The Right to Repair Movement: Ownership, Planned Obsolescence, and the Fight to Fix What You Buy
In 2017, a Nebraska farmer named Kevin Kenney testified before the state legislature about his John Deere tractor. The tractor, which cost several hundred thousand dollars, had broken down in the field during harvest season. In previous decades, Kenney or a local mechanic could have diagnosed and repaired the problem. But Kenney's John Deere was different. The tractor's onboard computer had locked out the engine, and only a John Deere-authorized dealer with proprietary diagnostic software could reset it. The nearest authorized dealer was hours away. By the time the dealer could send a technician, Kenney had lost days of harvest time--days that, for a farmer dependent on narrow weather windows, could mean the difference between a profitable season and a devastating loss.
Kenney was not describing an unusual situation. Across the United States, farmers were discovering that the tractors they had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to own were, in a practical sense, not fully theirs. John Deere's position, codified in its end-user license agreement, was that farmers did not own the software in their tractors--they licensed it. And because the software controlled critical functions (engine management, emissions systems, diagnostic capabilities), the license effectively meant that farmers could not repair their own equipment without John Deere's permission and John Deere's tools.
The Nebraska farmer's testimony was one moment in a much larger struggle: the right to repair movement, a growing coalition of consumers, farmers, independent repair shops, environmental advocates, and technology critics demanding the right to fix the products they own. The movement challenges some of the most powerful manufacturers in the world--Apple, John Deere, Microsoft, Samsung, Tesla--and raises fundamental questions about what ownership means in an age when every product contains software, and software comes with license restrictions that were inconceivable when ownership law was developed.
What Is Right to Repair?
The Core Demand
The right to repair movement advocates for consumers' and independent repair shops' ability to repair the products they own. Specifically, the movement demands that manufacturers provide:
- Access to replacement parts: Consumers and independent repair shops should be able to purchase the same replacement parts that manufacturers make available to their authorized service providers
- Access to repair tools: Proprietary diagnostic software, specialized tools, and calibration equipment should be available to independent repairers, not restricted to manufacturer-authorized service centers
- Access to documentation: Repair manuals, wiring diagrams, diagnostic procedures, and service bulletins should be publicly available
- Freedom from software locks: Products should not use software restrictions to prevent repairs or force consumers to use only manufacturer-authorized service
These demands sound straightforward--even obvious. If you buy a tractor, a phone, or a refrigerator, shouldn't you be able to fix it when it breaks? But in practice, these demands challenge deeply entrenched manufacturer business models, intellectual property strategies, and power dynamics that have developed over the past two decades.
The Broader Principle
The right to repair movement is about more than fixing broken devices. It is about the meaning of ownership in a world where products are increasingly defined by software, controlled by manufacturers after the point of sale, and designed in ways that make independent repair difficult or impossible.
The traditional understanding of ownership is simple: when you buy a product, it is yours. You can use it, modify it, repair it, resell it, or discard it as you see fit. The right to repair movement argues that modern manufacturer practices have eroded this understanding so thoroughly that consumers who believe they "own" their products are mistaken. What they actually have is a limited right to use the product under conditions set by the manufacturer--conditions that can be changed unilaterally through software updates, enforced through digital locks, and maintained through legal threats.
Why Do Manufacturers Oppose Right to Repair?
Revenue Protection
The most straightforward reason manufacturers oppose right to repair is money. Repair services are enormously profitable:
- Apple's "Genius Bar" and authorized service providers generate billions in repair revenue annually. An iPhone screen replacement from Apple costs significantly more than the same repair from an independent shop using aftermarket parts.
- John Deere's authorized dealer network generates substantial revenue from repair and maintenance services. Deere has acknowledged that its parts and service business is a significant profit center.
- Automobile manufacturers earn significant revenue from dealer service departments, which rely on manufacturer-exclusive parts, tools, and diagnostic software.
When consumers can repair products independently or use independent repair shops, manufacturers lose this revenue. The economics are clear: every repair performed outside the manufacturer's authorized service network is revenue lost.
