The “Right to Repair” Movement is Gaining Unprecedented Political Traction Across the U.S.
Once, a cracked smartphone screen or a malfunctioning appliance meant an expensive trip to an authorized service center, if a fix was even possible. Consumers found themselves at the mercy of manufacturers wielding proprietary parts and diagnostic tools, creating a frustrating and costly repair landscape. This dilemma, however, has expanded far beyond consumer electronics, encompassing everything from automobiles and farm equipment to dishwashers. Now, a burgeoning “right to repair” movement is challenging this status quo, gaining significant political momentum and uniting unlikely allies in Congress and statehouses nationwide.
This movement has achieved what many thought impossible: bridging the partisan divide. A wave of state laws enacted in recent years, coupled with renewed efforts in the U.S. House and Senate, signals a pivotal shift in how consumers access and afford repairs.
Since New York enacted its landmark electronics right-to-repair legislation in 2022, the trend has accelerated. California, Colorado, Minnesota, Connecticut, and Oregon have followed suit with comprehensive regulations. Washington state most recently joined this growing list in May 2025. As of this year, advocates are tracking 57 right-to-repair bills across 22 states, with Maine’s senate advancing a bill to include electronics in its state. Texas’s new law, effective September 1st, covers phones, laptops, and tablets, though it currently excludes medical equipment, farm machinery, and gaming consoles.
Even in the heated Ohio gubernatorial primary, where fringe candidate Casey Putsch trails significantly in the polls, his platform highlights the populist appeal of economic issues, including his embrace of right-to-repair legislation. This resonates with a broader national sentiment regarding economic anxieties and affordability, issues underscored by a recent CNBC poll indicating President Trump’s lowest approval ratings on the economy during his presidency.
“A forgotten hallmark of the American Dream is to be able to build, create, and repair your own stuff,” stated Putsch, an auto enthusiast and builder, articulating a sentiment that taps into a desire for greater consumer autonomy.
Oregon’s 2024 law was particularly notable for its restriction on “parts pairing”—the practice of requiring replacement components to be authenticated by manufacturer-specific software. However, New York’s 2022 legislation was the first of its kind nationally. According to New York State Senator Patricia Fahy, who sponsored the bill, it enjoyed “huge bipartisan appeal.”
Fahy’s initial goal in New York was to address smartphone repair costs. “There has been a rise in independent repair shops, and it makes it more affordable. Fixing screens was $250 if you didn’t have insurance,” Fahy noted, estimating average annual savings for families at $400 across electronics and smartphones. She also projected potential job growth, stating, “And the early estimates are repair shops would hire 15 percent more workers.”
However, the original scope of the New York bill was far more ambitious. “We had to strip away at our own legislation. We ran into the buzzsaw immediately from John Deere and Caterpillar,” Fahy recounted, explaining the removal of large equipment from the initial bill. Medical equipment and home appliances were also excluded, though Fahy has since introduced legislation to extend right-to-repair protections to wheelchairs.
The stance of major tech corporations on this issue remains divided. While Apple, which initially opposed right-to-repair legislation, has softened its position in recent years, Samsung continues to face criticism for its restrictive repair policies.
Deere, a key player in agricultural equipment, asserts that it is not opposed to the right to repair. Denver Caldwell, vice president of aftermarket and customer support, stated, “We want farmers to be able to fix their equipment. In fact, our industry depends on it.” He emphasized that farmers already have access to repair tools, information, and diagnostics through agreements with the American Farm Bureau Federation, arguing that this obviates the need for “a patchwork of state-by-state mandates.”
Deere also contends that existing agreements pre-dating New York’s 2022 law incorporate processes for evolving repair capabilities. However, they argue that New York’s legal mandates for paper manuals, offline access, and free or “at-cost” technology access are misaligned with the industry’s investments in real-time diagnostics and accurate repairs.
Despite Deere’s assertions, its repair practices remain a contentious issue. In 2025, the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against Deere, alleging that limiting diagnostic software access to company-affiliated dealerships constituted an unfair and illegal practice that inflated profits on agricultural equipment and parts while burdening farmers with higher repair costs. More recently, Deere settled a separate class-action lawsuit by farmers over right-to-repair, agreeing to pay $99 million and provide access to diagnostic and repair tools for up to a decade, without admitting wrongdoing.
**A Bipartisan Movement Gains Momentum in Congress**
“We need national legislation; this is a bipartisan issue,” Senator Fahy reiterated, a sentiment that has resonated with federal lawmakers. Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), an unlikely political pairing, have co-sponsored the REPAIR Act, which focuses specifically on automotive repairs. Luján has also introduced the Fair Repair Act, a broader bill encompassing appliances and electronics beyond vehicles.
