Major technology manufacturers and their trade associations have spent years opposing right-to-repair legislation through testimony, regulatory comment filings, and direct lobbying, arguing that open repair markets create cybersecurity vulnerabilities, expose proprietary software to theft, and endanger consumers through substandard parts. The Consumer Technology Association (CTA), CTIA, Apple, John Deere, and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation are among the most active opponents. Their resistance has shaped, and in several cases substantially weakened: legislation at the state and federal level.
For a comprehensive overview of active legislation, see the U.S. Right-to-Repair Laws Tracker.
The Core Arguments Industry Has Made
Industry opposition has coalesced around four main claims, each repeated across state testimony and federal comment filings submitted to the FTC. First, manufacturers argue that providing independent repair technicians with diagnostic software and service manuals exposes trade secrets protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Section 1201 of the DMCA restricts circumvention of technological protection measures, and manufacturers have cited it when declining to publish software unlock procedures required for certain device repairs.
Second, the cybersecurity argument holds that ECU access in connected vehicles and the software unlock capabilities required for smartphone repair create attack surfaces for malicious actors. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation has stated in Congressional testimony that opening vehicle telematics data to independent shops exposes sensitive driver data. CTIA filed testimony in Rhode Island in January 2024 opposing H.B. 7095 on identical grounds, identifying three specific objections: that diagnostic software access enables IMEI manipulation that facilitates device theft; that screen replacement access creates data privacy risks for consumers whose devices may be unlocked during service; and that the bill’s private right of action would generate frivolous litigation against manufacturers.
Third, safety. Lithium-ion battery fires attributed to uncertified replacement cells have given manufacturers a credible argument that improper reassembly causes thermal runaway events. Apple cited this concern in 2019 Congressional testimony, stating that consumer self-repair “could result in serious injury.” The FTC’s 2021 report to Congress, Nixing the Fix, reviewed these claims and concluded that manufacturers had not provided empirical evidence that independent repair posed materially greater safety risk than OEM service.
Fourth, parts counterfeiting. CTA, in joint comments with CTIA, the Information Technology Industry Council, and TechNet submitted to the FTC in early 2024, argued that open parts markets “create opportunities for counterfeit components that harm consumers and damage brand reputation.” The FTC rejected the framing, noting that right-to-repair laws do not require consumers to accept non-genuine parts, they require manufacturers to make tools and documentation available.
Apple: Lobbying, Self-Service Repair, and Parts Pairing
Apple’s opposition has been among the most sustained of any single company. New York State lobbying disclosures show Apple retained the Roffe Group at $9,000 per month to lobby against the New York Digital Fair Repair Act (S.983-A). Industry-wide, companies opposing the New York bill spent $366,634 retaining lobbyists between January and April 2024. Apple also facilitated meetings through TechNet with Governor Hochul’s office on multiple occasions from June through December 2022. Reporting by Grist documented that a lobbyist working on Apple’s behalf contributed language to last-minute amendments that substantially limited the bill’s scope before its December 2022 passage, excluding devices manufactured before July 1, 2023, and exempting motor vehicles and farm equipment. iFixit characterized the enacted law as a “hollow shell” of the original proposal.
Apple introduced its Self Service Repair program in November 2021, releasing repair manuals and selling genuine parts directly to consumers under visible state legislative pressure, with more than two dozen right-to-repair bills active across U.S. state legislatures at the time. The move did not resolve the parts pairing controversy. Apple’s System Configuration process links component serial numbers to specific devices; replacing a battery or screen, even with a genuine Apple component salvaged from another device: triggered reduced-functionality warnings and disabled battery health metrics and True Tone display calibration unless the replacement was processed through Apple’s proprietary software tool.
Oregon banned parts pairing outright in March 2024 under its Right to Repair Act. Colorado enacted a near-identical prohibition in May 2024. Apple announced in April 2024 that it would enable battery health reporting and True Tone for qualifying third-party components, with changes taking effect “later in 2024.” iFixit noted that the rollback did not cover all components and that Face ID functionality remained restricted to Apple-authorized repairs, requiring Apple’s System Configuration process regardless of part origin.
John Deere and the Farm Bureau MOU
On January 8, 2023, John Deere signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), committing to provide farmers and independent repair facilities with access to manuals, diagnostic software, specialty tools, and repair codes by 2027. The AFBF agreed, as a condition of the MOU, to encourage its member organizations to refrain from “introducing, promoting, or supporting” state or federal right-to-repair legislation, a clause repair advocates characterized as the agreement’s primary strategic purpose.
The core structural problem identified by critics: MOUs are not legally enforceable contracts. Deere retained discretion over what qualified as “necessary” repair documentation. U.S. PIRG documented that Deere lobbied against USDA rulemaking and Congressional right-to-repair bills during the same period it publicly presented the MOU as evidence of good-faith compliance. Disputes between farmers and authorized dealers under the MOU’s terms proceed through a Deere-managed resolution process, with the AFBF included only when a disagreement “pertains to the general interpretation or application of a core provision.” The FTC and farm advocacy groups said the MOU lacked adequate enforcement mechanisms.
The availability of repair-grade components connects to broader supply chain dynamics. Chipmaker production priorities and domestic fabrication capacity, shaped by initiatives like the CHIPS Act semiconductor investment program, bear directly on whether genuine OEM-quality replacement parts remain accessible to independent repairers at competitive prices.
Trade Association Coordination and the Federal Stalemate
The Consumer Technology Association represents Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, and hundreds of smaller manufacturers. In its comments opposing the federal REPAIR Act (H.R. 4957, 118th Congress), CTA argued that competitive market forces already provide repair options without legislative mandates and that forced disclosure of service information would “chill innovation incentives.” The REPAIR Act: which would require consumer electronics manufacturers to provide the same diagnostic and repair tools to independent shops as to authorized dealers, has not advanced out of committee. CTIA filed testimony against right-to-repair bills in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maryland between 2019 and 2024. The Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association has supported provisions expanding the aftermarket parts supply chain while opposing requirements to expose OEM proprietary calibration data to direct competitors.
The FTC issued warning letters in July 2024 to companies it said were using warranty label practices that illegally conditioned coverage on manufacturer-specified repair services — a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. CTA responded that the letters targeted narrow warranty language practices, not broader repair access policy, and reiterated that the commission lacked statutory authority to mandate repair access without Congressional action. The REPAIR Act’s stalled progress in the 118th Congress gave that argument practical force: with no federal legislation enacted, manufacturers face a patchwork of state laws rather than a single national standard — an outcome that suits large companies better equipped to absorb state-by-state compliance variation than smaller independent repairers.