Rights
Theoretical distinctions
Human rights
Rights by beneficiary
Other groups of rights

Right to repair is a legal right for owners of devices and equipment to freely modify and repair products such as automobiles, electronics, and farm equipment. This right is framed in opposition to restrictions such as requirements to use only the manufacturer's maintenance services, restrictions on access to tools and components, and software barriers.

Obstacles to owner repair can lead to higher consumer costs or drive consumers to single-use devices instead of making repairs. While the global community is concerned over the growing volume of the waste stream, especially electronic waste, the debate over the right to repair has been centered on the United States, India, and the European Union. Right to repair may also refer to the social movement of citizens putting pressure on their governments to enact laws protecting a right to repair.

In addition to the consumer goods, healthcare equipment repair access made news at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, when hospitals had trouble getting maintenance for some critical high-demand medical equipment, most notably ventilators.[1][2][3]

Definition

Right to repair refers to the concept that end users, business users as well as consumers, of technical, electronic or automotive devices should be allowed to freely repair these products. Four requirements are of particular importance:

  1. the device should be constructed and designed in a manner that allows repairs to be made easily;
  2. end users and independent repair providers should be able to access original spare parts and necessary tools (software as well as physical tools) at fair market conditions;
  3. repairs should, by design, be possible and not be hindered by software programming; and
  4. the repairability of a device should be clearly communicated by the manufacturer.

The goals of the right to repair are to favor repair instead of replacement, and make such repairs more affordable leading to a more sustainable economy and reduction in electronic waste.[4][5]

Law and policy

As of 2021, many countries and economic unions have proposed right to repair legislation.

United States

In the United States, the right to repair found application in federal and state law:

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, a consumer's right to repair or replacement of defective goods falls under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

India

In India, The Ministry of Consumer Affairs (MCA) has set up a committee to come up with a Right to Repair framework. The framework is significant as it will give consumers a chance to repair their products at an optimal cost instead of buying new products altogether. The important sectors for the initial focus of the framework are farming equipment, mobile phones & tablets, consumer durables, automobiles & automobile equipment.[8]

Corporate policy

John Deere announced in January 2023 that it was signing a memorandum of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation agreeing that American farmers had the right to repair their own equipment or have it serviced at independent repair shops in the United States. Consumers and independent repair centers would still be bound against divulging certain trade secrets, and cannot tamper or override emission control settings, but are otherwise free to repair as they see fit.[9] In 2022, Apple started enabling customers to repair batteries and screens.[10] Additionally Apple has prevented companies from repairing or refurbishing Apple's products without their permission. These action have irritated many consumers, believing Apple is against the right to repair.[11]

In contrast to manufacturers locking down their devices, new manufacturers appeared on the market, adopting the right to repair as a core philosophy. Companies such as Framework Computer and Fairphone produced devices that are modular and easy to repair. In addition, some companies are even releasing 3D printable models of replacement parts,[12] allowing consumers to print the parts locally, reducing the need for storage and shipping.

History of repair rights

In the United States

Obsolescence and restricting repairs (1920–1950)

The electric lightbulb, one of the first notable examples of planned obsolescence being used to increase revenue

The notion that continuous changes to products creates continuous demand for substitution of a product's older generation was implemented at a large scale by General Motors executive Alfred P. Sloan, who suggested that annual changes to models fuel demand to replace their old cars.[13][14] The main competitor Ford preferred simple and easy-to-replace parts, often interchangeable across models,[15] GM felt not limited by considerations regarding the customer's ability to repair vehicles and even favored designs of lower quality to adjust rapidly to annual changes in consumer demands.[16] This strategy allowed GM to overtake Ford as biggest American automaker.[17] As a result of GM's success, the concept of purposely changing designs and as a consequence also parts within the annual variants of a product became widely adopted across industries in the American economy, and was also adopted by Ford.[18]

The car industry was at the forefront of establishing the concept of certified repair: starting from the 1910s and 1920s, Ford made significant efforts to establish certified dealerships and service networks to drive customers towards Ford produced parts instead of selecting independent repair shops and often after-sales parts to repair cars. Ford also pushed for standardized pricing among certified repair shops, making flat fees mandatory even for different repairs.[19] The combination of annual updates to cars and components made it more difficult for independent repair shops to maintain a stock of parts.

