13 ms·

Right to Repair laws have now been proposed in all U.S. states

502 points by LorenDB 2y ago

deadbabe 2y ago
Can someone explain why this isn’t the big win we think it is?
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  I think it is. But what company is going to advertise this on times square?
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Because a bill was introduced does not mean that it will pass nor be signed into law.
- techjamie 2y ago
  It's better than nothing. But introduced and passed are different things. An introduced bill may never actually become law. The upside is that this shows how popular RtR is, and there's a good chance at least several states may implement their laws. At some point, even if it isn't universal, all it takes is enough states to force manufacturers to support independent repair by default.
  - abeppu 2y ago
    In particular it's depressing that the map near the top of the article shows that for a majority of states, the introduction of the bill is "historical", as in neither passed, active or current, but (IIUC) it was floated in some prior legislative session, but it's not even under consideration in the present session.
  - immibis 2y ago
    They could go for the Apple-in-Europe model, where you have the right to repair only if your geolocation detects you being in a state where it's mandatory for you to have that right, otherwise it still locks you out.
- advisedwang 2y ago
  Because this just means a single legislator has sponsored a bill. It doesn't mean it has pass, nor does it it even mean it is likely to pass. It's actual laws getting passed that matter. Of course this IS a milestone to getting a law passed, and shows that the campaign is getting legislators' notice etc. So it is still good.
- recycledmatt 2y ago
  Lawyers and lobbyists paid lots of money to figure out how to subvert stuff. OEMs may work to make stuff less consumer repairable/upgradeable to force folks to use their repair services that need stuff like bga reballing or soldering. Bye bye upgradable ram slots! Things like software locks and restrictions in the name of ‘security’ will lock stuff down and make repair harder (see Apple’s part pairing)
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > Things like software locks and restrictions in the name of ‘security’ will lock stuff down and make repair harder (see Apple’s part pairing) Unfortunately, I don't see an alternative to that given how juicy targets even locked phones were for "chop shops" before Apple introduced parts pairing. People were mugged left and right for their phones. (Obviously the solution would be to tackle poverty, drug abuse and mental health issues, but that is even more unrealistic)
    - recycledmatt 2y ago
      Yes - but they paint with a big brush. Unfortunately legitimate repair and reuse is caught in the mix and made much more difficult.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      > People were mugged left and right for their phones. The solution to theft shouldn't be taking away your right to own things in the first place.
  - WediBlino 2y ago
    Wait a bit and you'll see what Tim Cook's donation to the inauguration fund bought him.
    - Frederation 2y ago
      A lump of coal if he's lucky
- seanw444 2y ago
  Even the "active and passed" states (particularly New York) passed a neutered version of right-to-repair that barely does anything. I only understand vaguely, but Louis Rossman has been outspoken about the progress of NY right-to-repair in particular, and how it flopped hard. As much as right-to-repair seems like a party line issue, even many of the Democrats have thus far been all talk and no substance.
  - AaronM 2y ago
    Because the large corporations have virtually unlimited power to water down bills with campaign contributions. It takes very little to money to sway a representative federally. How much less do you think it takes to sway a state level candidate? Spending cash on candidates to prevent bills like this is likely a rounding error on their yearly budget.
- glenstein 2y ago
  >Can someone explain why this isn’t the big win we think it is? I mean, there is the psychological phenomenon known as the Just World Hypothesis. When presented with something that's simply bad, or simply good, people are skeptical and tempted to search for the counterbalancing element, treating it like a trick question even if it's not. And so it can be hard to accept it simply is good. But that doesn't have to be the end of the conversation because that impulse can be channeled productively just by changing the baseline. Right to repair, I would think, simply is good, but since we need a bad thing, we can talk about the long road ahead to full implementation, or the effort necessary to overcome cultural inertia, as well as status quo extremism in our institutions. But I think the right to repair itself is a good thing.
  - weaksauce 2y ago
    i’m more for right to repair than not but i can see unintended consequences of things like iphones being bulkier and heavier if modular components like batteries are required in the broadest reach of the concept. these bills may be narrower and probably are. that’s the ultimate question though is how far the balance should be.
    - trinsic2 2y ago
      Im pretty sure thats a falsity. Making tech repair friendly doesnt really add to the form factor of a device if you know how to design correctly, even with phones. I remember that phone[0] that google killed and that was back in 2013? Since then other projects have sprung up to tackle this. There are links at the bottom of the page. [0]: https://www.onearmy.earth/project/phonebloks https://www.onearmy.earth/project/phonebloks
      - glenstein 2y ago
        I wondered if that Google modular phone ended up inspiring the Moto Z during the time Google owned Motorola. To your point, I suspect the same, I'm trying to think of adverse consequences. The closest I can think of is something akin to the battery example, but in a different way. Maybe you're more comfortable putting high performing dangerous-to-handle components in a phone if you can seal it shut. Maybe component-by-component tech support accountability to a tech repair community is a new set of burdens they don't want to have. I suppose the latter feels plausible, but the possible impact on components seems less convincing.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  One drawback to consumer-rights laws is that we as consumers end up with less access to cool stuff. Some companies have chosen to stop selling into the B2C market altogether, to avoid incurring expenses and liabilities associated with conforming to right-to-repair and other pro-consumer legislation. Rohde & Schwarz and Keysight come to mind. That is bullshit, of course -- just an excuse for companies to dodge basic business responsibilities, and a blatant failure on their part to acknowledge why consumers felt this legislation was needed in the first place. But it is certainly true that there are short-term drawbacks.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    Interesting! I think you're probably onto something there. Agree it's more of an excuse than a reason, but still there will be low margin products that have to go that direction due to the math. I tend to think B2C is who needs the most protection from the gov since C are relatively powerless, whereas B2B tends to be more balanced, but the more I think about it the more I think that perhaps we're overlooking an important area. Nevertheless I think for now we need to focus on B2C and worry about B2B later. Can't spread ourselves too thin.