Intellectual Property Arguments
Manufacturers frequently invoke intellectual property protections to justify repair restrictions:
Copyright: Manufacturers argue that the software embedded in products is copyrighted, and that accessing or modifying this software (even for repair purposes) constitutes copyright infringement. This argument was enabled by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, which makes it illegal to circumvent technological protection measures ("digital locks") even when the purpose is legitimate repair.
Trade secrets: Manufacturers argue that their diagnostic software, repair procedures, and system architectures contain trade secrets that would be compromised by making them publicly available.
Patent protection: Some manufacturers argue that independent repair could involve the use of patented techniques or components, creating patent infringement liability.
These intellectual property arguments are contested. Repair advocates argue that the right to repair a product you own should override the manufacturer's intellectual property claims in the repair context, just as copyright law allows libraries to lend books and first-sale doctrine allows resale of purchased goods.
Safety and Liability Concerns
Manufacturers argue that safety requires limiting repair to authorized service providers:
- Improperly repaired electronic devices could pose fire, electrical shock, or battery explosion hazards
- Improperly repaired vehicles could malfunction in ways that endanger the driver, passengers, and others on the road
- Medical devices repaired by unqualified individuals could endanger patients
- Products that fail after independent repair could create liability exposure for the manufacturer
These safety arguments are not entirely without merit--improper repair of certain products can indeed be dangerous. But repair advocates note that independent auto mechanics have safely repaired vehicles for over a century, that independent electronics repair shops have safely repaired devices for decades, and that the safety argument is selectively applied: manufacturers invoke safety concerns for products where repair restrictions are profitable, not for products where they are not.
Planned Obsolescence Incentives
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of manufacturer opposition to repair is the relationship between repair restrictions and planned obsolescence: the practice of designing products to fail or become obsolete within a predetermined timeframe, encouraging consumers to purchase replacements.
| Manufacturer Argument | Repair Advocate Response |
|---|---|
| IP protection: Our software is copyrighted | Repair doesn't require copying software; it requires running existing software |
| Safety: Unauthorized repair is dangerous | Independent mechanics safely repair cars; same principle applies |
| Quality control: We can't guarantee third-party repairs | Consumers assume risk; manufacturer warranty can be limited, not repair itself |
| Security: Third-party repair could compromise data | Repair procedures can include data protection protocols |
| Innovation: Repair requirements would constrain design | Repairability is a design feature, not a constraint on innovation |
| Cost: Making parts available is expensive | Manufacturers already make parts for authorized service; just expand access |
What Tactics Do Manufacturers Use Against Repair?
Design Choices
The most effective anti-repair tactic is designing products to be difficult or impossible to repair:
Adhesive bonding: Components that were previously secured with screws (batteries, screens, speakers) are glued in place, making removal difficult without specialized tools and risking damage to surrounding components. Apple's use of adhesive to secure iPhone batteries is a well-documented example.
Proprietary fasteners: Manufacturers use non-standard screws and fasteners that require specialized tools unavailable to consumers. Apple's use of pentalobe screws (a five-pointed design not used in any other industry) requires a tool that Apple does not sell and that was not commercially available when first introduced.
Component serialization: Manufacturers pair specific components to specific devices through software, so that replacing a component with an identical part from another device triggers a software error. Apple's iPhone serializes screens, batteries, cameras, and other components, causing warning messages or reduced functionality when parts are replaced--even with genuine Apple parts from another iPhone of the same model.
Integrated design: Components that could be individually replaced (RAM, storage, battery) are soldered directly to the motherboard, making individual replacement impossible and requiring replacement of the entire assembly.
Lack of modularity: Products are designed as sealed units that cannot be opened without destroying or damaging the enclosure, preventing access to internal components.
Legal and Contractual Tactics
End-user license agreements (EULAs): Manufacturers include terms in their license agreements that prohibit reverse engineering, independent repair, and use of third-party parts. While the enforceability of these terms varies by jurisdiction, they create legal uncertainty that deters independent repair.
Warranty voiding: Manufacturers void warranties when products are repaired by independent shops or when third-party parts are used. In the United States, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prohibits manufacturers from voiding warranties solely because of independent repair, but enforcement is limited and many consumers are unaware of their rights.
