Unlocking the Right to Repair: The Expanding Compliance Landscape

At a Glance

• More than a dozen states have enacted right-to-repair statutes covering consumer electronics, agricultural equipment, automobiles, and — most recently — powered wheelchairs and mobility devices.
• Corporate counsel navigating this expanding patchwork of laws must confront divergent product scopes, enforcement regimes, penalty structures, and retroactivity provisions.
• Congress is considering the most advanced federal repair legislation to date, while recent EPA actions and a major FTC settlement underscore ongoing federal engagement in the repair-access space.
• Litigation remains a key driver of risk and policy development.

Table of Contents

1. Historical Context and the Policy Framework

2. State Right-to-Repair Legislation: A Growing Patchwork

3. Federal Legislative Activity

4. Voluntary Industry Agreements

5. Litigation Developments

6. Executive-Branch Developments: Shifting Federal Posture

---

What began more than 20 years ago as a niche consumer-advocacy campaign — focused largely on independent automobile mechanics seeking access to proprietary diagnostic systems — has matured into one of the most dynamic areas of product-regulation law in the United States. The right-to-repair movement now touches virtually every sector in which manufactured goods contain embedded digital components, from smartphones and laptops to large-scale agricultural machinery and powered wheelchairs.

The movement's central thesis is straightforward: consumers and independent service providers should be able to obtain the documentation, replacement parts, diagnostic tools, and software necessary to maintain and repair products they have purchased, on commercially reasonable terms. Manufacturers, by contrast, have long argued that restricting repair access protects intellectual property, ensures product safety, and preserves the integrity of warranty obligations.

The legal terrain has shifted considerably in recent years. Since September 2024, six additional states have enacted right-to-repair legislation, bringing the total to 13. The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) closely watched monopolization suit against Deere & Company settled in July 2026, with the company agreeing to open its repair ecosystem to farmers and independent technicians. Congress has advanced sector-specific repair bills further than at any prior point. And the executive branch's approach has pivoted from the previous administration's broad, multi-agency strategy to the current administration's narrower focus on vehicle repair.

For corporate counsel at manufacturers across affected industries, the compliance environment has grown substantially more demanding in recent years. As explained in greater detail below, the key takeaways are as follows:

• The state-law patchwork has nearly doubled, from seven enacted statutes to 13, with no indication that the pace of enactment is slowing. Counsel must track obligations across jurisdictions that differ in product scope, effective dates, availability-period requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and penalty structures.
• Mobility devices and powered wheelchairs have emerged as a distinct legislative track, with at least four states now imposing specific repair-access mandates for these products.
• Parts-pairing prohibitions, first enacted in Oregon and now adopted in Washington, are likely to proliferate and require manufacturers to reevaluate software-lock and component-authentication practices.
• Federal legislation remains a possibility rather than a certainty. A recent bill advancing in the House is the most significant development, but enactment would layer federal obligations on top of existing state mandates.
• Litigation continues to shape the boundaries of repair obligations. An appeal in Massachusetts remains pending that could validate or undermine an aggressive state-level approach to automotive repair data; while the FTC's 10-year settlement with Deere & Co. confirms that monopolization theories can produce binding structural relief in the repair-restriction context, even absent a final adjudication on the merits.
• Executive-branch attention has shifted but not disappeared. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) emissions-focused guidance may create new safe harbors for vehicle and equipment repair, while the FTC's settlement with Deere — reached notwithstanding the current FTC chair's initial opposition to filing the case — demonstrates that antitrust enforcement in the repair space can survive a change in administration and still produce lasting commitments.

In this environment, compliance requires ongoing monitoring of state legislative calendars, careful product-by-product assessment of applicability under each statute, documentation of repair-material availability to demonstrate good-faith compliance, and attention to the evolving federal landscape. The right-to-repair movement is no longer an emerging issue; it is an established and expanding feature of the regulatory landscape.

Historical Context and the Policy Framework

The integration of computer chips and proprietary software into consumer and industrial products transformed what had once been a straightforward mechanical repair market into a domain governed by digital gatekeeping. As manufacturers embedded diagnostic functions and software locks into their products, independent repair shops — and consumers themselves — found it increasingly difficult to service the goods they owned without authorization from the original equipment manufacturer.

The Federal Trade Commission's 2021 report to Congress, Nixing the Fix, identified several practices that can limit independent repair, including product designs that make servicing difficult; withholding repair manuals, diagnostic information, service documentation, replacement parts, and specialized tools; the use of software locks or firmware-update restrictions; steering consumers toward authorized repair networks; and warranty policies that discourage third-party service. Although the report acknowledged the significance of intellectual property rights, it found many other asserted justifications for repair restrictions less persuasive and signaled the Commission's intent to pursue enforcement. The report is an important reference point for later legislative and regulatory efforts.

