Right to Repair Laws Breaking Manufacturers' Monopoly

By 2028, you might actually be able to fix that cracked phone screen yourself. Right now, repair technicians across America are watching a revolution unfold as state after state passes laws forcing manufacturers to hand over the tools, parts, and knowledge they've hoarded for decades. This isn't just about saving money on repairs—it's about who really owns the products you buy.

The Movement That Started With a Broken iPhone

When Kyle Wiens co-founded iFixit, he had a simple philosophy: "If you bought it, you should be able to fix it." Turns out, millions of frustrated consumers and thousands of independent repair shops agreed. What started as a grassroots movement has exploded into a nationwide policy shift. All 50 states have now introduced right-to-repair legislation, and five states—New York, California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado—have already passed comprehensive electronics repair laws.

The timing isn't coincidental. Americans purchase around 160 million new smartphones each year, consuming 23.7 million tons of raw materials to satisfy that habit. Meanwhile, the typical household spends an extra $1,043 annually just on technology replacements driven by planned obsolescence. That's money people could be saving if manufacturers weren't blocking repairs at every turn.

How We Got Here

Massachusetts blazed the trail back in 2012 when voters overwhelmingly approved (87.7% to 12.3%) a ballot measure requiring car manufacturers to give independent mechanics the same repair information as dealerships. They doubled down in 2020 with an even broader law covering wireless diagnostic data. That victory showed consumer advocacy groups something crucial: when people understand what's at stake, they vote for repair rights.

The automotive precedent matters because it established a legal framework other sectors could follow. Courts had already confirmed in *Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.* that reselling and refurbishing products is legal. Manufacturers couldn't claim that repair violated their intellectual property rights—at least not successfully.

The Golden Age of Repair Restrictions

So how did we end up in a world where you can't easily fix the things you own? It happened gradually, then suddenly. Apple pioneered many of the tactics. They introduced tamper-resistant pentalobe screws that standard screwdrivers couldn't turn. They glued batteries into place. They embedded software checks that bricked phones if unauthorized parts were detected. When users complained about older iPhones slowing down, Apple eventually settled a lawsuit for $500 million—but the practice had already pushed millions toward premature upgrades.

The really insidious innovation was "parts pairing"—software that locked components to specific devices. Replace your iPhone screen with an aftermarket part, even an identical one, and suddenly features stop working. Face ID might fail. You'd get warning messages. The phone you owned would essentially punish you for trying to repair it.

John Deere took this philosophy to farming equipment. Tractors costing hundreds of thousands of dollars couldn't be serviced by their owners. When harvest season hit and a sensor failed, farmers couldn't just swap in a replacement part—they had to wait for an authorized technician, potentially losing entire crops.

The Pandemic Changed Everything

COVID-19 exposed the life-or-death consequences of repair monopolies. Hospitals couldn't maintain ventilators because manufacturers controlled all repairs. Medical device companies claimed their proprietary systems were too complex for hospital technicians, even as patients struggled to breathe. The repair community stepped up, sharing unofficial repair manuals and workarounds online. Suddenly, the abstract debate about consumer rights became viscerally real.

Environmental groups found their angle too. In 2022, the world generated 62 million metric tons of e-waste, with only 22% formally recycled. The rest ended up in landfills or shipped to developing nations. Extending product lifespans through repair offered a clear sustainability win. McKinsey found that refurbishing a router cuts emissions by 82% compared to manufacturing a new one.

"The world generates 62 million metric tons of e-waste annually, with only 22% formally recycled. The rest ends up in landfills leaching toxins or shipped to developing nations where children dismantle electronics in hazardous conditions."

— Environmental Research Data

The State-by-State Domino Effect

New York fired the opening salvo for electronics with the Digital Fair Repair Act, signed December 28, 2023. The law requires original equipment manufacturers to provide parts, tools, and documentation for personal devices like smartphones, laptops, and cameras. Corporate lobbying watered it down—it doesn't cover business-to-business sales—but it set a precedent.

California followed with a tiered approach. Devices costing $50-$100 require parts availability for three years; those over $100 need seven years. The law took effect July 1, 2024, giving manufacturers time to adjust their supply chains.

