“Right to repair” laws have recently gained momentum across the United States, becoming a legislative and regulatory priority. Evolving state laws, federal action, and high-profile lawsuits are shaking up the legal landscape in this area for manufacturers, businesses, and consumers.

At its core, the right to repair gives consumers and independent businesses access to the parts, tools, software, and information needed to fix products instead of being forced to use the manufacturer’s authorized repair network. Advocates argue this increases consumer choice, reduces costs, cuts waste, and supports local businesses.

Federal and State Enforcement

The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC), joined by the attorneys general of Illinois and Minnesota, filed a complaint against a manufacturer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois earlier this year. This case and a 2023 private multi-district litigation case against the same company before the same Illinois District Judge have both survived motions for judgment on the pleadings.

The complaint alleges that the company, a major manufacturer of agricultural equipment, has monopolized and harmed competition by imposing unlawful restrictions on repairs in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. Specifically, the complaint states that the manufacturer requires farmers to rely on its own interactive software tool, which is only available at authorized dealers. The manufacturer offers an alternative version for farmers and independent repair providers. This tool is allegedly inferior as it lacks key functions such as electronic control units reprogramming, calibrations, and access to troubleshooting. 

This suit highlights the broader debate over the right to repair, with proponents arguing that repair restrictions harm consumers by driving up costs, limiting competition, and contributing to environmental waste. Manufacturers counter that such restrictions are necessary to ensure consumer safety, protect intellectual property, and maintain cybersecurity.

The FTC works with state attorneys general (AGs) to prevent, publicize, and penalize fraud and scams. Their partnership involves joint law enforcement actions, information sharing, consumer education, and outreach. While the FTC and state AGs can collaborate on enforcement actions, each party retains independent authority to pursue its own legal remedies under federal or state law.

In the event federal agencies are less inclined to pursue enforcement actions, state AGs may continue to pursue lawsuits. Manufacturers who typically direct their attention toward federal agencies for compliance, education, and outreach should consider expanding their focus to include state AGs. This is particularly important when AGs have shown interest in a specific industry or issue, as it may indicate heightened scrutiny and a greater chance of enforcement actions.

Legislative Landscape

The broader legal landscape is shifting quickly. In 2025 alone, over 20 states have considered some form of right to repair legislation.

In just the last few years, several states have enacted or begun enforcing comprehensive right to repair laws, creating a patchwork of laws across the United States. Some examples include the following:

• California: Requires electronics and appliance makers to provide parts, tools, and documentation for seven years on devices over $100 and for three years for products $50-$99.99. Charges for repair materials must be “fair and reasonable” as defined in the law.
• Colorado: Covers digital electronics, agricultural equipment, and powered wheelchairs; prohibits “parts pairing” that disables devices after independent repair.
• Minnesota: Widely considered one of the broadest right to repair laws, the law requires manufacturers of products with digital electronic components sold in the state to provide independent repair providers and owners with access to parts, tools, and repair documentation on fair and reasonable terms, with some exceptions and limitations.
• New York: The Digital Fair Repair Act mandates that manufacturers share repair information and parts for most electronics, but excludes some categories of products including motor vehicles, medical devices, and more.
• Massachusetts: Expansive auto repair law, requiring carmakers to provide telematics and diagnostic data to owners and independents.
• Oregon: Requires manufacturers of consumer electronic devices to provide repair guides, parts, and tools to owners and repair facilities, and includes a ban on “parts pairing.”
• Texas: Requires manufacturers of consumer electronics valued over $50 to provide repair parts, tools and documentation to consumers and independent repair providers.  The law includes several exceptions such as certain vehicles, medical devices, and IT equipment used for critical infrastructure.

There has also been some interest in federal legislation. In 2023, Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL) introduced the REPAIR Act with the bipartisan support of 56 cosponsors. This bill focused on motor vehicle repairs, and would have mandated that car manufacturers provide vehicle owners with direct, real-time access to diagnostic and repair-related data through a standardized platform, and prohibited restricting access to such data or mandating specific brands of parts or tools.

While this specific legislation did not become law, other members of Congress have expressed support for and continued to push for right to repair legislation. For example, last year, both Rep. Joseph Morelle (D-NY) and Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) introduced parallel bills on the right to repair digital electronics. Earlier this year, Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) and Rep. Dunn (R- FL), reintroduced the bipartisan REPAIR Act. Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez also introduced the Warrior Right to Repair Act of 2025, which would require Department of Defense contractors to provide reasonable access to repair materials.

Conclusion

While the aforementioned federal bills have not yet become law, they indicate growing bipartisan traction in a right to repair movement. Manufacturers should continue to track the evolving federal and state legal landscape to remain compliant with changing rules regarding the right to repair.