10 ms·

The FTC Votes Unanimously to Enforce Right to Repair

626 points by donohoe 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
devwastaken 5y ago
"First, the Commission urges the public to submit complaints and provide other information to aid in greater enforcement of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and its implementing regulations. While current law does not provide for civil penalties or redress, the Commission will consider filing suit against violators of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act to seek appropriate injunctive relief." "Second, the Commission will scrutinize repair restrictions for violations of the antitrust laws. For example, certain repair restrictions may constitute tying arrangements or monopolistic practices—such as refusals to deal, exclusive dealing, or exclusionary design—that violate the Sherman Act.8 Violations of the Sherman Act also violate the prohibition on unfair methods of competition codified in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. " We've had these laws on the books for a long time. I'm not confident that they're going to be effectively applied, unless the FTC has significantly increased in size and capability recently.
sam345 5y ago
Yes, I don't see this doing much. There are no federal right to repair laws to enforce. And I think that's a good thing as burdening manufacturers with interpreting piles of regulations requiring a team of lawyers to figure out is a sure way to kill small manufacturing start-ups, create moats around big manufacturers that have the lawyers and resources to handle right to repair requirements, and kill innovation.
- wtallis 5y ago
  This looks like a completely generic anti-regulation comment. Have you given any consideration to what specific behaviors would likely be targeted by right to repair regulations, and how that overlaps with the business practices of start-ups and other small manufacturing companies? Small companies that can't afford lawyers to interpret federal regulations probably also can't afford lawyers to go after customers who don't choose to pay for the premium service plan, and probably also can't afford to devote engineering resources to developing their own hardware DRM systems.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  You are seeing it incorrectly. If I buy a thing and then it remains broken because the manufacturer made specific choices, they should be forced to give me my money back.
- rowanG077 5y ago
  It's really not that hard. You are wrongly assuming these regulations are complex and hard to implement. They are really not.
elil17 5y ago
Can anyone explain what the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act does to protect the right to repair?
- dataflow 5y ago
  I've heard it makes it illegal for vendors to void a warranty merely because you used it in an 'unauthorized' fashion. i.e. it puts the burden of proof on them to show that your modifications actually damaged the product. This protects peoples' right to repair by ensuring that they don't (effectively) get retaliated against through warranty invalidation when they get their products repaired by 'unauthorized' parties. I think the relevant clause might be 15 U.S.C. § 2304 (c) but I'm not sure: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2304 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2304 The enforcement of this act has been quite awful in the past, so I guess they're now planning to do a better job of it.
- nrp 5y ago
  The FTC themselves put up a highly readable overview of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for business that also provides insight on the consumer impact: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/bus... I captured some highlights from it earlier this year while crafting a warranty policy for a new product: FTC: In addition, it is permissible to disclaim warranty coverage for defects or damage caused by the use of parts or service you didn’t provide. Here is an example of a permissible provision in that circumstance: * Necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company. Damage caused to the AudioMundo Stereo System by you or any non-authorized third party, however, may void this warranty. FTC: There is one permissible modification of implied warranties, however. If you offer a "limited" written warranty, the law allows you to include a provision that restricts the duration of implied warranties to the duration of your limited warranty. For example, if you offer a two-year limited warranty, you can limit implied warranties to two years. However, if you offer a "full" written warranty, you cannot limit the duration of implied warranties. This matter is explained in Titling Written Warranties as "Full" or "Limited". FTC: The Act allows warranties to include a provision that requires customers to try to resolve warranty disputes by means of the informal dispute resolution mechanism before going to court. (This provision applies only to cases based upon the Magnuson-Moss Act.) If you include such a requirement in your warranty, your dispute resolution mechanism must meet the requirements stated in the FTC's Rule on Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures (the Dispute Resolution Rule). Briefly, the Rule requires that a mechanism must: FTC: The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act requires that every written warranty on a consumer product that costs more than $10 have a title that says the warranty is either "full" or "limited" (The Act calls these titles "designations.") The title is intended to provide consumers, at a glance, with a key to some of the important terms and conditions of a warranty. * You do not limit the duration of implied warranties. * You provide warranty service to anyone who owns the product during the warranty period. * You provide warranty service free of charge. * You provide, at the consumer's choice, either a replacement or a full refund if, after a reasonable number of tries, you are unable to repair the product. * You do not require consumers to perform any duty as a precondition for receiving service, except notifying you that service is needed, unless you can demonstrate that the duty is reasonable. * You are not required to make your entire warranty "full" or "limited" If the statements above are true about the coverage on only some parts of your product, or if the statements are true about the coverage during only one part of the warranty period, then your warranty is a multiple warranty that is part full and part limited. FTC: The warrantors who choose the online method to provide their warranty terms must supply in the product manual, or on the product or product packaging, the internet address where the consumer can review and obtain the specific product’s warranty terms, as well as the phone number, postal mailing address, or other reasonable non-internet based means for the consumer (or seller) to request a free copy of the warranty terms. FTC: The Guides advise that, regardless of the price of the product, advertising terms such as "satisfaction guaranteed" or "money back guarantee" should be used only if the advertiser is willing to provide full refunds to customers when, for any reason, they return the merchandise. * The Guides further advise that an ad mentioning a satisfaction guarantee or similar offer should inform consumers of any material conditions or limitations on the offer. For example, a restriction on the offer to a specific time period, such as 30 days, is a material condition that should be disclosed.