DMCA enforcement: Manufacturers use the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions to threaten legal action against anyone who bypasses software locks for repair purposes. The Copyright Office has granted exemptions for some repair activities, but these exemptions are narrow, temporary (requiring renewal every three years), and do not apply to all product categories.
Lobbying
Manufacturers invest heavily in lobbying against right-to-repair legislation. Industry groups including the Consumer Technology Association, TechNet, and manufacturer-specific lobbyists have opposed right-to-repair bills in state legislatures across the United States. Between 2014 and 2023, right-to-repair bills were introduced in more than 40 states; the overwhelming majority were defeated through manufacturer lobbying.
The lobbying arguments typically combine the safety, intellectual property, and quality concerns described above with economic arguments: that repair requirements would increase product costs, reduce innovation incentives, and harm the competitive position of American manufacturers.
Which Industries Resist Repair Most?
Consumer Electronics
Apple is the most prominent opponent of right to repair in consumer electronics. Apple's practices include:
- Using proprietary screws and adhesive bonding that make devices difficult to open
- Serializing components so that part replacement triggers software warnings or reduced functionality
- Restricting access to genuine replacement parts, diagnostic tools, and repair documentation
- Lobbying against right-to-repair legislation in state legislatures
Apple has made some concessions under pressure. In 2022, the company launched its Self Service Repair program, which allows consumers to purchase genuine Apple parts and rent specialized tools. However, the program has been criticized for high part prices, tool rental requirements (the repair toolkit weighs 79 pounds and requires a $1,200 deposit), and the continued serialization of parts that limits the effectiveness of independent repair.
Samsung, Google, and other Android manufacturers have similar (though generally less extreme) repair restrictions, including limited parts availability and increasing use of adhesive bonding and integrated design.
Agricultural Equipment
John Deere has become the most prominent example of repair restriction in agriculture. The company's tractors and combines contain sophisticated computer systems that control engine function, emissions, precision agriculture features, and diagnostic capabilities. John Deere has restricted access to the software and diagnostic tools needed to repair these systems, requiring farmers to use authorized dealers for many types of repair.
The impact on farmers is particularly severe because agricultural equipment failures often occur during time-critical planting or harvest windows when delays can cause significant economic losses. The nearest authorized dealer may be hours away in rural areas, making manufacturer-exclusive repair impractical.
In 2023, John Deere signed a memorandum of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation agreeing to provide farmers and independent repair shops with access to diagnostic tools and software. However, repair advocates have criticized the agreement as non-binding and insufficient.
Medical Devices
Medical device manufacturers (Medtronic, GE Healthcare, Siemens Healthineers, Philips) restrict independent repair of diagnostic equipment, surgical instruments, and patient monitoring systems. The restrictions are justified on safety grounds, but they also create monopoly pricing power: hospitals that cannot repair their own equipment must pay manufacturer service rates, which are significantly higher than independent repair costs.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the consequences of medical device repair restrictions. Hospitals struggling with equipment failures during the crisis found that manufacturer service contracts were slow to respond and that independent repair was restricted by the same digital locks and parts restrictions that affect consumer electronics.
Automotive
The automobile industry was an early battleground for right to repair. In 2012, Massachusetts voters approved a right to repair ballot measure by a 86-14 margin, requiring automobile manufacturers to provide independent repair shops with the same diagnostic information and tools available to authorized dealers. The auto industry responded by negotiating a national agreement (the "Memorandum of Understanding") extending similar rights nationwide.
However, the Massachusetts law was passed before the widespread adoption of telematics--wireless data systems that transmit vehicle diagnostic data to the manufacturer in real time. A 2020 ballot measure updated the law to require manufacturers to provide access to telematics data, but implementation has been contested in court by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, an industry group.
Tesla represents a new frontier in automotive repair restriction. Tesla vehicles are heavily software-dependent and software-locked, with many functions (including some safety-critical ones) controlled by over-the-air software updates. Independent repair of Tesla vehicles is limited by the same types of restrictions--parts access, diagnostic tool exclusivity, component serialization--that characterize the consumer electronics industry.
What Is Planned Obsolescence?
Defining the Practice
Planned obsolescence is the deliberate design of products to have a limited useful life, encouraging consumers to purchase replacements sooner than they would if the product were designed for maximum durability.