  - alnwlsn 2y ago
    To be fair, Rohde & Schwarz and Keysight aren't names I'd normally associate with consumer devices. On the other hand, neither are Mcdonands' ice cream machines.
- bickfordb 2y ago
  It is a big win, but in the Oregon version at least it excludes large sectors like vehicles which is obviously a big expense to most US consumers. Hopefully it will continue to be extended.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Challenges from Alliance for Automotive Innovation mounting also though: Massachusetts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43021108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43021108 Maine https://pirg.org/articles/automakers-sue-maine-to-block-repair-data-law/ https://pirg.org/articles/automakers-sue-maine-to-block-repa...
- trinsic2 2y ago
  Regarding the Maine aricle: >The association of automakers also alleges that because the “independent entity” has not created a “standardized platform,” they have no way to securely share vehicle data. They are asking the court to declare the law unenforceable until the independent entity has undertaken its obligations. That sounds understandable. Just until the independent entity gets their act together.
fluidcruft 2y ago
I really have trouble understanding that map. What does "Active and Passed" mean? I assumed it meant they had passed laws and updates in the works, but those States are excluded from the praise over the "Passed" States. I presume "Historical" means "Failed to pass" and no current activity to get a law passed.
- seanw444 2y ago
  Maybe they're excluded because they've already been praised, and they're focused on the new states joining in? I assume "active and passed" means that they not only passed the laws, but they are currently in effect. A law being passed doesn't necessarily put it into immediate effect.
  - fluidcruft 2y ago
    I did consider that interpretation, but by "praise" I simply mean that the article says "Five states (New York, California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado) have passed electronics Right to Repair legislation" and that "the remaining states are working hard to restore repair competition" which is also overblown since so many of the States are merely "Historical" with nothing going on.
- antasvara 2y ago
  Based on what I know about one of the states in question, I'm thinking that "Active and Passed" means they have both a passed bill and an active bill that isn't passed. Though I'd think they'd call that "Passed and Current" to match their other nomenclature.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  You are correct, something is not in sync with that map and their description. That is, their description says that five states have passed legislation: New York, California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado. But in the "Passed" and "Active and Passed" categories on the map, it includes those 5 states plus Massachusetts. FWIW, all of the searching I could find about Right to Repair laws in Massachusetts focused solely on vehicle right to repair (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Massachusetts_Question_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Massachusetts_Question_1), not on electronic devices generally, so maybe that's why Massachusetts was not included in the description (which specifically said "passed electronics right to repair legislation") but was categorized on the map.
seanw444 2y ago
As someone who frequently disagrees with the overwhelming majority political opinion on this site, this is one thing I wish all states could find common ground on. The amount of waste and value extraction that corporations force on us, when we could simply repair and maintain what we already have, is downright evil.
- mindslight 2y ago
  But there isn't really an "overwhelming majority political opinion" on this site? Hence the long threads of comments of people disagreeing on the merits of ideas. Unless you're referring to the anti-trump sentiment, which is more pan-political as there are obviously a whole bunch of Americans that don't want to see our country destroyed regardless of how we wish it might be reformed.
  - cooper_ganglia 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - mindslight 2y ago
      Sure, simplistic populism plays out in wider society where short quips and repetition matter more than coherent ideas. That doesn't really change what I said though. (For context, because I know the tendency is to pigeonhole commenters - I'm a libertarian who shares many of the frustrations driving the destructive fervor)
    - tehjoker 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - tredre3 2y ago
        If you're not American it's easy to lose track but the other option was Kamala Harris, not Biden.
        2y ago
layer8 2y ago
Note that “introduced” refers to bills being filed. Only five states have actually passed RtR laws yet.
- esafak 2y ago
  Proposed would have been more accurate, for the average person.
  - dang 2y ago
    Wow, good catch. I've s/introduced/proposed/ the title above. Thanks to both of you!
- whartung 2y ago
  And those that have passed, are not necessarily universal. For example, Californias (I think) only applies to electronics, not cars. The John Deere "thing" is still a "thing" in California. The CA law is mostly about iPhones. I don't know if they have other bills and what not in play to address other industries.
amelius 2y ago
Does this mean I have the right to repair my Tesla, and how long until Musk thinks this is a bad idea.
gs17 2y ago
If anyone from The Repair Association is reading, there are a bunch of issues with the website. It sends me to https://tennessee.repair.org/ https://tennessee.repair.org/ , which has a broken iframe for the "Make your voice heard" section. Fortunately the "Tell your repair story" section seems to also handle contacting representatives, except it auto-fills to what seems to be the wrong bill. It tells them I want them to support SB0077, which "As introduced, extends the medical cannabis commission to June 30, 2029" (I don't know enough about it to know if I actually do support this or not), instead of SB0499, which "As introduced, enacts the "Agricultural Right to Repair Act." The header of the page has correct bills for last year.
- kwiens 2y ago
  Thanks for the feedback! Fellow Tennessean here so I'm a bit embarrassed. I fixed the Make your voice heard embed (we removed a CallPower integration). I'm working on fixing the letter now. We built this tech when having five or six states with bills was exciting. Now, 50 states times two chambers times sometimes two or three bills has become a whole thing to keep track of it all. Keeping all of these bills up to date across 50 states that change every year is quite the project. It's a pretty manual process right now, alas. I'd love to automate it. Everyone else: please thread any bill year mismatch / other issues you find here, and I'll fix them!
