Farmers often reminisce about the days when they could easily fix their own car, truck or tractor. For many, it was an opportunity to share mechanical skills with the next generation.
While advanced technology led to major improvements in farm equipment, it also placed equipment repair beyond the scope of many owners. Right to Repair (RTR) began as a movement promoting federal legislation that would allow consumers to repair and modify their own consumer electronic devices. However, farm equipment has become more sophisticated and farmers are impacted by copyrighted software. This led to the RTR movement for ag machinery repair.
Attorney Ross Pifer, Center for Agricultural & Shale Law at Penn State, explained the concept: “Right to Repair is a movement designed to limit the restrictions manufacturers impose on either the repair or the maintenance of certain products,” he said. “It’s focused on having measures in place that allow the owners of products to repair those products or allow the owner to choose who is going to repair a product.”
It sounds simple enough, but the issue is far more complicated because RTR also involves private property rights. Pifer said owning property means having the right to use that property, the right to prevent someone else from using it, the right to sell it and the right to destroy it. However, the owner may not have the same rights for one piece of property as for another, or when property was acquired, the owner didn’t have all the rights to it.
“The developer of intellectual property has certain rights,” said Pifer. “The person who owns the tangible item of personal property is the owner, but the developer of the technology embedded or used in that tangible item of personal property has certain rights as well.”
In reviewing the RTR concept, Pifer highlighted the auto industry because that’s where the initial movement began. “Massachusetts passed the first Right to Repair statute in fall of 2012,” he said. “Traditional legislation was passed in 2013 to harmonize the ballot initiative.”
The Massachusetts statute imposed certain requirements on manufacturers doing business in the commonwealth and established a process by which complaints could be filed if the manufacturer failed to comply.
“It established that a violation of the Right to Repair law was an unfair trade practice,” said Pifer. “The specific requirements in the statute provided that for cars dating back to 2002, manufacturers had to make certain information and tools available for purchase by owners or independent repair facilities.”
There was also a prospective requirement that would allow access to onboard diagnostic tools and repair information systems.
Within a year after the Massachusetts statute was passed, many manufacturers and dealers entered into agreements that would transfer the same standards across the country.
Who’s interested in RTR, and why? Pifer said the Repair Association believes in property ownership and that the end user of a product should have full rights to do what they wish with it. However, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) states that overly broad RTR legislation is unnecessary and risks the safety, durability and environmental sustainability of equipment.
In addition, the AEM states that “to encourage invocation and regulatory compliance, manufacturers and dealers will not allow access to back-end source code which can be sued to reset safety features, reprogram control units or change settings that affect emissions and safety compliance.”
The Colorado Consumer Right to Repair Agricultural Equipment Act is worth noting because it sets a precedent for ag equipment repair. “The goal is that farmers could take equipment to a person of their choice for repair,” said Pifer. “It covered agricultural equipment, which is defined as equipment ‘primarily designed for use in a farm or ranch operation.’”
The act includes traditional ag equipment such as tractors, combines, sprayers and attachments, but excludes self-propelled vehicles primarily for transportation of people such as farm trucks, ATVs and similar vehicles.
The manufacturer’s obligations in RTR include making available certain things to an independent repair provider or the equipment owner under fair and reasonable terms. The manufacturer must make available documentation, software, tools and other items necessary to repair or maintain equipment and the tools or information to reset equipment to functional use.
However, equipment manufacturers are not required to divulge trade secrets and are not responsible if the owner or third-party repair provider causes damage during repair. If a farmer uses a third party for repairs and data are misused by the repair provider, the manufacturer is not responsible.
The ag industry supports equipment users’ ability to maintain, diagnose and repair their machinery. However, the right to modify isn’t included. For safety, durability, environmental and liability reasons, diagnostic and repair information and tools will not permit customers to reset an immobilizer system or security-related electronic modules; reprogram electronic processing units or engine control units; change any equipment or engine settings negatively affecting emissions or safety compliance; or download or access the source code of any proprietary embedded software or code.
In the ag industry, the earliest voluntary industry-led effort was established by the Association of Equipment Manufacturers and Equipment Dealers when they developed a statement of principles in 2018. “According to these principles,” said Pifer, “equipment manufacturers were going to make certain resources available to end users starting in 2021.”
Pifer noted significant recent development around RTR. At their 2019 convention, the National Farmers Union indicated support for Fair Repair and RTR to provide farmers and independent mechanics with information necessary to repair equipment. The Grange also supports the movement.
In 2020, delegates at the American Farm Bureau Federation convention voiced support for RTR. Delegates expressed that an agreement with equipment manufacturers would be their preferred method of implementing RTR. They also indicated that legislation could be supported if an agreement wasn’t reached.
A report to Congress issued by the FTC in May 2021 focused on the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, which prevents companies from mandating particular products be used in order to remain in compliance with a warranty. In summer 2024, warning letters issued by the FTC notified companies that their practices may violate the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.
Pifer sees three ways in which RTR could be implemented. The first is through industry standards where manufacturers make determinations. The second is stakeholders reaching an agreement around what RTR means and establishing standards. The third is through legislation.
An interactive map at repair.org/stand-up provides current status for each state’s RTR.
by Sally Colby
Leave A Comment