Because it pretty much never works, and consumers pay the price. It's also going to be near impossible to define well - unless you're just going to target John

Because it pretty much never works, and consumers pay the price. It's also going to be near impossible to define well - unless you're just going to target John Deere specifically, which also has historically been a bad idea. If the goal is some vague "easy to repair" mantra, then tons of things in an advanced economy are going to be hard to repair since technology gets more and more complex. Limiting future inventions to also include "easy to repair," under some complex definition, will limit some innovation. Car engines were once easy to repair, then we added all sorts of emissions control, making them harder, and then as computerized control systems turned out to provide massive benefits (lower gas use, more engine life, better control of timine, fuel injection, and ahost of other things), it again got harder to repair. And engines are simple. Should your internet browser or smart phone allow any neanderthal to consider it easy to repair? Or does an increasingly advanced and complex technological environment reasonably make things harder to repair, even while providing advances that are providing benefits to consumers? The role of govt is to make an environment where companies compete, and given that JD owns < 40% of the North American Ag Machinery market, it seems there are ample other choices. Economically, and historically, legislation effectively putting price floors or ceilings on goods (in this case price not as $, but as tech requirements and cutting into company ability to sell goods) pretty much every time comes back to bite consumers. This is econ 101.