Given frequent model upgrades, consumers were psychologically pushed towards the purchase of new cars, while the maintenance of old cars were made less attractive by more costly authorized repair networks. Effectively, the legal precedent establishing the right to repair was undermined in the period following the Great Depression, a period during which consumers were accustomed to self repair.[20]

Manufacturers also attacked companies that tried to refurbish components: in 1938, Champion Spark Plug, a company that itself built its success on copying foreign spark plug designs to be manufactured and subsequently sold to Buick, sued the company Reich. Reich was refurbishing spark plugs and sold them as reconditioned. While it was already established by the legal precedent that the owner of a good has the right to repair even patented goods, the subsequent court ruling made clear that, refurbished goods could not be sold as identical to the new original item, establishing clear boundaries between used (or repaired) goods, and new goods.[21]

Restricting access to parts (1950s–2000s)

By 1956, many manufacturers across various industries had adopted a strategy similar to GM for their products, but it was IBM's dominant position in the computer mainframe market that led to the first implicit right to repair, established by judicial precedent. IBM, a supplier to the US government and large corporations, was sued by the Department of Justice for uncompetitive behavior undermining the secondhand market by not allowing clients to own, but only to lease their products.

Access to IBM software and hardware was bundled, effectively keeping other "software" companies away from their hardware and not allowing customers to run IBM logic on non-IBM machines.[22] The U.S. Department of Justice forced IBM to sell all products under conditions that would not disadvantage purchasing over leasing them, and to spin off the service division and provide parts, maintenance instructions, and tools under the same commercial conditions to independent repair companies as to their own service division.[23]

While this constituted a right to repair, the grounds for the decision were based on anti-trust regulations which were not applicable once new competitors introduced IBM-compatible devices. As a consequence, the consent decree was abolished in the courts in 1997.[24] In the meantime, various courts affirmed rights of the repair and modification: in 1961 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. that patented products can be repaired without infringing the patent. The Supreme Court affirmed that as long as a product can be recognized as a repaired item and not as a new product, repair was admissible.[25]

Some manufacturers shifted towards more repairable designs. Apple, which rose quickly to become one of the largest computer manufacturers, sold the first computers with circuit board descriptions, easy-to-swap components, and clear repair instructions.[26]

Driven by technological advancements, all kinds of products had more electronic components, which are much more difficult to replace than mechanical components. While in the 1950s, electronics in a car were limited to simple circuits to start engines and to power components such as air conditioning or central locking, the following decade saw an increasing amount of complex semiconductors to be used in cars. As part of this process of mixing electronic components with mechanics, the share of electronic components in the total bill of materials for a car rose from 5% in the 1970s to over 22% in 2000.[27] Previously, car repair had been a process of analyzing and replacing mechanical components, but the increasing hybridization of cars brought the need of special tools that could often only be accessed by manufacturer authorized repair services.[28]

1975 saw the introduction of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act. The law did not stipulate an obligation for a manufacturer to grant warranty with every product sold to consumers, but it did define minimum standards for such warranty if the supplier decided to grant it. The legislative history indicates that the purpose of the act is to make warranties on consumer products more readily understood and enforceable, and to provide the Federal Trade Commission with means to better protect consumers.[10] While the Magnusson–Moss Warranty Act defined terms such as repair within warranty, it did not obligate manufacturers to open up their products to easy repair.

