The state Senate Commerce Committee recently passed SF 1598, the Digital Fair Repair Bill.
The bill from Sen. Rob Kupec (DFL-Moorhead) would require manufacturers to provide independent repair companies access to relevant repair information.
Should consumers have the right to repair and maintain the devices they buy? In some cases, yes, particularly where they have good reason to expect they already have that right. But policymakers should be cautious to ensure that laws like Kupec’s take account of the practical limitations that device makers face, as well as the potential for consumer harms that can come with mandating broad access.
There has been a growing movement to introduce various “right-to-repair” laws across the United States in recent years. The goal is to give consumers greater control over the repair and maintenance of their personal devices. Like others that have been introduced, Minnesota’s Digital Fair Repair Bill would mandate that device manufacturers provide technical repair information and tools to consumers and unaffiliated service shops. The bill also prohibits manufacturers from interfering with unaffiliated service shops’ ability to procure the tools necessary for repairs, and forbids them from voiding warranties if a device has been serviced by an independent shop.
Advocates of the legislation believe that consumers need better access to low-cost repair services. Having to go through the original manufacturers to procure these services can be costly and so, the thinking goes, right-to-repair bills can lower consumers’ repair bills. There is also an assumption that these laws will lead to less device waste, which in turn will benefit the environment.
But the laws are not a panacea and can lead to a host of problems. Unscrupulous repair shops with full access to a device’s software and hardware can perform substandard repairs that end up negatively affecting the manufacturer’s brand. Independent shops also may not be able to secure their customers’ privacy and data.
More broadly, these laws can negatively impact manufacturers’ ability to protect sensitive proprietary information about how their devices work. If a bill goes too far in this regard, it can have a widespread chilling effect on innovation and investments in such products. In the long run, this could harm consumers by restricting the market for electronic devices.
Stepping back, it’s also important to examine the context in which these bills operate. Obviously, consumers care about lower prices, but price is only one factor in consumer preferences. Consumers also value convenience and ease-of-use. A right-to-repair bill might lower repair bills in the short run, but it could just as easily drive up prices in the long run by forcing manufacturers to complicate their production output to incorporate these mandates. Moreover, to the extent that the devices’ appeal to consumers relies on tight integration and slick design, these bills can render them less easy to use overall.
While self-appointed “consumer advocate” groups almost certainly believe what they are saying, they represent only one set of values. The typical consumer, who may not care much at all about the repair industry, also may not greet the outcome of this legislation with nearly as much enthusiasm.
Given this context, Minnesota lawmakers need to proceed judiciously when contemplating the Digital Fair Repair Bill. There are definitely gains to be had, but these can easily be swamped by unintended consequences.
Brian Albrecht is chief economist of the International Center for Law & Economics. He lives in Mahtomedi.
Yeah, no, none of those issues out-way the issue of not being allowed to fix the products we buy. The constant attempt to centralize everything is contrary to freedom, real growth and innovation.
“But the laws are not a panacea and can lead to a host of problems. Unscrupulous repair shops with full access to a device’s software and hardware can perform substandard repairs that end up negatively affecting the manufacturer’s brand.”
What about unscrupulous Mfrs that gouge consumers?
Point being: who owns the device? If I don’t like the software pre-installed on a device, why should I not have the option to replace it with something I prefer?
This is a significant problem for farmers, who are traditionally accustomed to maintaining their own equipment. Some Mfrs are trying to shut that down, which is just plain unamerican in my view.
Well my insights although limited are that this was really targeted at farm and construction equipment. Don’t think fixing a burnt out memory chip on an I phone was the real target. A certain level of access to sensors, switches, modules etc. W/O having to take everything to the dealer would be nice to have, as well as a level of mechanical change out, W/O voiding the warranty.
iPhones are a big target of right to repair. Apple actively works to prevent anybody but themselves to replace batteries and cracked screens. Some models are designed to detect an unauthorized repair then limit features as punishment.
When I updated my iPhone to IOS 16, a 6 ft long power cable I’d used without any problems for 2 years suddenly became an “Unsupported accessory.” When I fired off a letter of protest to Apple, I got a canned response saying that “Apple values its customers, and strives to protect their “Apple experience.” from shoddy aftermarket products.
Spoken like a true industry shill.
Trust me when I tell you that companies like John Deere, GM, Apple and the like wouild like nothing better than for independant repair businesses disappear so they can steer owners of their products to their own repair centers and fatten up their profits. When it comes to parts and repairs, they don’t care one whit about your “customer experience,” They DO care about what’s in your wallet.
My brother in law is a farmer, and has many horror stories to tell when it comes to trying to get timely repair for his tractors and combine. A local equipment mechanic the family has depended on for years cannot get any cooperation from the manufacturer when it comes to parts, wiring diagrams, etc because he’s “independent” and charges half what the “approved repair center” charges.
AFAIC, the manufacturers have brought this onto themselves by getting greedy.
This law may put the big squeeze on Tesla. Or Tesla may not be available in MN.
This also impacts local, independent vehicle repair shops. And I agree about keeping the door open for farmers to access parts and repair their own equipment.
Hey, MinnPost, instead of turning over your news site to just anybody, how about you do your readers the favor of telling us a little about the organization the writer represents? If you can’t find that information easily, neither can we. So how are we supposed to judge the credibility of this writer? Where does his organization get its funding?
Or are you not interested in maintaining an image of integrity?
Frank, I’m with you, “Community Voices” as a spot for industry flacks is tiresome. My criticism, though, isn’t with MinnPost’s failure to advise us on the who is paying for the authors’ points of view – it’s always transparent enough, even if the “International Center for Law & Economics” website (not) curiously chooses not to reveal the organization’s funders. My criticism of MinnPost is more that it’s a bit insulting to readers to give the name “Community Voices” to a category of pieces that is its exact opposite, paid points of view often coming from afar. It would be much preferred if MinnPost would give meaning to the title by soliciting thoughtful and well-written pieces from ordinary folks who don’t otherwise get public platforms.
It is precisely “opinion” pieces like these, that clearly come from the belly of a corporate think tank, that led me to cancel my Minnpost subscription. I’m not paying for the privilege to read this anymore, yay.
I’m in the exact same situation, Jeremy. If I wanted to read dreck like this, I could always subscribe to the StarTribune.
Actually, this authors “argument” is so facile I think there’s some value in revealing it as the industry position. If THIS is their rationale for repair monopoly we can easily dismiss it and move on with this legislation.