  - gs17 2y ago
    I think there's still a mismatch for TN, it looks like SB0499/HB0432 is the version of the bill for the current legislative session (the pre-filled subject line already mentions "H432"). https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0499 https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillN... https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0432 https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillN... I don't know how your site's infrastructure works, but would it be possible to have some way we could submit something like a pull request to contribute easier? It would be no trouble for me if it made it easier for you.
ok123456 2y ago
Car manufacturers trying to lock down their systems turned the tide on this issue. Tell someone their $500 gadget is disposable; most people will be mildly frustrated. Tell someone that their $70,000 vehicle, on which they still have years of payments to make, is disposable or unrepairable by their usual mechanic; most people will feel more than just frustrated.
- freedomben 2y ago
  I want to think you're right, but most of the activation I've seen on RtR is from people who are mechanics and others whose livelihoods are threatened by this (like farmers). Most consumers (at least in my small sample of anecdata) don't seem to care at all for whatever reason. The ones who do are a small enough group to be safely ignored.
  - sudoshred 2y ago
    On the surface that makes sense. From a consumer perspective lack of RtR just indicates the consumer needs to spend elsewhere if it becomes a concern.
    - octorian 2y ago
      This is an easy dodge. The problem is that when lack of repairability becomes the norm, the consumer no longer has that choice. Or they have to severely compromise their market choices in the search for repairable products. And wanting repairable products is something most consumers don't even think about at time of purchase. Its something that comes further down the line, when the purchase decision has already been made.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > wanting repairable products is something most consumers don't even think about at time of purchase This is the core of the problem. The coalition pushing for these laws doesn’t include most consumers. Absent an expensive ad push, I don’t see that changing. Takeaway: make hay where the sun shines. Focus on farming states and those with lots of dealerships and repair shops. Maybe put an anti-Musk / anti-Tesla angle on it in blue states.
noobermin 2y ago
[flagged]
42772827 2y ago
I wonder if we’ll see “compliance devices” like we saw compliance cars in California. That is, highly modular, repairable devices available to consumers inclined that way, “offsetting” some of the other devices companies like Apple make
swayvil 2y ago
This is morally obvious. We only have a law about it because somebody's feeling greedy or squeezed. Law is a maximally complex representation of reality manifested by anxiety.
- jjtheblunt 2y ago
  that last sentence is great.
smashah 2y ago
Right to Repair should extend to software also. Just the same way someone can make an accessory for a tractor without permission from the tractor company, developers should be able to make tools for software/accounts without the express permission of the megacorp behind it without needing to worry about legal threats.
oblio 2y ago
For comparison: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-protection-law/directive-repair-goods_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-protecti... https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240419IPR20590/right-to-repair-making-repair-easier-and-more-appealing-to-consumers https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240419IP... https://repair.eu/ https://repair.eu/ It's not perfect (see the last link for details), but it's a great start. Also, if you have the time, read the actual directive. It's fairly readable as far as laws go. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024L1799 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... - see Article 5. Also the FAQ: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/2d443b31-dc2a-4e54-a9ec-5fbb61c895e9_en?filename=2024_07_18_QA_Right2repair_FINAL.pdf https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/2d443b31-dc2a... Also there's an entire directive for batteries: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj Article 11 is the one that's probably most interesting to people here, the reason why we are now starting to see easily removable batteries in mobile devices, again. Actually "easier to remove", they're definitely not as easy to remove as the Nokia 5110 batteries :-p
Yhippa 2y ago
Who is most likely to be against this? NADA most of all maybe? They seem to be the most anti-consumer and (rightfully to them) propping up their member dealers.
cadamsdotcom 2y ago
Pretty clearly this is a good idea, but even the best ideas need champions to get up. Thanks iFixit for championing this cause for so long. The rest of the world will follow these states’ lead.
dataflow 2y ago
Don't get your hopes up just because they have something they call right-to-repair legislation. It doesn't imply a practical ability to get repairs done. That requires e.g. parts availability, schematics, etc., way behind what legislation I've heard of requires.
wanderingmind 2y ago
I don't like being pedantic, but there is a fundamental difference between bill and law. It takes a few people in legislature to introduce a bill but takes majority to create a law with the executive ascent. The bills have been introduced in 50 states, only 5 have legislated these bills into laws.
xorvoid 2y ago
This is something I believe in. How can one get more involved in this? (Beyond donating)
froggertoaster 2y ago
Louis Rossmann, we speak your name!
pabs3 2y ago
Wonder when we will get software right to repair laws.
BrenBarn 2y ago
The issue is not just the passage of laws, it is enforcement. Unless the penalties are ruinous, corporations will flout the laws and use legal trickery to skirt them.
hilbert42 2y ago