Copyright with regard to computer software source code also became a front on the limitation of repairability. One of the more notable examples was the lawsuit MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. in which Peak Computer, Inc. by was sued for making unauthorized copies of the MAI operating system to repair MAI-produced computer systems. While MAI won the lawsuit, the legislative chambers implemented exceptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998 explicitly allowing such copies for the purpose of repairing a machine.[29][30] This legislation addressed scenario of installing protected software for the purpose of maintenance and repair, but it did not foresee the significant amount of software locks for the years to come.[31]

The field of printer ink cartridges became of particular interest to the public. To prevent refilling of empty cartridges, manufacturers placed microchips counting fill levels and usage, rendering refills difficult or impossible. Many of these systems also worked to the disadvantage of end users by incorrectly declaring cartridges as empty or blocking the printer from functioning properly. Such practices were found illegal in numerous lawsuits. In addition to software locks, the printer industry tried unsuccessfully to sue against the reproduction and refilling of cartridges, a practice confirmed to be legal by the Supreme Court in 2017.[32][33]

Rise and activism and legislative activity (2000s–2020s)

Right to repair activists speaking at a conference

With the beginning of the 2000s, the automotive industry came under scrutiny again: the first proposal of a right to repair bill for the automotive sector[34] was introduced by Joe Barton and Edolphus Towns to end the "unfair monopoly" of car manufacturers maintaining control over repair information that could result in independent shops turning away car owners due to lack of information. The proposal was struck down by significant lobbying efforts by the automotive industry but nevertheless introduced progress in form of a voluntary agreement obligating manufacturers to provide spare parts and diagnostics to independent repair companies.[35] While the voluntary agreement surely was an improvement, studies later found that access to spare parts and car diagnostics continued to remain problematic for independent repair services. In fact, a study conducted by the Terrance Group found that around 59% of independent repair services continued to struggle to get access to diagnostic tools and parts from manufacturers.[36]

Besides the setbacks, a continuous trend towards right to repair in automotive as well as other industries started to get traction in the legislative branch, with an increasing amount of legal proposals and court decisions.[34] While initially driven majorly by automotive consumers protection agencies and the automotive after-sales service industry, the discussion of establishing a right to repair for any kind of industrially produced device gained traction as consumer electronics such as smartphones and computers became universally available and used, alongside advanced computerized integration in farming equipment. The movement was also backed by climate change activists, since this approach would reduce e-waste.[37]

Manufacturers found new ways to lock devices practically circumventing owners' rights to repair: practices like part pairing (components of a device are serialized and can not be swapped against others), became increasingly popular among manufacturers. Even common repairs such as the replacement of a smartphone display caused malfunctions because of locks implemented in the software. For example, Apple, with its iPhones, started to gradually restrict the replacement of displays, from displaying warning messages when a replacement display was installed to removing security features such as Face ID if the entire display assembly was swapped by other than a manufacturer-authorized repair facility. This trend started in the agricultural sector with tractor manufacturer John Deere, and became widespread in consumer electronics in the 2010s.[38]

Major events concerning the "Right to Repair" movement 2000-2020[34]
YearEventsNotes
2001Motor Vehicles Right to Repair Act S.2617 (failed)For automobiles, the first of many attempts to establish the right to repair
2008The U.S. Supreme Court favors a class action lawsuit challenging the carriers' policies against unlocking phonesForces mobile operators to unlock cell phones[39]
2012Automotive right to repair passed in MassachusettsThe first successful right to repair act[40]
2014Digital right to repair bill introduced in South DakotaThe first legislative proposal of electronic right to repair[41]
2015Library of Congress ruled in favor of repair-related exemption in DMCADMCA act copy protection circumvention exemption for repairs[42]
2017Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.Supreme Court confirms that companies cannot use patent law to block reuse of products protected by patent once the product is sold reconfirming precedence from other industries
201920 states begin to consider the Right to Repair billCalifornia, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia
2020Medical right to repair bill proposalTo increase availability of ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 Massachusetts Question 1 passes to update the previous measure to include electronic vehicle data.
2022New York enacts the Digital Fair Repair ActFirst state in the U.S. to enact a Right to Repair law covering consumer electronics
2023Colorado enacts the Consumer Right To Repair Agricultural Equipment ActFirst state in the U.S. to enact a Right to Repair law covering farming equipment [43]
2023California enacts the Right to Repair ActSimilar to efforts in New York and Minnesota[44]

