If the computer you’re reading this on broke, could you fix it? Would you know how to disassemble the inner assembly, test for motherboard conductivity, replace thermal paste, or search for the slightest sign of corrosion?
Unless you’re an electrical engineer or serious computer enthusiast, the answer is most likely “no.”
As technology gets ever more advanced, the average consumer’s ability to repair the goods they buy decreases. However, it is not just new technology that makes repairing 21st-century goods impossible. Instead, the manufacturers themselves intentionally inhibit average consumers from fixing or tampering with the goods they sell.
Therein lies the ongoing fight between consumers and a modern-day monopoly of manufacturers—the right to repair.
The Consumer’s Right to Repair
From a consumer’s point of view, the right to repair means the power to use their devices to their fullest extent. Consumers want knowledge and resources to troubleshoot, fix, and modify their goods.
As it currently stands, consumers are powerless when repairing their technology—and that is precisely how manufacturers like the power dynamic to be. With consumers at their mercy, producers can profit from selling goods and providing exclusive repair services.
While producers cannot legally outlaw people from tampering with the goods they sell, they can make it so complex that it might as well be illegal. They can withhold spare parts, manuals, and tools consumers need and claim that any product warranty is automatically void once they open their device.
Therefore, producers rig the system to prevent any competition to their repair operation. They can charge ridiculously high repair prices, make false but unchallenged device diagnoses, and implement planned obsolescence.
The right to repair spans industries and affects consumers globally, from computers to cars to medical devices that are the difference between life and death for a sick patient.
The Manufacturer's Right to Secrecy
While it can be hard to defend a manufacturer’s decision to prevent repairs, they do have their reasons.
To justify their lack of transparency, some producers cite that their products can harm consumers if they modify them incorrectly. For example, there are examples of people trying to repair battery issues in a phone or laptop, resulting in battery fires. Similarly, modifying cars can result in emissions violations or safety hazards for the driver.
In addition, producers are concerned that providing detailed device schematics to consumers will grant their competition insight into their products. If a company spent hundreds of millions of dollars in product development only to hand over the product of their labor to their competition, they would be at a severe competitive disadvantage. Other companies could leverage the information that consumers would need to repair their devices to develop similar products.
A Legal Perspective on the Right to Repair
Both consumers and producers have their reasons for taking their positions on the right to repair. Consumers want more power over the products they buy, and manufacturers don’t want to harm their consumers or lose their competitive advantage. But, is there a legal precedent that has or will decide the winner of the right to repair?
Right to repair advocates often cite the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 as support for their position. Congress meant to combat trusts, such as the Standard Oil Trust, that made it impossible for new businesses to enter the space and provide competition.
The Sherman Antitrust Act is relevant in terms of the right to repair because manufacturers’ behavior borders on a monopoly. By making it impossible for competition in the repair market to arise, manufacturers secure total control over the sector.
On the other hand, Congress modernized copyright laws in 1998 to try and protect the flood of digital content entering the market. Through the DMCA of 1998, the US government prevented people from stealing digital content but also gave manufacturers a massive loophole around the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Manufacturers can claim copyright protection for any tools, software, or access to information about their goods. Therefore, they can legally withhold information from consumers about repairing their products in the name of copyright infringement. As such content is protected, consumers cannot demand that they release information.
However, via an executive order from the Biden Administration, right to repair advocates gained more ground than they have for decades. In the Executive Order on Promoting Competiton in the American Economy, the Biden Administration says that they will “Make it easier and cheaper to repair items you own by limiting manufacturers from barring self-repairs or third-party repairs of their products.” In addition, they will “Encourage the FTC to limit powerful equipment manufactures from restricting people’s ability to use independent repair shops or do DIY repairs—such as when tractor companies block farmers from repairing their own tractors.”
Therefore, the US government seems to side with the consumers on the right to repair, granting them more power over the unfair practices that manufactures have been subjecting them to for decades.
But, will the FTC have the resources to force the hand of hesitant manufacturers? Will the new legislation have unforeseen consequences on technological innovation? And will opening up the door to independent repair shops expose consumers to gouging and unfair business practices?
The answers to those questions are still anyone’s guess. But for now, right to repair advocates have taken a massive step towards empowering consumers.
Comments