'Right-to-Repair' covers a broad spectrum of issues and it makes sense to consider them separately as how we deal with them will vary in each case. Clearly it's not possible to cover every aspect as that's worthy of a large book so I'll just highlight few issues. First, it's worth looking at how we reached this this point and why Right-to-Repair has become such a big deal in recent years. For younger generations it may come as a surprise to learn that 50 or so years ago the very concept or notion of one's right to repair one's equipment would have been very foreign to the average person. Consumers would have expected their appliances to be both durable and long-lasting and capable of being repaired. Back then, just about every appliance from a toaster to a television set was repairable and manufacturers had service departments where their products could be returned for repairs. Alternatively, owners and independent repairers could buy spare parts and service manuals from these service outlets. In fact, so ingrained were notions about repairs and service that no one would have given even a second thought that in future they might be discontinued. In hindsight, I think blindness to the fact that things might change is why so few of us saw change coming until it was upon us. Anyway, that was the normal situation until somewhere around the mid 1970s - early '80s when things changed drastically for the worse. Why the change? In the decades since then there has been a huge shift in manufacturing and the economics of manufacturing. More than ever the overwhelming issue nowadays in manufacturing is profit, it has become the principal driving force and raison d'être for manufacturers' existence. No doubt, profit has always been a driving force but in the past it was tempered by other considerations, companies often built their reputations on the quality and reliability of their products and that those who ran them often had high manufacturing standards that they wanted to uphold. In past decades people who ran manufacturing companies were more likely to be their founders—often inventors and or engineers—and they had a vested—intellectual—interest in their products and by virtue of the fact they required their companies to produce good products that consumers would appreciate. From about 1980s the economic environment in which businesses found themselves changed dramatically, manufacturing thus changed to adapt. Free trade, reduced tariffs, offshore manufacturing, family companies being absorbed into multinationals, change in investment practices and so on meant that the utility and quality of products was often deprecated in favor of profits. With the changes founders and engineers ended up having much less say and influence over production than previously. Now shareholders and accountants ran these companies and their CEOs were no longer engineers but those with MBA degrees. Of course, that's only part of the story, computers and IP became a big deal during this time and was very influential in rolling product info back into the proprietary realms of companies. Nowadays, information about products that companies once willingly placed in the public domain for the benefit of their customers such as circuit diagrams and maintenance and repair documentation, etc. has almost dried up completely. Many well-known and highly respected companies succumbed to these economic changes. Had I time I could give many examples but HP and Sony are two egregious cases that immediately come to mind. Probably the quintessential example of where engineering management has given way to profit and the greed of investors is that of Boeing. The 747 was first designed and built 50+ years ago when Boeing was an engineering company run by engineers, nowadays investors and accountants run the company and is product is the 737-MAX. Also, these changes have brought old nefarious manufacturing practices to the fore. Whilst the notion of planned obsolescence has been around for well over a century modern business practice has brought it to new heights. Products are now designed with less durability and have much shorter lives than in the past. An example I like to give is that several years ago I bought three plastic buckets at the supermarket and the plastic handle fell off one before I got it home and not much later the handles fell off the other two when in use. Compare them with an old beaten-up and dented hot-dipped galvanized bucket we've inherited from my grandmother that was made sometime around the mid 1920s. It's somewhat the worse for wear but it's still functional. Furthermore, it still has its handle and it's not even rusty. Here, durability has given way to profit, planned obsolescence ensures that manufacturers sell more. Then there's the serious problem of plastic pollution. And that's just for starters. It seems to me there's a simple solution to all this but instigating it would be very difficult as manufacturers would fight it every inch of the way. That is to tax products that are deliberately designed without durability and longevity in mind. A durability tax would provide manufacturers with a financial incentive to make better products. Taxes also have the advantage that they can be fine-tuned until they become effective. A durability/longevity tax would be not only just applicable to buckets but also smartphones and such. For example, phones without the facility for users to change batteries easily would fall into this category and be subject to the tax. A similar 'utility' tax would apply where manufacturers deliberately depreciate a product's functional utility in favor of profit. Often that could be difficult to define but let me give you an example based on the definition and modus operandi of a device. Again, the classic example is the smartphone. First, we should not lose sight of the fact that a phone is primarily a telecommunications device licensed and tightly regulated under various telecommunications laws. In recent years, phone manufacturers have deliberately killed the FM radio facility in many smartphones to encourage streaming which is more profitable. FM does not stop streaming, so why should it be removed when it serves an important purpose in times of emergency? During floods, fires, earthquakes etc. when WiFi and cellular services could easily be out of operation FM is very capable of supplying alternative sources of emergency information. If governments acted responsibly then they ought to deem life and safety as being more important than profits, thus to encourage (rather than mandate) manufacturers to incorporate FM reception on their phones they could levy a utility tax on phones that do not have FM reception. BTW, an almost identical argument is already being played out in the US over AM band reception in car radios. EV manufacturers want to phase out AM on grounds it's hard to reduce interference in EVs whereas the FCC has stated it's essential in times of national emergency. Incidentally, where I live the national broadcaster assumes the responsibility of broadcasting emergency information on the assumption that smartphone owners may no longer have access to WiFi or cellular networks. At first thought much of that may seem outside the scope of the basic Right-to-Repair laws but on consideration it's not. Tied up with durability/longevity are related issues such as fitness for purpose, product functionality, minimizing e-waste and so on. When it comes to considering these matters this example just shows that we've barely scratched the surface. That Right-to-Repair legislation is being widely enacted is no doubt excellent news. That said, the manufacturing lobby is extremely powerful so we need to fear that laws may be watered down to the point of being ineffective. What's needed is a cultural shift by manufacturers back to those of earlier times. However, given the nature of their cultural shift of recent decades, we should not expect an easy ride going forth. Trouble is—as we've all too often seen—that in democracies where companies have undue power and influence it is very difficult to get effective law enacted.