elliekelly 5y ago
See the section titled “What the Magnuson-Moss Act Does Not Require” of the FTC’s “Businessperson’s Guide to Federal Warranty Law”[1] to understand why this is not even close to “enforcing right to repair”. Aside from the fact that the FTC can’t enforce a right to repair law that doesn’t exist, the promise to enforce the Magnuson-Moss Act doesn’t even scratch the surface of what right to repair aims to accomplish. For example, farmers who have famously campaigned for right to repair for years (decades?) aren’t covered by the Act because their equipment is for commercial, not consumer, use. Edit: Even though I think it’s beyond ridiculous to paint this as “right to repair” I am absolutely going to report Microsoft’s Xbox to the FTC for their egregious Magnuson-Moss violations. Maybe that stupid sticker will finally disappear. [1]https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/bus...
- donmcronald 5y ago
  People have no idea how nasty serialization of parts is going to get if it isn't stopped by new legislation. You'll be lucky if you don't have to buy your socks and shoes from the same vendor in 2030 :-(
  - dataflow 5y ago
    The issue isn't merely the same vendor, but having to buy parts bundled together. Good luck replacing your hard drive/RAM/whatever separately from the rest of your machine without blessing from the manufacturer.
    - jandrese 5y ago
      Isn’t this already the case with Macs and their SSDs tied to the disk controller? Add in stacked memory being unreplaceable and impossible to upgrade. The upgrade path is to throw away the entire machine and buy a new one.
      - dataflow 5y ago
rubyist5eva 5y ago
Silly rabbit, you can't enforce laws or protect rights that don't exist.
- xs 5y ago
  Oh wonderful. So that means John Deere can drop all the lawsuits against farmers who try to repair their own tractors since farmers didn't break any law. Right?
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    Farmers don't have the right to compel John Deere to open their source code.
    - ffffwe3rq352y3 5y ago
      They totally have the right to yell and scream at John Deere all they want.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      Source code has been compelled in discovery in many, many lawsuits. Perhaps you've heard of Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc.? Or SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.?
      - rubyist5eva 5y ago
        Not even close to the same use of the word - coerce is probably a better term.
    - userbinator 5y ago
      JD doesn't necessarily need to open their source code, it just has to be legal for others to disassemble and analyse their software and publish the results --- just like you can do with practically every physical object you own.
      - deleted 5y ago
temp8964 5y ago
Let's say there is a right to repair and it gets perfectly enforced, doesn't this change the current business model of certain products which heavily relies on repair to profit? Wouldn't it just make those products more expensive to purchase?
- lukevp 5y ago
  Well, with automotive, the main profit center of dealerships is the service dept. the manufacturer and the dealer are different, and can adapt to the demand of each of the respective roles. More demand for cars but more self-repair means a bigger manufacturer and smaller/fewer dealerships, not that the product cost itself needs to change. I think similarly a company’s size if it’s based on selling support is based around the demand for that support plus the profitability that’s possible to sell it for before there is competition for 3rd parties to provide that support. Kinda like red hat, they made money off of support but anyone could support Linux or red hat systems, so there was a market force keeping them from charging too much for support because other vendors could undercut them.
- commoner 5y ago
  Not necessarily. If a device were repairable, users would be more likely to repair it when it breaks instead of replacing it with a new one. This reduces demand for new devices and pushes the price downward. On the other hand, a device that is repairable has a longer lifespan than the same device if it were not repairable. The longer lifespan adds utility and perceived value to the repairable device, which would increase demand and push the price upward. It's hard to say whether the net result would be a higher or lower price. It would depend on the product and the market.
  - lupire 5y ago
    > This reduces demand for new devices and pushes the price downward. That's not right. In the common case of a multivendor industry where production is not limited by resource constraints, reduced demand raises prices due to economy of scale.
    - 5y ago
inglor_cz 5y ago
I wonder if Right to Repair is going to cover creation of updated firmwares for abandoned products. Old firmwares are full of known and exploitable holes.
- bluGill 5y ago
  Will it also have a non-exception for bypassing pollution controls? For cars that seems to be what people who want to change the firmware are really trying to do in every case I've seen. (I'm not claiming all cases are trying this, just every one that I've dug into)
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I'm an auto enthusiast and have modified some of my cars over the years. All I'll admit to is that all my current cars meet all emissions standards to the best of my knowledge, but that may have been less true for cars I've owned in the past. I've never had the intention of bypassing a pollution control device. What's the point in that (coal rolling idiots aside)? What I have had is the intention to improve torque, power, sound, durability, or economy (what I actually care about) which sometimes has the inherent side-effect of changing the pollution profile to be different than what the manufacturer originally shipped. But to say that I'm "really trying to [bypass pollution controls]" is at least one step removed from the actual facts. I also think it's at least a little bit amusing that I can run a 65/66 Mustang with nothing more than a PCV valve (which is at least as much for my convenience in keeping the outside of the engine oil-free as it is for emissions), but in some states I can't put a cold air intake on a 2020 Honda.
    - vodkapump 5y ago
      He's probably refering to DPF (diesel particulate filter) deletes. I'm pretty sure that is what just about 95% of customers at tune shops in Europe are in there for, bypassing or deleting DPF so they don't have to deal with all the costs around it. (and the annoyances of software messing with how your car drives to "renew" the DPF randomly) I know someone that runs a tune shop in my small town and I'd say it is about 99.99% of his customers that are in for a DPF delete or bypass.
koilke 5y ago
https://archive.ph/O7sgl https://archive.ph/O7sgl
bharathlohray 5y ago
Unless the law mandates the release of a service manual & software, the law is lip service. I don't mind if the service manual & software are released after a few years. But they need to be proofed against companies going belly up - like file compileable & modifiable code with FCC FTC or similar agencies to be released after n years.
neycoda 5y ago
Yay!