The REPAIR Act aims to mandate that automakers provide vehicle owners, independent repair shops, and aftermarket manufacturers secure access to vehicle repair and maintenance data, thereby preventing manufacturers from exclusively directing consumers to their own dealership repair networks.
“Consumers deserve options when it comes to repairs. My REPAIR Act and Fair Repair Act would do just that. It expands options that are affordable, dependable, and safe,” Luján told CNBC, underscoring the bill’s intent to empower consumers to choose repair services that fit their budget.
The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) voiced its opposition in February as a House subcommittee advanced the REPAIR Act towards a full committee vote. NADA maintains that independent garages can already perform repairs and that a 2014 agreement ensuring access to diagnostic and repair data has been effective. They also characterize the Hawley-Lujan bill as a potential “Trojan horse” that could facilitate data harvesting and sales, a concern supporters, including Luján, counter by stating that the bill explicitly protects trade secrets.
“My Fair Repair Act is not about stifling innovation. It gives consumers the opportunity to find the repair service that’s right for them and their budget. The Fair Repair Act specifically outlines that nothing in the bill would require an original equipment manufacturer to divulge a trade secret,” Luján clarified.
Senator Hawley has been vocal in his criticism of large corporations, stating, “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. 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 National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the largest small business lobby in the U.S., reports that 89% of its members support right-to-repair legislation, making it a top legislative priority for 2026.
**The Evolving “Economics of Ownership” and Consumer Frustration**
David Friedman, a professor of law at Willamette University, observes the populist underpinnings of the right-to-repair movement, noting its transcendence across party lines and its gradual build-up.
“The historical transition from mechanical goods, such as watches, to software-defined consumer electronics has fundamentally altered the economics of ownership,” Friedman explained. He argues that by bundling repair services with initial sales, manufacturers have created closed ecosystems that effectively force consumers into a choice between high-margin proprietary services or premature device obsolescence, often under the threat of voided warranties.
“When every seller plays this game, and profits from captive repair, it’s hard for any seller to opt out and remain competitive,” Friedman commented. He sees the right-to-repair movement as a direct response to sophisticated market structures that limit consumer agency and leave individuals without competitive alternatives. While manufacturers may cite quality preservation as a rationale, Friedman suggests this argument has its limits.
He also identifies an element of “comfort-class consumer populism” within the movement. “Right to repair has gained significant legislative traction because it functions as a populist issue that simultaneously intersects with the frustrations of affluent demographics,” Friedman stated, drawing parallels to the broader regulatory push against “junk fees” and hotel resort fees.
However, some express concerns about potential risks associated with the expanding array of right-to-repair laws. Yosi Yahoudai, co-founder and managing partner of J&Y Law, a firm specializing in injury and liability law, voices apprehension. “My concern, speaking as a personal injury attorney, comes from seeing too many product liability cases. Whether it’s pressure cookers exploding or issues with electric vehicle and scooter batteries, there’s a lot that can go wrong with today’s technology.”
Yahoudai posits that increased consumer-led repairs or modifications elevate these risks. “Then you add in the secondary market. If you’re buying a used product, what if it’s been repaired multiple times and is barely holding together? How do we really know that the products we’re using are still safe?”
Supporters of the movement largely dismiss concerns that the right to repair could lead to consumers transferring their risks through the legal system. Despite its bipartisan appeal, some tech companies, including IBM, have actively lobbied against certain aspects. In Colorado, which has some of the most comprehensive right-to-repair laws, IT companies have supported legislation to exempt business IT equipment.
A spokesperson for IBM stated, “IBM supports right-to-repair policies that empower consumers while appropriately protecting cybersecurity, intellectual property and critical infrastructure.” They clarified that their support for Colorado Senate Bill 26-090 reflects a distinction for technology designed for critical infrastructure, while preserving repair rights for consumer devices. Opponents, however, argue that this exemption is too broadly defined and could undermine existing protections.
Despite these challenges, the momentum for right-to-repair appears undiminished. “The growing, bipartisan momentum behind right to repair is rooted in a simple idea: ownership,” said Paul Roberts, founder of SecuRepairs, a cybersecurity and IT professional advocacy group. “Most consumers believe that if they buy a product, they should be able to use, modify, and fix it. For decades, manufacturers largely supported that expectation: distributing service manuals, selling replacement parts and so on.”
Roberts attributes the shift to the rise of software, connectivity, and outdated laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which have re-centralized control with manufacturers. “Today, companies use digital locks, software restrictions, and subscriptions to limit repairs, inflate costs, and even kill off products entirely,” he observed. “Consumers are pushing back. From restricted smartphone repairs to devices being ‘bricked’ when services shut down, these practices have made ownership feel conditional. That frustration, shared across political lines, is fueling one of the strongest consumer rights movements in decades.”
Original article, Author: Tobias. If you wish to reprint this article, please indicate the source:https://aicnbc.com/21050.html
