The crazy thing about that exemption is that critical infrastructure has the highest need to be independantly repairable. You need it back up and running yesterday, there's no time to play salesman games where they try to get you to buy a forklift upgrade instead of repair.

      The lobbying is IBM and Cisco declaring openly that they intend to profit from holding critical infrastructure hostage.

  • When you buy something, you should own it.
  • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Monday April 27, 2026 @02:49PM (#66114950) Homepage

    If I buy something, that means I can do what I want with it, not just what the people that sold it want me to do with it.

    That includes ripping it apart and that includes putting it back together - with or without the same parts.

Blinding speed can compensate for a lot of deficiencies. -- David Nichols

Working...