State Right-to-Repair Legislation: A Growing Patchwork

Following years of stalled federal legislation, state legislatures have emerged as the primary engine of right-to-repair law in the United States. As of July 2026, 13 states have enacted some form of right-to-repair statute. The enacted laws do not follow a single model; they differ in product scope, the classes of beneficiaries protected, enforcement mechanisms, penalty structures, retroactivity, and the breadth of exemptions afforded to manufacturers. The existing statutes fall into four product-category tracks:

• Consumer Electronics and Digital Equipment: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington.
• Automotive and Telematics: Maine and Massachusetts.
• Mobility Devices and Powered Wheelchairs: Colorado, Maryland, Nevada, and Washington.
• Agricultural Equipment: Colorado.

The following subsection surveys the enacted statutes and summarizes similarities and differences in their scope, enforcement mechanisms, effective dates, and compliance pathways.

State Right-to-Repair Statutes

California (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 42488)

California's statute requires manufacturers of consumer electronics to furnish owners and independent repair providers with parts, tools, and documentation on fair and reasonable terms. Enforcement rests with the California attorney general and local prosecutors, with penalties ranging from $1,000 per day for an initial violation up to $5,000 per day for third and subsequent violations. The law exempts a broad array of equipment categories, including agricultural, construction, mining, and utility equipment. Products priced between $50 and $99.99 are subject to a minimum three-year availability window measured from the last date of manufacture, while products priced above $100 carry a seven-year window. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.03.

Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-1-501–511, 1501–1505)

Colorado's statutes are notable for their breadth, reaching consumer electronics, agricultural equipment, and powered wheelchairs. Colorado's Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment Act requires manufacturers to provide parts, tools, documentation, and embedded software on fair and reasonable terms. Uniquely, the statutes do not designate a specific enforcement mechanism and prescribe no civil penalty regime; instead, remedies are limited to repair of the device, reimbursement of repair costs, and damages awarded in private actions. Exemptions cover motor vehicles, medical devices (other than wheelchairs), industrial and mining equipment, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, marine vessels, aviation, recreational vehicles, video game consoles, and other categories. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1503(5). Retroactivity applies only to consumer electronics manufactured and first sold or used in Colorado on or after July 1, 2021.

Connecticut (Pub. Act No. 25-44, § 3)

Enacted as part of a broader consumer-protection measure, Connecticut's right-to-repair law requires manufacturers of "electronic or appliance products" — defined to include antennas; electronic sets such as radios, televisions, and video game consoles; and major home appliances — to make documentation, functional parts, and tools available on fair and reasonable terms. Availability must be maintained for at least three years if the wholesale price is $50–$100, and five years if it exceeds $100. The law applies to covered products manufactured, sold, or used in Connecticut on or after July 1, 2026. Enforcement authority resides exclusively with the Connecticut attorney general; no private right of action is created.

Kansas (2026 Kan. Sess. Laws ch. 99 (H.B. 2700))

Signed into law on April 9, 2026, the Kansas statute broadly defines "digital electronic equipment" to encompass any product dependent on embedded or attached digital electronics for its intended functionality, provided the wholesale price exceeds $50. Excluded categories include motor vehicles, medical devices, and heavy equipment. Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) must provide independent repair providers with the same documentation, tools, and parts available to authorized providers, on fair and reasonable terms, within one year of a product's first sale. Safe harbors protect trade secrets and source code. As an alternative compliance pathway, OEMs may offer the original purchaser a full reimbursement or an equivalent replacement product. The Kansas attorney general holds exclusive enforcement authority, limited to injunctive relief. The law takes effect on July 1, 2027.

Maine (Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29-A, § 1810)

Maine's narrowly drawn statute applies exclusively to automobiles. It requires manufacturers to provide access to onboard diagnostic systems on fair and reasonable terms. Enforcement is shared between the Maine attorney general and a private right of action, with statutory damages of $10,000 or treble damages (whichever is greater) available to private plaintiffs. The statute exempts engine immobilizers and security-related electronic features, and it applies retroactively to model-year 2002 and later vehicles. Maine also passed follow-up legislation on April 6, 2026, which seeks to implement policy recommendations from the Automotive Right to Repair Working Group. See Me. L.D. 2211, 132d Leg., Reg. Sess. (Me. 2026) (enacted Apr. 13, 2026) (to be codified at 29-A Me. Rev. Stat. § 1810). The new law also creates the Motor Vehicle Right to Repair Commission, which tracks compliance with Maine's current right-to-repair legislation.