626 points by donohoe 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

devwastaken 5y ago

"First, the Commission urges the public to submit complaints and provide other information to aid in greater enforcement of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and its implementing regulations. While current law does not provide for civil penalties or redress, the Commission will consider filing suit against violators of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act to seek appropriate injunctive relief." "Second, the Commission will scrutinize repair restrictions for violations of the antitrust laws. For example, certain repair restrictions may constitute tying arrangements or monopolistic practices—such as refusals to deal, exclusive dealing, or exclusionary design—that violate the Sherman Act.8 Violations of the Sherman Act also violate the prohibition on unfair methods of competition codified in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. " We've had these laws on the books for a long time. I'm not confident that they're going to be effectively applied, unless the FTC has significantly increased in size and capability recently.

sam345 5y ago

Yes, I don't see this doing much. There are no federal right to repair laws to enforce. And I think that's a good thing as burdening manufacturers with interpreting piles of regulations requiring a team of lawyers to figure out is a sure way to kill small manufacturing start-ups, create moats around big manufacturers that have the lawyers and resources to handle right to repair requirements, and kill innovation.

wtallis 5y ago
This looks like a completely generic anti-regulation comment. Have you given any consideration to what specific behaviors would likely be targeted by right to repair regulations, and how that overlaps with the business practices of start-ups and other small manufacturing companies? Small companies that can't afford lawyers to interpret federal regulations probably also can't afford lawyers to go after customers who don't choose to pay for the premium service plan, and probably also can't afford to devote engineering resources to developing their own hardware DRM systems.
R0b0t1 5y ago
You are seeing it incorrectly. If I buy a thing and then it remains broken because the manufacturer made specific choices, they should be forced to give me my money back.
rowanG077 5y ago
It's really not that hard. You are wrongly assuming these regulations are complex and hard to implement. They are really not.

elil17 5y ago

Can anyone explain what the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act does to protect the right to repair?