Planned obsolescence takes several forms:
Functional obsolescence: The product is designed to physically fail after a predetermined period. Components that could be made more durable are deliberately made weaker, ensuring failure within the product's expected lifecycle.
Technological obsolescence: The product is designed to become technologically inadequate as newer models are released. Software updates may slow older devices, new features may require newer hardware, and compatibility with other products may be limited to recent models.
Systemic obsolescence: The product becomes obsolete because the ecosystem around it changes. Peripherals, accessories, and software are designed for newer product versions, making older versions increasingly impractical to use.
Aesthetic obsolescence: The product is designed to look outdated as design trends change, encouraging replacement for cosmetic rather than functional reasons.
The most notorious example of planned obsolescence in recent history is Apple's battery throttling scandal. In 2017, it was revealed that Apple's iOS updates had been deliberately slowing down older iPhones. Apple claimed the slowdown was intended to prevent unexpected shutdowns caused by aging batteries. Critics argued that the undisclosed slowdown was designed to encourage users to purchase new phones rather than replace batteries. Apple paid a $113 million settlement to US states over the practice and offered discounted battery replacements.
Economic Logic
Planned obsolescence is economically rational from the manufacturer's perspective:
- Products that last forever generate one-time revenue; products that must be replaced generate recurring revenue
- In mature markets where most potential customers already own the product, replacement cycles drive sales growth
- Short product lifecycles create opportunities to sell new features and improvements
- Repair restrictions ensure that products reach end-of-life rather than being repaired and continued in use
The economic logic is particularly powerful for technology companies because the marginal cost of software (which drives much of the obsolescence) is near zero. Making an older device slower through a software update costs the manufacturer nothing; it costs the consumer hundreds or thousands of dollars in replacement.
What's the Environmental Impact?
The E-Waste Crisis
The environmental consequences of repair restrictions and planned obsolescence are severe:
Electronic waste (e-waste) is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world. The United Nations estimated that in 2022, the world generated approximately 62 million metric tons of e-waste--the equivalent of roughly 1.55 million fully loaded 40-ton trucks, which could form a bumper-to-bumper line from New York to Bangkok. Only about 22% of this e-waste was properly collected and recycled.
E-waste contains hazardous materials--lead, mercury, cadmium, brominated flame retardants--that contaminate soil and water when disposed of improperly. It also contains valuable materials--gold, silver, copper, rare earth elements--that are lost when devices are discarded rather than recycled.
Products that cannot be repaired are discarded sooner. When a smartphone's battery degrades and cannot be replaced, the entire phone is discarded. When a laptop's storage drive fails and cannot be replaced (because it is soldered to the motherboard), the entire laptop is discarded. When a tractor's computer fails and cannot be repaired independently, the tractor sits idle until an authorized dealer can service it--or, if the repair cost is too high, the tractor is scrapped.
Resource Extraction
Manufacturing electronic devices requires enormous resource extraction:
- A single smartphone contains over 30 different chemical elements, including rare earth metals that are mined under environmentally destructive conditions
- Manufacturing a smartphone generates approximately 70 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions--more than the device will consume in energy over its entire lifespan
- Water consumption in semiconductor manufacturing is staggering: a single semiconductor fabrication plant can use tens of millions of gallons of water per day
Every device that is discarded and replaced rather than repaired represents a duplication of these environmental costs. Extending the useful life of existing devices through repair is one of the most effective ways to reduce the environmental footprint of the technology industry.
Circular Economy Principles
The right to repair movement aligns with circular economy principles that seek to minimize waste and maximize the useful life of products and materials:
- Design for repairability: Products should be designed so that components can be easily accessed, removed, and replaced
- Design for longevity: Products should be built to last, with durable materials and upgradeable components
- Design for recyclability: When products do reach end of life, they should be designed so that materials can be easily separated and recovered
- Extended producer responsibility: Manufacturers should bear responsibility for the full lifecycle of their products, including disposal and recycling
Has Right to Repair Made Progress?