Maryland (Md. Code, Com. Law §§ 14-5001–5004)

Enacted May 13, 2025, Maryland's statute applies solely to powered wheelchairs. It requires manufacturers to make repair manuals, parts, software, firmware, and tools available to independent repair providers and owners on "fair and reasonable terms," which the statute defines with specificity: terms must be equivalent to those offered to authorized providers, costs may not exceed the manufacturer's suggested retail price, documentation must be essentially free, and software tools must be provided without charge and without requiring internet connectivity or manufacturer authorization. Exceptions apply to discontinued parts and trade secrets, with the important caveat that even a trade secret must be disclosed if it is necessary to complete the repair.

Massachusetts (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93K, §§ 1–6)

Like Maine, Massachusetts restricts its right-to-repair mandate to automobiles. It requires access to diagnostic systems on fair and reasonable terms and provides for private enforcement with treble damages. The statute applies retroactively, beginning with model-year 2002 passenger vehicles and model-year 2013 heavy-duty vehicles. As discussed further below, this law has been the subject of protracted federal litigation.

Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 325E.72)

Minnesota's Digital Fair Repair Act covers digital electronic equipment, which includes "any hardware product that depends, in whole or in part, on digital electronics embedded in or attached to the product in order for the product to function." Minn. Stat. § 325E.72(e). The Minnesota attorney general holds exclusive enforcement authority, with a maximum civil penalty of $25,000 per violation. Exemptions encompass medical equipment, agricultural equipment, automobiles, and any tools or parts the disclosure of which would compromise cybersecurity or expose trade secrets. The statute applies retroactively to products manufactured since July 1, 2021.

Nevada (A.B. 407, 83d Leg., Reg. Sess. (Nev. 2025))

Passed on May 30, 2025, Nevada's law covers "mobility devices" broadly, including powered wheelchairs, manual wheelchairs, mobility scooters, and power-assist devices. The "fair and reasonable terms" definition mirrors Maryland's approach. OEMs must provide documentation, parts, and tools for repair and diagnosis to independent providers and owners. Exemptions apply for trade secrets, discontinued parts, and certain existing agreements between authorized providers and OEMs. Notably, while OEMs may offer certification training to independent repair providers, they may not require such training as a condition of access.

New York (N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 399-nn)

New York's statute covers digital electronic equipment and provides for enforcement by the New York attorney general, supplemented by a limited private right of action available only to authorized repair providers. Penalties are set at $500 per violation. Exemptions include medical devices, automobiles, off-road motor vehicles, commercial and industrial electrical equipment, electric bicycles, and home appliances containing an embedded digital product. The law applies prospectively to equipment manufactured after July 1, 2023.

Oregon (2024 Or. Laws, SB 1596)

Oregon's law reaches consumer electronics and, notably, prohibits "parts pairing," which is the practice of using software locks to render replacement parts incompatible with the device. Enforcement is vested in the Oregon attorney general, with penalties of $1,000 per day per violation beginning on July 1, 2027. Exemptions cover automobiles, video game consoles, medical devices, HVAC refrigerant recharging equipment, solar energy systems, energy storage systems, and cell phones. The statute applies prospectively to electronics manufactured after July 1, 2025.

Texas (H.B. 2963, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2025) (effective Sept. 1, 2026))

Enacted in June 2025, the Texas right-to-repair statute covers "digital electronic equipment" under a definition substantially similar to the definitions used by Minnesota and Kansas. The law carves out a significant list of excluded products and scenarios. Within one year after the first sale of covered equipment in Texas, OEMs must make documentation, parts, and tools available on fair and reasonable terms. Like Kansas, Texas offers an alternative compliance pathway through reimbursement or replacement. However, the trade-secret safe harbor is narrower, insofar as the protection does not apply to the extent information is "necessary for diagnosis, maintenance, or repair." The Texas attorney general holds exclusive enforcement authority, subject to a mandatory 30-day written cure notice before any enforcement action may be brought.

Washington (Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.415.005–.900; S.B. 5680, 69th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2025))

Washington enacted two separate right-to-repair laws in May 2025.