dataflow 5y ago
I've heard it makes it illegal for vendors to void a warranty merely because you used it in an 'unauthorized' fashion. i.e. it puts the burden of proof on them to show that your modifications actually damaged the product. This protects peoples' right to repair by ensuring that they don't (effectively) get retaliated against through warranty invalidation when they get their products repaired by 'unauthorized' parties. I think the relevant clause might be 15 U.S.C. § 2304 (c) but I'm not sure: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2304 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2304 The enforcement of this act has been quite awful in the past, so I guess they're now planning to do a better job of it.
nrp 5y ago
The FTC themselves put up a highly readable overview of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for business that also provides insight on the consumer impact: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/bus... I captured some highlights from it earlier this year while crafting a warranty policy for a new product: FTC: In addition, it is permissible to disclaim warranty coverage for defects or damage caused by the use of parts or service you didn’t provide. Here is an example of a permissible provision in that circumstance: * Necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company. Damage caused to the AudioMundo Stereo System by you or any non-authorized third party, however, may void this warranty. FTC: There is one permissible modification of implied warranties, however. If you offer a "limited" written warranty, the law allows you to include a provision that restricts the duration of implied warranties to the duration of your limited warranty. For example, if you offer a two-year limited warranty, you can limit implied warranties to two years. However, if you offer a "full" written warranty, you cannot limit the duration of implied warranties. This matter is explained in Titling Written Warranties as "Full" or "Limited". FTC: The Act allows warranties to include a provision that requires customers to try to resolve warranty disputes by means of the informal dispute resolution mechanism before going to court. (This provision applies only to cases based upon the Magnuson-Moss Act.) If you include such a requirement in your warranty, your dispute resolution mechanism must meet the requirements stated in the FTC's Rule on Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures (the Dispute Resolution Rule). Briefly, the Rule requires that a mechanism must: FTC: The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act requires that every written warranty on a consumer product that costs more than $10 have a title that says the warranty is either "full" or "limited" (The Act calls these titles "designations.") The title is intended to provide consumers, at a glance, with a key to some of the important terms and conditions of a warranty. * You do not limit the duration of implied warranties. * You provide warranty service to anyone who owns the product during the warranty period. * You provide warranty service free of charge. * You provide, at the consumer's choice, either a replacement or a full refund if, after a reasonable number of tries, you are unable to repair the product. * You do not require consumers to perform any duty as a precondition for receiving service, except notifying you that service is needed, unless you can demonstrate that the duty is reasonable. * You are not required to make your entire warranty "full" or "limited" If the statements above are true about the coverage on only some parts of your product, or if the statements are true about the coverage during only one part of the warranty period, then your warranty is a multiple warranty that is part full and part limited. FTC: The warrantors who choose the online method to provide their warranty terms must supply in the product manual, or on the product or product packaging, the internet address where the consumer can review and obtain the specific product’s warranty terms, as well as the phone number, postal mailing address, or other reasonable non-internet based means for the consumer (or seller) to request a free copy of the warranty terms. FTC: The Guides advise that, regardless of the price of the product, advertising terms such as "satisfaction guaranteed" or "money back guarantee" should be used only if the advertiser is willing to provide full refunds to customers when, for any reason, they return the merchandise. * The Guides further advise that an ad mentioning a satisfaction guarantee or similar offer should inform consumers of any material conditions or limitations on the offer. For example, a restriction on the offer to a specific time period, such as 30 days, is a material condition that should be disclosed.

elliekelly 5y ago

See the section titled “What the Magnuson-Moss Act Does Not Require” of the FTC’s “Businessperson’s Guide to Federal Warranty Law”[1] to understand why this is not even close to “enforcing right to repair”. Aside from the fact that the FTC can’t enforce a right to repair law that doesn’t exist, the promise to enforce the Magnuson-Moss Act doesn’t even scratch the surface of what right to repair aims to accomplish. For example, farmers who have famously campaigned for right to repair for years (decades?) aren’t covered by the Act because their equipment is for commercial, not consumer, use. Edit: Even though I think it’s beyond ridiculous to paint this as “right to repair” I am absolutely going to report Microsoft’s Xbox to the FTC for their egregious Magnuson-Moss violations. Maybe that stupid sticker will finally disappear. [1]https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/bus...

donmcronald 5y ago
People have no idea how nasty serialization of parts is going to get if it isn't stopped by new legislation. You'll be lucky if you don't have to buy your socks and shoes from the same vendor in 2030 :-(
- dataflow 5y ago
  The issue isn't merely the same vendor, but having to buy parts bundled together. Good luck replacing your hard drive/RAM/whatever separately from the rest of your machine without blessing from the manufacturer.
  - jandrese 5y ago
    Isn’t this already the case with Macs and their SSDs tied to the disk controller? Add in stacked memory being unreplaceable and impossible to upgrade. The upgrade path is to throw away the entire machine and buy a new one.
    - dataflow 5y ago

rubyist5eva 5y ago

Silly rabbit, you can't enforce laws or protect rights that don't exist.