Legislative Progress
After years of manufacturer-dominated legislative outcomes, the right to repair movement has achieved significant legislative victories:
United States: In 2023, several states passed right-to-repair laws:
- California passed SB 244, requiring manufacturers to make parts, tools, and documentation available for products sold in the state
- Minnesota passed a comprehensive right-to-repair law covering consumer electronics
- New York passed the Digital Fair Repair Act (though its scope was narrowed through manufacturer lobbying)
- Colorado passed right-to-repair legislation focused on agricultural equipment and powered wheelchairs
European Union: The EU has been a leader in right-to-repair regulation:
- The Ecodesign Directive requires manufacturers of certain product categories (washing machines, refrigerators, displays) to make spare parts available for specified periods and to design products for repairability
- The EU proposed a "right to repair" directive in 2023 that would require manufacturers to repair products at reasonable cost, extend warranty periods after repair, and provide access to repair information
- France's repairability index, introduced in 2021, requires manufacturers to label products with a score indicating how repairable they are, enabling consumers to make informed purchasing decisions
Executive action: In July 2021, US President Biden signed an executive order directing the Federal Trade Commission to limit manufacturers' ability to restrict independent repair. The FTC subsequently voted unanimously to prioritize enforcement against repair restrictions.
Industry Concessions
Under regulatory and public pressure, some manufacturers have made voluntary concessions:
- Apple launched its Self Service Repair program and expanded it to additional product categories, though critics note significant limitations
- Samsung partnered with iFixit to offer genuine Samsung parts and repair guides
- Google partnered with iFixit for Pixel phone replacement parts
- John Deere signed agreements with farm organizations to provide repair access, though enforcement mechanisms are limited
- Microsoft committed to making Surface devices more repairable and partnered with iFixit for parts availability
These concessions are significant but partial. They typically provide some access to parts while maintaining software-based restrictions that limit the effectiveness of independent repair. Repair advocates view them as a starting point rather than a resolution.
Growing Public Awareness
The right to repair movement has achieved substantial public awareness and support:
- A 2021 survey by Consumer Reports found that 87% of Americans believe manufacturers should be required to make parts and repair information available to consumers and independent repair shops
- The movement has attracted support from diverse constituencies: farmers, environmentalists, disability advocates, independent repair shops, consumer rights organizations, and technology critics
- Media coverage of repair restrictions has increased significantly, with investigations by outlets including The New York Times, Vice, Wired, and The Washington Post raising public awareness
- The iFixit platform, which provides free repair guides and sells tools and parts, has become a central institution in the repair movement, with millions of monthly visitors
The right to repair movement represents a challenge to some of the technology industry's most profitable practices. Its progress reflects growing recognition that the ability to repair the products you own is not a niche technical concern but a fundamental question about consumer rights, environmental sustainability, and the meaning of ownership in a digital age. The movement's ultimate success will depend on whether legislative victories can be implemented and enforced against manufacturers with enormous resources and strong incentives to maintain the status quo.
References and Further Reading
Perzanowski, A. & Schultz, J. (2016). The End of Ownership: Personal Property in the Digital Economy. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262535519/the-end-of-ownership/
Slade, G. (2006). Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674025721
Repair Association. "State Legislation." https://www.repair.org/legislation
iFixit. "Right to Repair." https://www.ifixit.com/Right-to-Repair
European Commission. (2023). "Right to Repair." https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/sustainable-products/right-repair_en
Forti, V., Balde, C.P., Kuehr, R. & Bel, G. (2020). "The Global E-waste Monitor 2020." United Nations University. https://ewastemonitor.info/
Federal Trade Commission. (2021). "Nixing the Fix: An FTC Report to Congress on Repair Restrictions." https://www.ftc.gov/reports/nixing-fix-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictions
Proctor, D. (2020). "Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware." Vice Motherboard. https://www.vice.com/en/article/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware/
Cooper, T. (2004). "Inadequate Life? Evidence of Consumer Attitudes to Product Obsolescence." Journal of Consumer Policy, 27(4), 421-449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-004-2284-6
Bakker, C. et al. (2014). "Products That Last: Product Design for Circular Business Models." TU Delft Library. https://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:c3e93891-4a56-4acf-9847-232094926285
Rossmann, L. (2020). Various testimonies and repair advocacy content. https://www.youtube.com/c/rossmanngroup
Gay, J. (2002). Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software. O'Reilly Media. https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/