502 points by LorenDB 2y ago

deadbabe 2y ago

Can someone explain why this isn’t the big win we think it is?

tossandthrow 2y ago
I think it is. But what company is going to advertise this on times square?
- dylan604 2y ago
  Because a bill was introduced does not mean that it will pass nor be signed into law.
techjamie 2y ago
It's better than nothing. But introduced and passed are different things. An introduced bill may never actually become law. The upside is that this shows how popular RtR is, and there's a good chance at least several states may implement their laws. At some point, even if it isn't universal, all it takes is enough states to force manufacturers to support independent repair by default.
- abeppu 2y ago
  In particular it's depressing that the map near the top of the article shows that for a majority of states, the introduction of the bill is "historical", as in neither passed, active or current, but (IIUC) it was floated in some prior legislative session, but it's not even under consideration in the present session.
- immibis 2y ago
  They could go for the Apple-in-Europe model, where you have the right to repair only if your geolocation detects you being in a state where it's mandatory for you to have that right, otherwise it still locks you out.
advisedwang 2y ago
Because this just means a single legislator has sponsored a bill. It doesn't mean it has pass, nor does it it even mean it is likely to pass. It's actual laws getting passed that matter. Of course this IS a milestone to getting a law passed, and shows that the campaign is getting legislators' notice etc. So it is still good.
recycledmatt 2y ago
Lawyers and lobbyists paid lots of money to figure out how to subvert stuff. OEMs may work to make stuff less consumer repairable/upgradeable to force folks to use their repair services that need stuff like bga reballing or soldering. Bye bye upgradable ram slots! Things like software locks and restrictions in the name of ‘security’ will lock stuff down and make repair harder (see Apple’s part pairing)
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > Things like software locks and restrictions in the name of ‘security’ will lock stuff down and make repair harder (see Apple’s part pairing) Unfortunately, I don't see an alternative to that given how juicy targets even locked phones were for "chop shops" before Apple introduced parts pairing. People were mugged left and right for their phones. (Obviously the solution would be to tackle poverty, drug abuse and mental health issues, but that is even more unrealistic)
  - recycledmatt 2y ago
    Yes - but they paint with a big brush. Unfortunately legitimate repair and reuse is caught in the mix and made much more difficult.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > People were mugged left and right for their phones. The solution to theft shouldn't be taking away your right to own things in the first place.
- WediBlino 2y ago
  Wait a bit and you'll see what Tim Cook's donation to the inauguration fund bought him.
  - Frederation 2y ago
    A lump of coal if he's lucky
seanw444 2y ago
Even the "active and passed" states (particularly New York) passed a neutered version of right-to-repair that barely does anything. I only understand vaguely, but Louis Rossman has been outspoken about the progress of NY right-to-repair in particular, and how it flopped hard. As much as right-to-repair seems like a party line issue, even many of the Democrats have thus far been all talk and no substance.
- AaronM 2y ago
  Because the large corporations have virtually unlimited power to water down bills with campaign contributions. It takes very little to money to sway a representative federally. How much less do you think it takes to sway a state level candidate? Spending cash on candidates to prevent bills like this is likely a rounding error on their yearly budget.
glenstein 2y ago
>Can someone explain why this isn’t the big win we think it is? I mean, there is the psychological phenomenon known as the Just World Hypothesis. When presented with something that's simply bad, or simply good, people are skeptical and tempted to search for the counterbalancing element, treating it like a trick question even if it's not. And so it can be hard to accept it simply is good. But that doesn't have to be the end of the conversation because that impulse can be channeled productively just by changing the baseline. Right to repair, I would think, simply is good, but since we need a bad thing, we can talk about the long road ahead to full implementation, or the effort necessary to overcome cultural inertia, as well as status quo extremism in our institutions. But I think the right to repair itself is a good thing.
- weaksauce 2y ago
  i’m more for right to repair than not but i can see unintended consequences of things like iphones being bulkier and heavier if modular components like batteries are required in the broadest reach of the concept. these bills may be narrower and probably are. that’s the ultimate question though is how far the balance should be.
  - trinsic2 2y ago
    Im pretty sure thats a falsity. Making tech repair friendly doesnt really add to the form factor of a device if you know how to design correctly, even with phones. I remember that phone[0] that google killed and that was back in 2013? Since then other projects have sprung up to tackle this. There are links at the bottom of the page. [0]: https://www.onearmy.earth/project/phonebloks https://www.onearmy.earth/project/phonebloks
    - glenstein 2y ago
      I wondered if that Google modular phone ended up inspiring the Moto Z during the time Google owned Motorola. To your point, I suspect the same, I'm trying to think of adverse consequences. The closest I can think of is something akin to the battery example, but in a different way. Maybe you're more comfortable putting high performing dangerous-to-handle components in a phone if you can seal it shut. Maybe component-by-component tech support accountability to a tech repair community is a new set of burdens they don't want to have. I suppose the latter feels plausible, but the possible impact on components seems less convincing.
CamperBob2 2y ago
One drawback to consumer-rights laws is that we as consumers end up with less access to cool stuff. Some companies have chosen to stop selling into the B2C market altogether, to avoid incurring expenses and liabilities associated with conforming to right-to-repair and other pro-consumer legislation. Rohde & Schwarz and Keysight come to mind. That is bullshit, of course -- just an excuse for companies to dodge basic business responsibilities, and a blatant failure on their part to acknowledge why consumers felt this legislation was needed in the first place. But it is certainly true that there are short-term drawbacks.
- freedomben 2y ago
  Interesting! I think you're probably onto something there. Agree it's more of an excuse than a reason, but still there will be low margin products that have to go that direction due to the math. I tend to think B2C is who needs the most protection from the gov since C are relatively powerless, whereas B2B tends to be more balanced, but the more I think about it the more I think that perhaps we're overlooking an important area. Nevertheless I think for now we need to focus on B2C and worry about B2B later. Can't spread ourselves too thin.
- alnwlsn 2y ago
  To be fair, Rohde & Schwarz and Keysight aren't names I'd normally associate with consumer devices. On the other hand, neither are Mcdonands' ice cream machines.
bickfordb 2y ago
It is a big win, but in the Oregon version at least it excludes large sectors like vehicles which is obviously a big expense to most US consumers. Hopefully it will continue to be extended.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