xs 5y ago
Oh wonderful. So that means John Deere can drop all the lawsuits against farmers who try to repair their own tractors since farmers didn't break any law. Right?
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  Farmers don't have the right to compel John Deere to open their source code.
  - ffffwe3rq352y3 5y ago
    They totally have the right to yell and scream at John Deere all they want.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    Source code has been compelled in discovery in many, many lawsuits. Perhaps you've heard of Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc.? Or SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.?
    - rubyist5eva 5y ago
      Not even close to the same use of the word - coerce is probably a better term.
  - userbinator 5y ago
    JD doesn't necessarily need to open their source code, it just has to be legal for others to disassemble and analyse their software and publish the results --- just like you can do with practically every physical object you own.
    - deleted 5y ago

temp8964 5y ago

Let's say there is a right to repair and it gets perfectly enforced, doesn't this change the current business model of certain products which heavily relies on repair to profit? Wouldn't it just make those products more expensive to purchase?

lukevp 5y ago
Well, with automotive, the main profit center of dealerships is the service dept. the manufacturer and the dealer are different, and can adapt to the demand of each of the respective roles. More demand for cars but more self-repair means a bigger manufacturer and smaller/fewer dealerships, not that the product cost itself needs to change. I think similarly a company’s size if it’s based on selling support is based around the demand for that support plus the profitability that’s possible to sell it for before there is competition for 3rd parties to provide that support. Kinda like red hat, they made money off of support but anyone could support Linux or red hat systems, so there was a market force keeping them from charging too much for support because other vendors could undercut them.
commoner 5y ago
Not necessarily. If a device were repairable, users would be more likely to repair it when it breaks instead of replacing it with a new one. This reduces demand for new devices and pushes the price downward. On the other hand, a device that is repairable has a longer lifespan than the same device if it were not repairable. The longer lifespan adds utility and perceived value to the repairable device, which would increase demand and push the price upward. It's hard to say whether the net result would be a higher or lower price. It would depend on the product and the market.
- lupire 5y ago
  > This reduces demand for new devices and pushes the price downward. That's not right. In the common case of a multivendor industry where production is not limited by resource constraints, reduced demand raises prices due to economy of scale.
  - 5y ago

inglor_cz 5y ago

I wonder if Right to Repair is going to cover creation of updated firmwares for abandoned products. Old firmwares are full of known and exploitable holes.

bluGill 5y ago
Will it also have a non-exception for bypassing pollution controls? For cars that seems to be what people who want to change the firmware are really trying to do in every case I've seen. (I'm not claiming all cases are trying this, just every one that I've dug into)
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I'm an auto enthusiast and have modified some of my cars over the years. All I'll admit to is that all my current cars meet all emissions standards to the best of my knowledge, but that may have been less true for cars I've owned in the past. I've never had the intention of bypassing a pollution control device. What's the point in that (coal rolling idiots aside)? What I have had is the intention to improve torque, power, sound, durability, or economy (what I actually care about) which sometimes has the inherent side-effect of changing the pollution profile to be different than what the manufacturer originally shipped. But to say that I'm "really trying to [bypass pollution controls]" is at least one step removed from the actual facts. I also think it's at least a little bit amusing that I can run a 65/66 Mustang with nothing more than a PCV valve (which is at least as much for my convenience in keeping the outside of the engine oil-free as it is for emissions), but in some states I can't put a cold air intake on a 2020 Honda.
  - vodkapump 5y ago
    He's probably refering to DPF (diesel particulate filter) deletes. I'm pretty sure that is what just about 95% of customers at tune shops in Europe are in there for, bypassing or deleting DPF so they don't have to deal with all the costs around it. (and the annoyances of software messing with how your car drives to "renew" the DPF randomly) I know someone that runs a tune shop in my small town and I'd say it is about 99.99% of his customers that are in for a DPF delete or bypass.

koilke 5y ago

https://archive.ph/O7sgl https://archive.ph/O7sgl

bharathlohray 5y ago

Unless the law mandates the release of a service manual & software, the law is lip service. I don't mind if the service manual & software are released after a few years. But they need to be proofed against companies going belly up - like file compileable & modifiable code with FCC FTC or similar agencies to be released after n years.

neycoda 5y ago

Yay!