The first successful implementation of a right to repair came when Massachusetts passed the United States' first right to repair law for the automotive sector in 2012, which required automobile manufacturers to sell the same service materials and diagnostics directly to consumers or to independent mechanics as they used to provide exclusively to their dealerships. The Massachusetts statute was the first to pass among several states, such as New Jersey,[45] which had also passed a similar bill through their Assembly. Facing the potential of a variety of slightly different requirements, major automobile trade organizations signed a Memorandum of Understanding in January 2014[46] using the Massachusetts law as the basis of their agreement for all 50 states starting in the 2018 automotive year.[47] A similar agreement was reached by the Commercial Vehicle Solutions Network to apply to over-the-road trucks.[48]

In 2013, major grassroots movements started to form: the Digital Right to Repair Coalition, also known as the Repair Association using the website repair.org, was founded and has led nearly all state legislative efforts in the United States influencing the formation of similarly focused advocacy groups around the world. The coalition is a 501(c)(6) trade association incorporated in New Jersey and funded entirely by membership dues. The goal of the coalition is to support the aftermarket for technology products through advocating for repair-friendly laws, standards, regulations and policies. As such, its members are engaged in repairs, resale, refurbishment, reconfiguration and recycling regardless of industry. Members of the coalition include industry experts in repair, cybersecurity, copyright law, medicine, agriculture, international trade, consumer rights, contracts, e-waste, eco-design standards, software engineering, and legislative advocacy.[49]

The coalition filed their first legislative action in South Dakota in January 2014 as SB.136 (Latterell). Four states followed in 2015—New York (S.3998 Boyle[50]/A.6068 Morelle[51]), Minnesota (SF 873 Osmek/HF 1048 Hertaus), Massachusetts (H.3383 Cronin/S. Kennedy), and Nebraska (LB 1072 Haar). Tennessee (SB888/H1382 Jernigan) and Wyoming (HB 0091 Hunt) were added in 2016. The following year, new bills were filed in North Carolina (HB663 Richardson), Kansas (HB2122 Barker), Illinois (HB3030 Harris), Iowa (HF556 and SF2028), Missouri (HB1178 McCreery), New Hampshire (HB1733 Luneau), and New Jersey (A4934 Moriarty). 2018 added Oklahoma, Hawaii, Georgia, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington. 2019 added Oregon, Nevada, Indiana, and Montana. 2020, while shortened by the COVID-19 pandemic, added Maine, Idaho, Alabama, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Colorado.

Legislation intended to use the power of general business law in states for general repair of devices including a digital electronic part is based on the Automotive MOU from 2014. Template legislation avoided any requirements to change the format of documentation, the method of delivery of existing parts, tools, diagnostics or information. It does not require disclosing any trade secrets. Manufacturers are permitted to charge fair and reasonable prices for physical parts and tools, and are limited in their charges for information that is already posted online.[52]

In addition to the work of the coalition, various individuals have started ballot initiatives. A ballot initiative was filed in Missouri and certified for inclusion on the 2022 ballot.[53] In March 2021, Louis Rossmann started a crowdfunding campaign to raise $6 million using the GoFundMe platform in order to start a direct ballot initiative to protect consumer right to repair in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, citing previous similar successes in the automotive industry.[54]

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a report titled "Nixing the Fix" in May 2021 to Congress, outlining issues around corporations' policies that limit repairs on consumer goods that it considered in violation of trade laws, and outlined steps that could be done to better enforce this. This included self-regulation by the industries involved, as well as expansion of existing laws such as the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act or new laws to give the FTC better enforcement to protect consumers from overzealous repair restrictions.[55][56] On July 9, 2021, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14036, "Promoting Competition in the American Economy," a sweeping array of initiatives across the executive branch. Among them included instructions to the FTC to craft rules to prevent manufacturers from preventing repairs performed by owners or independent repair shops.[57][58] About two weeks after the EO was issued, the FTC made a unanimous vote to enforce the right to repair as policy and will look to take action against companies that limit the type of repair work that can be done at independent repair shops.[59]