Challenges from Alliance for Automotive Innovation mounting also though: Massachusetts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43021108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43021108 Maine https://pirg.org/articles/automakers-sue-maine-to-block-repair-data-law/ https://pirg.org/articles/automakers-sue-maine-to-block-repa...

trinsic2 2y ago
Regarding the Maine aricle: >The association of automakers also alleges that because the “independent entity” has not created a “standardized platform,” they have no way to securely share vehicle data. They are asking the court to declare the law unenforceable until the independent entity has undertaken its obligations. That sounds understandable. Just until the independent entity gets their act together.

fluidcruft 2y ago

I really have trouble understanding that map. What does "Active and Passed" mean? I assumed it meant they had passed laws and updates in the works, but those States are excluded from the praise over the "Passed" States. I presume "Historical" means "Failed to pass" and no current activity to get a law passed.

seanw444 2y ago
Maybe they're excluded because they've already been praised, and they're focused on the new states joining in? I assume "active and passed" means that they not only passed the laws, but they are currently in effect. A law being passed doesn't necessarily put it into immediate effect.
- fluidcruft 2y ago
  I did consider that interpretation, but by "praise" I simply mean that the article says "Five states (New York, California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado) have passed electronics Right to Repair legislation" and that "the remaining states are working hard to restore repair competition" which is also overblown since so many of the States are merely "Historical" with nothing going on.
antasvara 2y ago
Based on what I know about one of the states in question, I'm thinking that "Active and Passed" means they have both a passed bill and an active bill that isn't passed. Though I'd think they'd call that "Passed and Current" to match their other nomenclature.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
You are correct, something is not in sync with that map and their description. That is, their description says that five states have passed legislation: New York, California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado. But in the "Passed" and "Active and Passed" categories on the map, it includes those 5 states plus Massachusetts. FWIW, all of the searching I could find about Right to Repair laws in Massachusetts focused solely on vehicle right to repair (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Massachusetts_Question_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Massachusetts_Question_1), not on electronic devices generally, so maybe that's why Massachusetts was not included in the description (which specifically said "passed electronics right to repair legislation") but was categorized on the map.

seanw444 2y ago

As someone who frequently disagrees with the overwhelming majority political opinion on this site, this is one thing I wish all states could find common ground on. The amount of waste and value extraction that corporations force on us, when we could simply repair and maintain what we already have, is downright evil.

mindslight 2y ago
But there isn't really an "overwhelming majority political opinion" on this site? Hence the long threads of comments of people disagreeing on the merits of ideas. Unless you're referring to the anti-trump sentiment, which is more pan-political as there are obviously a whole bunch of Americans that don't want to see our country destroyed regardless of how we wish it might be reformed.
- cooper_ganglia 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mindslight 2y ago
    Sure, simplistic populism plays out in wider society where short quips and repetition matter more than coherent ideas. That doesn't really change what I said though. (For context, because I know the tendency is to pigeonhole commenters - I'm a libertarian who shares many of the frustrations driving the destructive fervor)
  - tehjoker 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tredre3 2y ago
      If you're not American it's easy to lose track but the other option was Kamala Harris, not Biden.
      - 2y ago

layer8 2y ago

Note that “introduced” refers to bills being filed. Only five states have actually passed RtR laws yet.

esafak 2y ago
Proposed would have been more accurate, for the average person.
- dang 2y ago
  Wow, good catch. I've s/introduced/proposed/ the title above. Thanks to both of you!
whartung 2y ago
And those that have passed, are not necessarily universal. For example, Californias (I think) only applies to electronics, not cars. The John Deere "thing" is still a "thing" in California. The CA law is mostly about iPhones. I don't know if they have other bills and what not in play to address other industries.

amelius 2y ago

Does this mean I have the right to repair my Tesla, and how long until Musk thinks this is a bad idea.

gs17 2y ago

If anyone from The Repair Association is reading, there are a bunch of issues with the website. It sends me to https://tennessee.repair.org/ https://tennessee.repair.org/ , which has a broken iframe for the "Make your voice heard" section. Fortunately the "Tell your repair story" section seems to also handle contacting representatives, except it auto-fills to what seems to be the wrong bill. It tells them I want them to support SB0077, which "As introduced, extends the medical cannabis commission to June 30, 2029" (I don't know enough about it to know if I actually do support this or not), instead of SB0499, which "As introduced, enacts the "Agricultural Right to Repair Act." The header of the page has correct bills for last year.