Oregon went further by banning parts pairing outright starting January 1, 2025. Manufacturers can no longer use software to prevent consumers from installing aftermarket or third-party replacement parts. That directly attacks the technical mechanism companies use to maintain repair control.

Colorado and Minnesota passed similar laws with their own variations. Minnesota emphasized tools and documentation. Colorado focused on affordable pricing for parts. Each state learned from the others, refining requirements and closing loopholes.

The momentum is accelerating. New Mexico became the 49th state to introduce legislation in 2025, with its bill covering cell phones sold after 2021. Wisconsin rounded out the roster, making all 50 states participants in the movement. More than 10 states introduced right-to-repair bills in 2025 alone. Twenty-four states had active legislation moving through the process.

What Manufacturers Say

Industry trade groups consistently argue that right-to-repair creates safety and security risks. They claim untrained consumers will hurt themselves repairing high-voltage devices. They warn that opening up repair documentation will help hackers exploit security vulnerabilities. They insist their intellectual property needs protection.

Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of The Repair Association, calls these arguments overblown. Professional repair technicians already handle dangerous components safely. Security researchers routinely analyze products to find vulnerabilities—that's how we improve security, not weaken it. And IP protections already exist in patent and copyright law without requiring repair restrictions.

What manufacturers don't say out loud: repair is enormously profitable. Authorized repair networks let companies charge premium prices for parts and labor while maintaining control over the customer relationship. Apple's Genius Bar, Samsung's authorized service centers, John Deere's dealer networks—these generate substantial revenue while creating dependence.

The interesting development is how some major players are shifting positions. Google became a major supporter of right-to-repair legislation, even testifying in favor of Oregon and Colorado's restrictions on parts pairing. Microsoft reversed its opposition and now sponsors a partnership with iFixit. Even Apple, the company that pioneered many anti-repair tactics, now supports some state laws.

Apple quietly launched a self-service repair program in 2021, allowing consumers to order parts for iPhone 12 and 13 models. By 2024, Apple was selling 23 different spare parts directly for the iPhone 15—compared with zero parts available for independent shops in 2014.

The Economics of Fixing What's Broken

For independent repair businesses, these laws are potentially transformative. A survey of 101 American repair professionals found that 68% reported spare part access had improved at least a little bit. That's the market responding to policy pressure before many laws even took full effect.

Small repair shops compete against manufacturer-controlled networks with inherent disadvantages. They can't access official diagnostics. They can't order original parts at reasonable prices. They can't get repair manuals. Right-to-repair laws level that playing field, potentially revitalizing local repair economies.

Consumers stand to save the most. That $1,043 annual cost from premature replacements shrinks when repair becomes viable. A $300 screen replacement beats a $1,000 new phone. A repaired appliance for $150 beats a $800 replacement. Multiply those savings across millions of households and you're looking at billions kept in consumers' pockets instead of manufacturers' balance sheets.

The Environmental Equation

Planned obsolescence doesn't just drain wallets—it's an environmental disaster. Those 62 million metric tons of annual e-waste contain valuable materials and toxic chemicals. Mining new resources for replacement devices destroys landscapes and burns fossil fuels. Manufacturing is energy-intensive. Transportation adds more emissions.

Repair short-circuits that entire wasteful cycle. Keep a phone for six years instead of three and you've halved the associated environmental impact. Refurbish a laptop instead of buying new and you've avoided most of the carbon footprint.

"Refurbishing a broadband router cuts emissions by 82% compared to manufacturing a new one. The greenest product is the one you don't manufacture."

— McKinsey Analysis

Recyclers view right-to-repair as crucial for diverting e-scrap from landfills and reducing lithium-ion battery fires in the waste stream. Working devices are worth more than recycled components. Repairability extends the highest-value use before materials ever reach recycling facilities.

France and the EU are leading policy experiments with repairability scores displayed at point of sale, helping consumers choose durable products. The European Union's Right to Repair Directive mandates repairability standards across member states. These scores rate products on criteria like documentation availability, ease of disassembly, and parts availability.