On December 28, 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Digital Fair Repair Act, nearly seven months after it had passed the state senate. The law established the right of consumers and independent repairers to get manuals, diagrams, and original parts from manufacturers, although The Verge, Engadget, and Ars Technica noted that the bill was made less vigorous by way of last-minute changes that provided exceptions to original equipment manufacturers. It will apply to electronic devices sold in the state 2023.[60][61][62]

The Massachusetts law is the subject of a federal lawsuit against the state by vehicle manufacturers. The state voluntarily refrained from enforcing the law until Attorney General Andrea Campbell announced it would be enforced starting June 1, 2023. In June 2023, the federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration instructed manufacturers to ignore the Massachusetts law, asserting it was preempted by federal law because opening telematics to other organizations could make cars more vulnerable to computer hackers. (Both claims are disputed by Massachusetts in the lawsuit.)[63]

On May 24, 2023, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed the broadest right-to-repair law yet, which was included as part of a state appropriations bill. Minnesota's law will apply to devices sold in the state on or after July 1, 2021, and manufacturers of such devices must provide service manuals for them at no cost to residents of the state. The law will take effect on July 1, 2024.[64]

See also

References

  1. ↑ "The medical right to repair: the right to save lives". March 24, 2021.
  2. ↑ "Your right to repair: How COVID sent businesses, hospitals, and consumers to the breaking point". ZDNET. Retrieved 2023-12-20.
  3. ↑ "Lawmakers call for "right to repair" medical equipment during COVID-19 pandemic". ZDNET. Retrieved 2023-12-20.
  4. ↑ "What You Should Know About Right to Repair". Wirecutter: Reviews for the Real World. 15 July 2021.
  5. ↑ Chen, Brian X. (14 July 2021). "Why You Should Care About Your Right to Repair Gadgets". The New York Times.
  6. ↑ "Federal Register :: Request Access". unblock.federalregister.gov. Retrieved 2023-01-31.
  7. ↑ "Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" (PDF). govinfo.gov. October 28, 2021. pp. 11–15. Retrieved 2023-01-31.
  8. ↑ "Right to Repair India". righttorepairindia.gov.in. Retrieved 2023-03-25.
  9. ↑ "US farmers win right to repair John Deere equipment". BBC News. 2023-01-09. Retrieved 2023-03-07.
  10. 1 2 Davis v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc. 305 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002)
  11. ↑ Mikolajczak, Chloé (2020-06-04). "Apple crushes one-man repair shop in Norway's Supreme Court, after three-year battle". Right to Repair Europe. Retrieved 2023-08-23.
  12. ↑ Purdy, Kevin (2022-12-20). "Framework, Noctua, and other brands add official 3D models to Printables". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2022-12-20.
  13. ↑ Yanes, Javier (11 September 2020). "The Origin and Myths of Planned Obsolescence". Open Mind by BBVA. BBVA Group. Retrieved September 11, 2020.
  14. ↑ Strauss, Ilana (December 7, 2018). "How GM Invented Planned Obsolescence". Tree Hugger. Dotdash by About, Inc. Retrieved 28 July 2021.
  15. ↑ Ford, Henry (2005). My life and work (1st ed.). Fairfield, Iowa: 1st World Library. p. 81. ISBN 9781421806341.
  16. ↑ Hanley, Daniel A.; Kelloway, Claire; Sandeep, Vaheesan (April 13, 2020). Fixing America: Breaking Manufacturers' Aftermarket Monopoly and Restoring Consumers' Right to Repair. Open Market Insistute. Retrieved 24 July 2021.