The first new statute (Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.415.005–.900) covers "digital electronic products" and took effect January 1, 2026. It requires OEMs to make parts, tools, and documentation available on fair and reasonable terms. Significantly, Washington's electronics law includes a prohibition on "parts pairing" in three specified respects: preventing installation of a functional replacement part, reducing product functionality, and displaying misleading alerts about unidentified parts that the consumer cannot immediately dismiss. A limited exception applies to stand-alone biometric authentication components not bundled in commonly replaced parts. Exemptions cover motor vehicles, farm equipment, solar energy systems, and several other categories. Washington also requires both authorized and independent repair providers to furnish consumers with written disclosures regarding privacy protections, recommended data-backup steps, consumers' privacy rights, and whether non-OEM replacement parts are used. The Washington attorney general holds sole enforcement authority.

The second Washington statute (S.B. 5680) addresses mobility devices and powered wheelchairs. Its "fair and reasonable terms" definition aligns with Maryland's and Nevada's, but it adds a supplemental formula for situations in which no authorized repair provider exists; in that case, "fair and reasonable" means a price reflecting the manufacturer's actual cost to prepare and deliver the part, tool, or documentation, exclusive of research and development costs. Exceptions apply for unavailable parts, trade secrets, existing compliant arrangements, and proprietary information. Independent repair providers must disclose to consumers that they are not authorized by the OEM and whether they use new or used parts from third-party suppliers.

State Compliance Considerations

Several patterns emerge from this expanding legislative landscape that warrant particular attention from corporate counsel:

• Converging definitions but diverging scope. Connecticut, Kansas, Texas, and Washington's electronics laws share broadly similar definitions of covered "digital electronic equipment" and impose comparable mandates (e.g., access to documentation, parts, and tools on fair and reasonable terms within a specified period). Yet the specific carve-outs, enforcement mechanisms, and penalty structures diverge materially.
• Mobility-device track. Colorado, Maryland, Nevada, and Washington's mobility-device laws represent a distinct legislative category, with closely aligned "fair and reasonable terms" definitions and shared exemption structures. This category is likely to expand.
• Government enforcement. Except for the earlier automotive statutes in Maine and Massachusetts and New York's limited authorized-provider action, the newer statutes vest enforcement authority exclusively in the state attorney general. This shift has compliance implications: the primary enforcement risk is a state investigation rather than private litigation, whether initiated by an individual plaintiff or via a class action.
• Retroactivity. Some statutes apply only to products manufactured after the effective date (New York, Oregon, Kansas), while others reach back to products sold since 2021 (Colorado, Minnesota). Counsel must audit product timelines against each applicable state law.
• Alternative compliance pathways. Kansas and Texas permit OEMs to satisfy their obligations by offering reimbursement or replacement in lieu of providing repair materials — an option unavailable under earlier statutes.
• Parts-pairing prohibitions are spreading. Oregon and Washington have both enacted prohibitions on software-based parts pairing, suggesting that this issue may become a standard feature of future legislation.

Federal Legislative Activity

Despite sustained attention, Congress has not enacted a federal right-to-repair statute as of July 2026. Nonetheless, legislative activity has intensified. The Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026 (H.R. 7389) is the most procedurally advanced federal proposal. The House REPAIR Act was forwarded to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by voice vote in February 2026. That committee subsequently advanced the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026 — which included a scaled-down version of the REPAIR Act — by an overwhelming vote on May 21, 2026. This legislation would codify existing automotive-industry memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and grant the FTC enforcement authority over manufacturer compliance.

At least for now, the federal landscape lacks a comprehensive repair-access mandate. Progress through the House Energy and Commerce Committee represents the furthest any federal repair bill has advanced, and the potential enactment of the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026 would have significant implications for automotive-industry compliance nationwide.

Voluntary Industry Agreements

Parallel to legislative developments, certain industries have attempted to address repair-access concerns through privately negotiated MOUs. These agreements represent an effort by manufacturers to provide repair access on voluntary terms while forestalling more prescriptive legislative mandates.

In the automotive sector, trade associations representing vehicle manufacturers and independent repair organizations entered a nationwide MOU in 2014, modeled on the Massachusetts law, under which manufacturers agreed to share diagnostic and repair information with independent providers. This agreement has functioned as a de facto national repair-access standard for the automotive industry, though its scope is limited to the terms the parties negotiated.

The agricultural equipment sector followed a similar path in 2023, when right-to-repair advocacy organizations signed MOUs with four leading equipment manufacturers. These MOUs secured diagnostic tools and repair materials for farmers and independent providers. In exchange, the advocacy organizations agreed not to pursue or support legislation imposing obligations beyond the scope of the agreements.