Quebec passed Bill 29 in October 2023, prohibiting the creation or sale of products with planned obsolescence—a more ambitious approach than most U.S. states have attempted. Rather than just requiring repair access, Quebec outlaws intentional design for premature failure.

Beyond Smartphones: The Expanding Frontier

While consumer electronics grab headlines, right-to-repair encompasses far more. Agricultural equipment remains a major battlefield, with farmers requiring access to diagnostic software and mechanical parts. Some state bills specifically address vehicles, powered wheelchairs, and medical devices—each with unique repair challenges.

Hawaii introduced legislation for vehicle right-to-repair. Rhode Island targeted digital electronic equipment broadly. Virginia's bill requires manufacturers to provide tools for accessing electronic security locks on vehicles.

Powered wheelchairs present particularly compelling cases. These aren't luxury items—they're mobility necessities for disabled users. Yet manufacturers often control all repairs, creating dependencies that affect users' ability to work, access healthcare, and live independently. Right-to-repair for assistive devices is a disability rights issue as much as a consumer rights issue.

Medical devices sit at the intersection of patient safety and repair access. While manufacturers correctly note that improper repairs could harm patients, hospitals employ skilled biomedical technicians perfectly capable of maintaining equipment. The pandemic revealed how artificial restrictions endangered patients by preventing timely repairs.

The Technical Mechanisms of Control

Understanding what right-to-repair actually requires means understanding what manufacturers do to prevent repair. The tactics are surprisingly varied.

Physical design: Using proprietary screws, excessive glue, sealed enclosures that break when opened, and components that can't be removed without destroying them.

Parts pairing: Software that authenticates components and disables features if non-approved parts are detected. This makes even identical replacement parts unusable.

Serialization: Assigning unique identifiers to components and verifying they match during operation. Replace a paired component and the device refuses to work.

Firmware locks: Requiring cryptographic authentication to install firmware updates or modifications, preventing both repair and improvement.

Documentation withholding: Refusing to publish repair manuals, schematics, or diagnostic codes that technicians need to identify problems.

Parts availability: Simply not selling replacement components to anyone except authorized repair networks.

Pricing: Offering parts at such inflated prices that repair becomes economically nonviable compared to replacement.

Right-to-repair laws attack these mechanisms systematically. They mandate documentation. They require reasonable parts pricing and availability. They prohibit parts pairing and serialization lockouts. They establish that software checks can't disable hardware.

Oregon's parts pairing ban is the clearest example. After January 1, 2025, if you manufacture devices sold in Oregon, your software cannot prevent users from installing third-party components. That directly addresses a technical barrier.

What Victory Looks Like

A survey of repair professionals provides concrete evidence that policy is working. That 68% improvement in parts access happened before most state laws fully took effect—it's manufacturers responding to political pressure and anticipating requirements.

Apple's shift from zero available parts to 23 for a single phone model shows market transformation. When iFixit can buy original Apple components and consumers can order their own parts, that's a fundamentally different ecosystem than existed a decade ago.

But there's still ground to cover. Many state laws have exemptions and limitations. New York's law doesn't cover business devices. California's timelines might be too short for some product categories. Enforcement mechanisms remain unclear in most states.

Federal legislation could provide comprehensive standards and eliminate the patchwork of state rules manufacturers complain about. The Federal Trade Commission has signaled support for repair rights and investigated anticompetitive repair restrictions, but Congress hasn't passed nationwide requirements.

What You Can Do Right Now

Regardless of what state you live in, some repair options exist today. iFixit sells tools, parts, and provides free repair guides for thousands of devices. YouTube hosts detailed teardown and repair videos for almost any product. Community repair events like Restart Parties teach skills while fixing things.

Before buying new products, check repairability scores if available. Choose manufacturers with better repair track records. Consider whether a product can be serviced or will become disposable.

When devices break, get repair estimates before assuming replacement is necessary. Independent shops often charge less than authorized service centers and may have more flexibility in solutions.

Contact state legislators about pending right-to-repair bills. The automotive victory in Massachusetts happened because voters showed up. Consumer pressure drove corporate position changes. Policy responds to constituent demand. Support repair businesses. Local shops create jobs, keep money in communities, and reduce waste.