  17. ↑ Sloan, Alfred P. (1964) [1963]. My years with General Motors ([1st] ed.). Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. ISBN 0385042353.
  18. ↑ Slade, Giles (2006). Made to break : technology and obsolescence in America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. p. 48. ISBN 0674025725. Retrieved 25 July 2021.
  19. ↑ McIntyre, Stephen L. (April 1, 2000). "The Failure of Fordism: Reform of the Automobile Repair Industry, 1913–1940". Technology and Culture. 41 (2): 269–299. doi:10.1353/tech.2000.0075. JSTOR 25147500. S2CID 109379833. Retrieved 25 July 2021.
  20. ↑ Strasser, Susan (1999). Waste and want: a social history of trash (1st ed.). New York: Metropolitan Books. p. 220. ISBN 0805065121.
  21. ↑ "Unfair Competition—Reconditioning Used Goods—Permissible Limits of Resale of Patented or Trademarked Articles" (PDF). Washington University Law Quarterly. 24 (2): 238. Jan 1, 1939.
  22. ↑ Passell, Peter (June 9, 1994). "I.B.M. and the Limits of a Consent Decree". New York Times. Retrieved 25 July 2021.
  23. ↑ Edelstein, David N. (January 25, 1956). "IBM Consent Decree". New York: United States District Court. Retrieved 24 July 2021.
  24. ↑ Ziegler, Bart (May 2, 1997). "Court Approves Termination Of IBM's 1956 Antitrust Pact". The Wall Street Journal. No. May 2, 1997. Retrieved 25 July 2021.
  25. ↑ O'Neil, Michael (July 1, 1965). "Patents – Contributory Infringement – History and Trend: Convertible Top Cases". DePaul Law Review. DePaul University. 14 (2): 473–478. Retrieved 28 July 2021.
  26. ↑ Kan, Michael (July 8, 2021). "Apple Co-Founder Steve Wozniak Publicly Backs Right to Repair". PC Mag. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
  27. ↑ Statista Research Department (Feb 5, 2021). "Automotive electronics cost as a percentage of total car cost worldwide from 1970 to 2030". Statista. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
  28. ↑ Borg, Kevin L. (2007). Auto Mechanics: Technology and Expertise in Twentieth-Century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 9780801894855.
  29. ↑ Emerson, Gabe. DCMA - The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Report (PDF). Fairbanks, Alaska (United States): University of Alaska Fairbanks. p. 2.
  30. ↑ Mirr, Nicholas A. (Jul 1, 2020). "Defending the Right to Repair: An Argument for Federal Legislation Guaranteeing the Right to Repair". Iowa Law Review. 105 (5): 2393–2424. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
  31. ↑ Gault, Matthew (4 January 2021). "It Is Time, Yet Again, to Beg for the Right to Repair". www.vice.com. Vice Media Group. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
  32. ↑ Einsiedel, Mark (28 April 2016). "Repair vs. Reconstruction of Unpatented Components of a Patented Article". Fay Sharpe. Fay Sharpe L.L.P. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
  33. ↑ Stohr, Greg; Decker, Susan (May 30, 2017). "U.S. Supreme Court Curbs Patent-Holder Power to Block Resale". Bloomberg L.P. Archived from the original on May 30, 2017. Retrieved May 30, 2017.
  34. 1 2 3 Hatta, Masayuki (15 August 2020). "The Right to Repair, the Right to Tinker, and the Right to Innovate". Annals of Business Administrative Science. 19 (4): 143–157. doi:10.7880/abas.0200604a. S2CID 225397805.
  35. ↑ "Automotive Group Testifies Against Right to Repair Act Bill". Autoparts Report. August 6, 2002.
  36. ↑ How the clean air act affects auto repair. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 28 June 2005. pp. 18–19. ISBN 9780160754074. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
  37. ↑ "Do You Have the Right to Repair Your Phone?". 30 December 2022.
  38. ↑ Koebler, Jason (11 September 2018). "Farmer Lobbying Group Sells Out Farmers, Helps Enshrine John Deere's Tractor Repair Monopoly". Vice.