Litigation Developments

The Massachusetts Automotive Telematics Challenge

One of the most closely watched right-to-repair cases in recent years has been the Alliance for Automotive Innovation's challenge to the Massachusetts automotive telematics right-to-repair statute, which has been pending in federal court since 2020. In February 2025, Judge Denise J. Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the remaining industry claims, allowing the law to remain operative. Alliance for Automotive Innovation v. Campbell, Case No. 1:20-cv-12090-DPW, Dkt. 366 (D. Mass. Feb. 11, 2025). The Alliance appealed to the First Circuit in March 2025, and the matter remains pending. The outcome will shape whether other states pursue similarly aggressive automotive-telematics mandates and whether the industry's constitutional and preemption challenges to such statutes carry weight.

FTC v. Deere & Co.: Antitrust Suit Resolved by Settlement

In January 2025, the FTC — joined by the attorneys general of Illinois and Minnesota, with Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin joining subsequently — filed suit against Deere & Company, alleging that Deere unlawfully monopolized the market for repair services on its large agricultural equipment (specifically large tractors and combines) by withholding its full-function diagnostic software tool from farmers and independent repair providers. FTC v. Deere & Co., Case No. 3:25-cv-50017 (N.D. Ill.), Dkt. 1 (Complaint dated Jan. 15, 2025). The complaint asserted claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, and analogous state antitrust statutes.

On July 8, 2026, the FTC and the participating states announced a settlement resolving the litigation. Under the 10-year agreement, Deere must give farmers and independent repair providers the same resources it currently provides to authorized dealers on fair and reasonable terms, including software capabilities; technical manuals; and the ability to view, clear, and refresh diagnostic trouble codes and to restart equipment following an emissions-related shutdown. Deere must also extend any future repair resources to farmers and independent providers once those resources become available to more than half of its authorized dealers nationwide, direct its dealer network to promote the availability of those resources, and comply with ongoing reporting obligations. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, who had opposed the decision to file suit in the closing days of the Biden administration, said the settlement nonetheless delivers "real, tangible benefits" for farmers. Press Release, Statement of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson Joined by Commissioner Mark R. Meador, Fed. Trade Comm'n (July 8, 2026).

The case is related to a separate, private consolidated action, In re: Deere & Co. Repair Service Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-50188, MDL No. 3030 (N.D. Ill. 2023), in which Deere agreed in April 2026 to a $99 million class settlement containing similar repair-access commitments. That settlement received preliminary approval in May 2026 and remains subject to a pending class-member objection. Both matters proceeded before Judge Iain D. Johnston of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, who questioned at a hearing following the private settlement whether it mooted the FTC's claims.

Together, the two settlements substantially resolve the antitrust theories underlying the Deere litigation and offer a template other manufacturers may consult in evaluating their own repair-access practices.

Executive-Branch Developments: Shifting Federal Posture

The federal executive branch's approach to right-to-repair policy has undergone a marked shift between the former and current administrations.

From 2021 to 2024, the Biden administration adopted a broad, multi-agency approach. Executive Order 14036, issued in July 2021, directed the FTC to promulgate rules protecting consumers' right to repair. The Commission responded with a unanimous policy statement pledging to prioritize enforcement under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act. That pledge was followed by 2022 enforcement actions against Harley-Davidson, Westinghouse, and Weber for warranty-tying practices, resulting in consent orders. The FTC and DOJ also filed a joint comment to the US Copyright Office in March 2024 urging Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) exemptions for repair purposes. Despite these efforts, however, the FTC did not issue a proposed rule.

Since 2025, the Trump administration has taken a narrower approach, focused primarily on vehicle and equipment repair. In June 2026, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum titled "Lowering the Cost of Living by Promoting the Freedom to Fix," directing the EPA to clarify permissible repairs involving emissions systems and replacement parts. The EPA subsequently issued guidance on July 1, 2026, advancing what it described as the "freedom to fix" for vehicles and equipment, including guidance specifically directed at farmers' ability to repair agricultural and non-road equipment. EPA Delivers on President's "Freedom to Fix" Memorandum for Vehicles and Equipment, U.S. Env't Prot. Agency (July 1, 2026).

This approach represents a notable narrowing of federal engagement. Whereas the Biden administration pursued broad repair-access goals through antitrust enforcement, warranty-tying actions, and DMCA exemptions, the Trump administration's initiative is thus far limited to EPA regulatory interpretation of emissions-system compliance. Corporate counsel should not, however, read this shift as a relaxation of repair-access obligations overall; the FTC's 10-year settlement with Deere & Co. shows that antitrust enforcement in the repair space can yield binding, long-term relief even under the current administration, and state-law mandates remain fully operative regardless of federal executive-branch posture.

Summer associate Maria Valera contributed to this article.