kwiens 2y ago
Thanks for the feedback! Fellow Tennessean here so I'm a bit embarrassed. I fixed the Make your voice heard embed (we removed a CallPower integration). I'm working on fixing the letter now. We built this tech when having five or six states with bills was exciting. Now, 50 states times two chambers times sometimes two or three bills has become a whole thing to keep track of it all. Keeping all of these bills up to date across 50 states that change every year is quite the project. It's a pretty manual process right now, alas. I'd love to automate it. Everyone else: please thread any bill year mismatch / other issues you find here, and I'll fix them!
- gs17 2y ago
  I think there's still a mismatch for TN, it looks like SB0499/HB0432 is the version of the bill for the current legislative session (the pre-filled subject line already mentions "H432"). https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0499 https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillN... https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0432 https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillN... I don't know how your site's infrastructure works, but would it be possible to have some way we could submit something like a pull request to contribute easier? It would be no trouble for me if it made it easier for you.

ok123456 2y ago

Car manufacturers trying to lock down their systems turned the tide on this issue. Tell someone their $500 gadget is disposable; most people will be mildly frustrated. Tell someone that their $70,000 vehicle, on which they still have years of payments to make, is disposable or unrepairable by their usual mechanic; most people will feel more than just frustrated.

freedomben 2y ago
I want to think you're right, but most of the activation I've seen on RtR is from people who are mechanics and others whose livelihoods are threatened by this (like farmers). Most consumers (at least in my small sample of anecdata) don't seem to care at all for whatever reason. The ones who do are a small enough group to be safely ignored.
- sudoshred 2y ago
  On the surface that makes sense. From a consumer perspective lack of RtR just indicates the consumer needs to spend elsewhere if it becomes a concern.
  - octorian 2y ago
    This is an easy dodge. The problem is that when lack of repairability becomes the norm, the consumer no longer has that choice. Or they have to severely compromise their market choices in the search for repairable products. And wanting repairable products is something most consumers don't even think about at time of purchase. Its something that comes further down the line, when the purchase decision has already been made.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > wanting repairable products is something most consumers don't even think about at time of purchase This is the core of the problem. The coalition pushing for these laws doesn’t include most consumers. Absent an expensive ad push, I don’t see that changing. Takeaway: make hay where the sun shines. Focus on farming states and those with lots of dealerships and repair shops. Maybe put an anti-Musk / anti-Tesla angle on it in blue states.

noobermin 2y ago

[flagged]

42772827 2y ago

I wonder if we’ll see “compliance devices” like we saw compliance cars in California. That is, highly modular, repairable devices available to consumers inclined that way, “offsetting” some of the other devices companies like Apple make

swayvil 2y ago

This is morally obvious. We only have a law about it because somebody's feeling greedy or squeezed. Law is a maximally complex representation of reality manifested by anxiety.

jjtheblunt 2y ago
that last sentence is great.

smashah 2y ago

Right to Repair should extend to software also. Just the same way someone can make an accessory for a tractor without permission from the tractor company, developers should be able to make tools for software/accounts without the express permission of the megacorp behind it without needing to worry about legal threats.

oblio 2y ago

For comparison: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-protection-law/directive-repair-goods_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-protecti... https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240419IPR20590/right-to-repair-making-repair-easier-and-more-appealing-to-consumers https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240419IP... https://repair.eu/ https://repair.eu/ It's not perfect (see the last link for details), but it's a great start. Also, if you have the time, read the actual directive. It's fairly readable as far as laws go. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024L1799 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... - see Article 5. Also the FAQ: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/2d443b31-dc2a-4e54-a9ec-5fbb61c895e9_en?filename=2024_07_18_QA_Right2repair_FINAL.pdf https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/2d443b31-dc2a... Also there's an entire directive for batteries: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj Article 11 is the one that's probably most interesting to people here, the reason why we are now starting to see easily removable batteries in mobile devices, again. Actually "easier to remove", they're definitely not as easy to remove as the Nokia 5110 batteries :-p

Yhippa 2y ago

Who is most likely to be against this? NADA most of all maybe? They seem to be the most anti-consumer and (rightfully to them) propping up their member dealers.

cadamsdotcom 2y ago

Pretty clearly this is a good idea, but even the best ideas need champions to get up. Thanks iFixit for championing this cause for so long. The rest of the world will follow these states’ lead.

dataflow 2y ago

Don't get your hopes up just because they have something they call right-to-repair legislation. It doesn't imply a practical ability to get repairs done. That requires e.g. parts availability, schematics, etc., way behind what legislation I've heard of requires.

wanderingmind 2y ago

I don't like being pedantic, but there is a fundamental difference between bill and law. It takes a few people in legislature to introduce a bill but takes majority to create a law with the executive ascent. The bills have been introduced in 50 states, only 5 have legislated these bills into laws.

xorvoid 2y ago

This is something I believe in. How can one get more involved in this? (Beyond donating)

froggertoaster 2y ago

Louis Rossmann, we speak your name!

pabs3 2y ago

Wonder when we will get software right to repair laws.