  39. ↑ Reardon, Marguerite. "President signs cell phone unlocking bill into law". CNET.
  40. ↑ Janzer, Cinnamon (15 December 2020). "What Massachusetts' New Right-to-Repair Law Means for Small Auto Repair Shops". nextcity.org. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
  41. ↑ McSherry, Corynne (18 February 2014). "Support the Right to Repair in South Dakota (and Everywhere Else)". Electronic Frontier Foundation.
  42. ↑ Stoltz, Mitch (26 October 2018). "New Exemptions to DMCA Section 1201 Are Welcome, But Don't Go Far Enough". Electronic Frontier Foundation.
  43. ↑ "Colorado becomes 1st to pass 'right to repair' for farmers". AP News. 2023-04-26. Retrieved 2023-08-10.
  44. ↑ Elizabeth Lopatto (October 10, 2023). "Right-to-repair is now the law in California / California to the rest of the US: You're welcome!". The Verge. Retrieved October 10, 2023.
  45. ↑ aftermarketNews Staff (2008-10-28). "New Jersey Passes Right to Repair Act". aftermarketNews. Retrieved 2021-08-09.
  46. ↑ "Right to Repair - Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Data". Default. Retrieved 2021-08-09.
  47. ↑ Weins, Kyle (February 13, 2014). "You Gotta Fight For Your Right to Repair Your Car". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on June 22, 2018. Retrieved March 8, 2018.
  48. ↑ "Truck Parts Aftermarket Right to Repair Coalition". CVSN. Retrieved 2021-08-09.
  49. ↑ "About". The Repair Association. Retrieved 2023-05-18.
  50. ↑ "NY State Senate Bill S3998B". NY State Senate. 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2021-08-09.
  51. ↑ "NY State Assembly Bill A6068A". NY State Senate. 2016-03-29. Retrieved 2021-08-09.
  52. ↑ "Legislation". The Repair Association. Retrieved 2021-08-09.
  53. ↑ "Missouri 2022 ballot measures". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2021-08-10.
  54. ↑ "Advocate seeks $6 million to fund 'right to repair' action group". Apple Insider. April 1, 2021. Archived from the original on April 11, 2021. Retrieved April 22, 2021.
  55. ↑ Porter, Jon (May 7, 2021). "FTC report blasts manufacturers for restricting product repairs". The Verge. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved May 7, 2021.
  56. ↑ Nixing the Fix: An FTC Report to Congress on Repair Restrictions (PDF) (Report). Federal Trade Commission. May 7, 2021. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 7, 2021.
  57. ↑ Breuninger, Kevin; Feiner, Lauren (July 9, 2021). "Biden signs order to crack down on Big Tech, boost competition 'across the board'". CNBC. Retrieved July 9, 2021.
  58. ↑ Sullivan, Kate; Fung, Brian; Klein, Betsy (July 9, 2021). "Biden signs sweeping executive order that targets Big Tech and aims to push competition in US economy". CNN. Retrieved July 9, 2021.
  59. ↑ Kelly, Makena (July 21, 2021). "FTC pledges to fight unlawful right to repair restrictions". The Verge. Retrieved July 21, 2021.
  60. ↑ Faulkner, Cameron (2022-12-29). "New York breaks the right to repair bill as it's signed into law". The Verge. Retrieved 2022-12-29.
  61. ↑ "New York's governor signs watered-down right-to-repair bill". Engadget. Retrieved 2022-12-29.
  62. ↑ Cunningham, Andrew (2022-12-29). "New York governor signs modified right-to-repair bill at the last minute". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2022-12-29.
  63. ↑ Hiawatha Bray (June 14, 2023). "Federal government warns carmakers not to comply with Mass. right-to-repair law". The Boston Globe.
  64. ↑ Robertson, Adi (2023-05-24). "Right-to-repair rules are now the law in Minnesota". The Verge. Retrieved 2023-08-27.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.