The right to repair needs to be an important political issue for voters within the coming election cycles. While appearing as something that is not extremely pressing, the lack of the right to repair affects our daily life and oppresses our personal liberties. Less than 20 states have an active right to repair bill in 2022–an incredibly low number, although 34 total have attempted to create one.
What is the right to repair? Headed by The Repair Association, this essential act of legislation puts the freedom of improving one’s own property into their own hands while creating a competitive repair market. This policy also creates recyclable, reused, and reduced technological waste, with uniform standards. In doing so, our products would last longer and there would be an assurance that we could repair our own belongings, not just replace them.
This is especially prevalent among phones. Practically everyone owns some type of phone, with over 1 billion iPhone users, and iPhones accounting for 6 of the top 10 best-selling smartphones in 2022. Apple is a particularly egregious company when it comes to the right to repair—as they increase their sales with new products every year, they stray further and further away from the consumer’s right to their own property. Apple has continuously lobbied against legislation that supports the right to repair. When their products break and consumers go get them repaired, the local stores cannot fix their specialized parts or offer ways to manage the specific production processes. Good news! —one might think—there is a new Apple Store that just popped up in the local mall. However, it costs hundreds of dollars to fix simple problems like a cracked screen, which is a very common problem. In fact, it is much cheaper to simply replace the device with a brand new one. This is an intentional process that Apple wants to happen. They do not want their consumers to be able to fix their products, especially not at a cheaper rate at their local repair store. There is a reason Apple is the most profitable company in the world; through enacting updates that degrade the performance of older iPhones, paired with the previously described policies utilized by the company, it is clear to see that Apple is not looking out for the consumer. Apple prioritizes performance over endurance, which can be something that consumers prioritize as well, but the lack of transparency and published information falls on Apple. There is a distinct cut-off for user choice regarding battery life, part repair, and customized usage.
With the right to repair amendments being enacted in different legislatures, device manufacturers would be required to make repair information or software available for independent businesses or individuals. This practice would also increase the recycling of “e-waste,” a catch-all term for any waste from technological devices. Recyclers need the same information to recycle the tech as repair services need to fix it. By taking every avenue to repress this legislation, companies like Apple are actively ruining the technology field, causing more dangerous and harmful electronic waste, and running a “repair monopoly,” where consumers have to come to them to have their devices repaired or, more often, replaced.
The suppression of consumer rights is not only limited to phones. On a much larger scale, the right to repair impacts an even more prevalent industry—agriculture. John Deere is just as egregious of a company as Apple, as they have sent letters of opposition, lobbied against the right to repair acts, and suppressed farmers’ rights to their own property. At the beginning of 2022, John Deere found itself within two separate lawsuits regarding the right to repair. But what have they done to harm the agricultural industry, outside of going against this legislation? Similar to Apple, John Deere has created “Deere Dealerships” to combat what they claim independent repair will cause, such as “unsafe operation,” “illegal changes,” or a “less-than-optimal customer experience”. However, by limiting the access to crucial software and repair tools to allow farmers to fix their own agricultural machinery, John Deere has denied them the right to repair. In Alabama’s lawsuit against the tractor company, it is alleged that the monopolization of the market allows them to charge a premium price for simple, short procedures that would not be possible under true market competition. The repair business is more profitable than the original sales market, with an Illinois lawsuit claiming the consolidation or vertical integration practices have allowed John Deere to “unfairly monopolize the market for machinery repair”. This monopolization causes higher prices, lower labor, and a lack of competition that allows John Deere to increase their profits.
A particular problem arises with these monopolies that has not been discussed when discussing consumer freedom: that of accessibility. In regards to John Deere, with them being the second largest tractor supplier in the world, one would think that they make it a priority to support their customers—farmers all across the United States. Forcing Deere Dealerships as the only place for customers to get their equipment serviced, the company has created servicing droughts and caused innumerable losses to farmers everywhere. Some farmers may need to save up money to afford the high-cost services Deere provides, therefore operating unsafe, broken equipment. Otherwise, without having dealerships easily accessible in more remote agricultural areas, farmers are required to wait on a part to ship from dealerships. These issues could be largely avoided if the right to repair were in the hands of the consumer, and not the large corporations dictating what people do with their own property after a sale.
The common thread throughout these business practices is the lack of freedom and individual choice. Freedom of choice is crucial to having a truly free market. In the United States alone, there are over 3 million repair and reuse professionals, dealing with all corners of the technology industry and highly specialized devices. When the industry favors monopolies and does not support consumers or these small business niches, the market does not thrive. There are some serious concerns with this line of thinking. Manufacturers argue about safety and intellectual property risks, even the worry of not giving the most optimized performance in the case of phones and software. The Right to Repair Association attempts to address these concerns in their legislation, petitioning the Copyright Office to make protections for modifications and repairs made to software, specifically in tractors. There is a large oversight in copyright laws—one that goes beyond just protecting intellectual property and moves into suppressing consumer rights. Fixing your device or altering software after encountering a bug should not violate copyright laws. Despite this, any kind of reparation on one’s own device does violate copyright laws, because of the requirement to access information such as codes, service manuals, or diagnostic tools. Manufacturers are abusing their ‘copyright’, hiding behind it to deny property rights to their consumers, post-purchase. Information that the public would benefit from should not be protected under copyright as intellectual property but put back into the hands of industry professionals. Supporting the right to repair creates a fair market, more jobs, and competition, and eliminates gaps within industry standards.
While the right to repair is an issue that should be nonpartisan, as it affects everyone in many different industries, those who have supported legislation have been widespread among the Democrat party. This past July, President Joe Biden signed an executive order that required the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to create new rules that would limit repair restrictions. There is a lack of knowledge and advocacy among conservatives over this, something that we should all rally behind as a party that prioritizes personal liberties. We should not wait for this issue to become more relevant and pressing. In the upcoming election cycles, whether it be the local mayoral race, the Texas governor race, or the 2024 presidential race, voters should push for further legislation that will put the power of property ownership back into the buyer’s hands.