BrenBarn 2y ago

The issue is not just the passage of laws, it is enforcement. Unless the penalties are ruinous, corporations will flout the laws and use legal trickery to skirt them.

hilbert42 2y ago

'Right-to-Repair' covers a broad spectrum of issues and it makes sense to consider them separately as how we deal with them will vary in each case. Clearly it's not possible to cover every aspect as that's worthy of a large book so I'll just highlight few issues. First, it's worth looking at how we reached this this point and why Right-to-Repair has become such a big deal in recent years. For younger generations it may come as a surprise to learn that 50 or so years ago the very concept or notion of one's right to repair one's equipment would have been very foreign to the average person. Consumers would have expected their appliances to be both durable and long-lasting and capable of being repaired. Back then, just about every appliance from a toaster to a television set was repairable and manufacturers had service departments where their products could be returned for repairs. Alternatively, owners and independent repairers could buy spare parts and service manuals from these service outlets. In fact, so ingrained were notions about repairs and service that no one would have given even a second thought that in future they might be discontinued. In hindsight, I think blindness to the fact that things might change is why so few of us saw change coming until it was upon us. Anyway, that was the normal situation until somewhere around the mid 1970s - early '80s when things changed drastically for the worse. Why the change? In the decades since then there has been a huge shift in manufacturing and the economics of manufacturing. More than ever the overwhelming issue nowadays in manufacturing is profit, it has become the principal driving force and raison d'être for manufacturers' existence. No doubt, profit has always been a driving force but in the past it was tempered by other considerations, companies often built their reputations on the quality and reliability of their products and that those who ran them often had high manufacturing standards that they wanted to uphold. In past decades people who ran manufacturing companies were more likely to be their founders—often inventors and or engineers—and they had a vested—intellectual—interest in their products and by virtue of the fact they required their companies to produce good products that consumers would appreciate. From about 1980s the economic environment in which businesses found themselves changed dramatically, manufacturing thus changed to adapt. Free trade, reduced tariffs, offshore manufacturing, family companies being absorbed into multinationals, change in investment practices and so on meant that the utility and quality of products was often deprecated in favor of profits. With the changes founders and engineers ended up having much less say and influence over production than previously. Now shareholders and accountants ran these companies and their CEOs were no longer engineers but those with MBA degrees. Of course, that's only part of the story, computers and IP became a big deal during this time and was very influential in rolling product info back into the proprietary realms of companies. Nowadays, information about products that companies once willingly placed in the public domain for the benefit of their customers such as circuit diagrams and maintenance and repair documentation, etc. has almost dried up completely. Many well-known and highly respected companies succumbed to these economic changes. Had I time I could give many examples but HP and Sony are two egregious cases that immediately come to mind. Probably the quintessential example of where engineering management has given way to profit and the greed of investors is that of Boeing. The 747 was first designed and built 50+ years ago when Boeing was an engineering company run by engineers, nowadays investors and accountants run the company and is product is the 737-MAX. Also, these changes have brought old nefarious manufacturing practices to the fore. Whilst the notion of planned obsolescence has been around for well over a century modern business practice has brought it to new heights. Products are now designed with less durability and have much shorter lives than in the past. An example I like to give is that several years ago I bought three plastic buckets at the supermarket and the plastic handle fell off one before I got it home and not much later the handles fell off the other two when in use. Compare them with an old beaten-up and dented hot-dipped galvanized bucket we've inherited from my grandmother that was made sometime around the mid 1920s. It's somewhat the worse for wear but it's still functional. Furthermore, it still has its handle and it's not even rusty. Here, durability has given way to profit, planned obsolescence ensures that manufacturers sell more. Then there's the serious problem of plastic pollution. And that's just for starters. It seems to me there's a simple solution to all this but instigating it would be very difficult as manufacturers would fight it every inch of the way. That is to tax products that are deliberately designed without durability and longevity in mind. A durability tax would provide manufacturers with a financial incentive to make better products. Taxes also have the advantage that they can be fine-tuned until they become effective. A durability/longevity tax would be not only just applicable to buckets but also smartphones and such. For example, phones without the facility for users to change batteries easily would fall into this category and be subject to the tax. A similar 'utility' tax would apply where manufacturers deliberately depreciate a product's functional utility in favor of profit. Often that could be difficult to define but let me give you an example based on the definition and modus operandi of a device. Again, the classic example is the smartphone. First, we should not lose sight of the fact that a phone is primarily a telecommunications device licensed and tightly regulated under various telecommunications laws. In recent years, phone manufacturers have deliberately killed the FM radio facility in many smartphones to encourage streaming which is more profitable. FM does not stop streaming, so why should it be removed when it serves an important purpose in times of emergency? During floods, fires, earthquakes etc. when WiFi and cellular services could easily be out of operation FM is very capable of supplying alternative sources of emergency information. If governments acted responsibly then they ought to deem life and safety as being more important than profits, thus to encourage (rather than mandate) manufacturers to incorporate FM reception on their phones they could levy a utility tax on phones that do not have FM reception. BTW, an almost identical argument is already being played out in the US over AM band reception in car radios. EV manufacturers want to phase out AM on grounds it's hard to reduce interference in EVs whereas the FCC has stated it's essential in times of national emergency. Incidentally, where I live the national broadcaster assumes the responsibility of broadcasting emergency information on the assumption that smartphone owners may no longer have access to WiFi or cellular networks. At first thought much of that may seem outside the scope of the basic Right-to-Repair laws but on consideration it's not. Tied up with durability/longevity are related issues such as fitness for purpose, product functionality, minimizing e-waste and so on. When it comes to considering these matters this example just shows that we've barely scratched the surface. That Right-to-Repair legislation is being widely enacted is no doubt excellent news. That said, the manufacturing lobby is extremely powerful so we need to fear that laws may be watered down to the point of being ineffective. What's needed is a cultural shift by manufacturers back to those of earlier times. However, given the nature of their cultural shift of recent decades, we should not expect an easy ride going forth. Trouble is—as we've all too often seen—that in democracies where companies have undue power and influence it is very difficult to get effective law enacted.