The Future of Ownership

At its core, right-to-repair asks a philosophical question: when you buy something, what exactly did you purchase? A manufacturer might say you bought a license to use their product under their terms. The repair movement says you bought the physical object and should have full control over it.

That debate extends beyond repair to privacy, security, and autonomy. Who controls the computer in your car? Can manufacturers remotely disable features? Should your tractor require internet connectivity to operate? These questions become more urgent as everyday objects gain software and connectivity.

Right-to-repair legislation doesn't just affect how you fix broken devices—it establishes ownership principles for an increasingly digital world. If manufacturers can't lock you out of repair, they also can't lock you into their ecosystems quite as tightly. Competition increases. Innovation has more room to flourish outside corporate control.

The movement has momentum now. Five states have passed comprehensive laws. Twenty-four have active bills. All fifty have engaged with the issue. Corporate opposition is weakening. Consumer awareness is rising. Environmental imperatives are strengthening.

Your cracked phone screen might soon be yours to repair. Your aging laptop could get a second life with a new battery you install yourself. Your appliances might last decades instead of years. The throw-away culture that manufacturers carefully cultivated for profit is colliding with consumer rights, environmental necessity, and common sense.

People are fed up with disposable products and locked-down devices. Repair isn't just the past—it's the future. The question isn't whether we'll get comprehensive right-to-repair laws, but how soon, and whether manufacturers will adapt gracefully or be dragged into the new reality.

Every device you own represents materials extracted from the earth, energy expended in manufacturing, and carbon emitted in transportation. Extending its life through repair is one of the most impactful environmental choices you can make. Now, slowly but surely, the law is catching up to that reality.

The revolution in your pocket—the smartphone you might actually be allowed to fix—represents more than saved money or reduced waste. It represents a fundamental rebalancing of power between corporations and people, a recognition that ownership should mean something, and an acknowledgment that we can't afford the luxury of disposability anymore.

That's worth fighting for. And across America, in statehouses and repair shops, people are winning.

Latest from Each Category

Space

The Gravity Heresy: MOND vs Dark Matter Theory Explained

MOND proposes gravity changes at low accelerations, explaining galaxy rotation without dark matter. While it predicts thousands of galaxies correctly, it struggles with clusters and cosmology, keeping the dark matter debate alive.

Health

Ultrafine Particles Breach Brain Barriers: Hidden Risk

Ultrafine pollution particles smaller than 100 nanometers can bypass the blood-brain barrier through the olfactory nerve and bloodstream, depositing in brain tissue where they trigger neuroinflammation linked to dementia and neurological disorders, yet remain completely unregulated by current air quality standards.

Environment

Underground Air Storage: Renewable Energy's Hidden Battery

CAES stores excess renewable energy by compressing air in underground caverns, then releases it through turbines during peak demand. New advanced adiabatic systems achieve 70%+ efficiency, making this decades-old technology suddenly competitive for long-duration grid storage.

Humans

Why Your Brain Is Hardwired to Lose Money

Our brains are hardwired to see patterns in randomness, causing the gambler's fallacy—the mistaken belief that past random events influence future probabilities. This cognitive bias costs people millions in casinos, investments, and daily decisions.

Nature

Forest Biological Clocks: Ecosystems That Keep Time

Forests operate as synchronized living systems with molecular clocks that coordinate metabolism from individual cells to entire ecosystems, creating rhythmic patterns that affect global carbon cycles and climate feedback loops.

Society

The Polycrisis Generation: Youth in Cascading Crises

Generation Z is the first cohort to come of age amid a polycrisis - interconnected global failures spanning climate, economy, democracy, and health. This cascading reality is fundamentally reshaping how young people think, plan their lives, and organize for change.

Computers

Zero-Trust Security Revolution: Verify Everything Always

Zero-trust security eliminates implicit network trust by requiring continuous verification of every access request. Organizations are rapidly adopting this architecture to address cloud computing, remote work, and sophisticated threats that rendered perimeter defenses obsolete.