For car, phone, even tractor owners, a populist wave is rising to end the ‘captive’ repair economy

It used to be that if your iPhone or Galaxy was damaged, you were at the mercy of Apple or Samsung to get it fixed as manufacturers snowed customers with a blizzard of unattainable proprietary parts and software diagnostics. But that pain hasn’t been limited to smartphones, and a legal movement challenging who controls the diagnostic and reprogramming tools for anything from phones to automobiles, dishwashers and farm equipment — all of which consumers say have become increasingly difficult to get repaired inexpensively — continues to gain political momentum across the country.

The right-to-repair movement has done something seemingly impossible: brought Republicans and Democrats together, with the movement succeeding with a wave of state laws enacted in recent years and a new push in the U.S. House and Senate. 

Since right-to-repair electronics legislation was passed in 2022 in New York State, the tide has been turning. California, Colorado, Minnesota, Connecticut and Oregon have all passed comprehensive right-to-repair regulations. Washington joined them most recently in May 2025. As of this year, advocates are tracking 57 right-to-repair bills across 22 states. In Maine, the state senate just advanced a bill that would bring the right to repair to electronics in the state. Texas’s new right-to-repair law kicks in on Sept. 1 and covers phones, laptops, and tablets, but excludes medical and farm equipment, and game consoles. 

And in Ohio, polls indicate that fringe GOP candidate Casey Putsch may have no shot against establishment candidate Vivek Ramaswamy in the gubernatorial primary, but his platform includes some populist planks and economic views that tap into American unease with the economy and affordability, including his embrace of right-to-repair legislation. A new CNBC poll shows President Trump earning his lowest marks on the economy of his presidency.

“A forgotten hallmark of the American Dream is to be able to build, create, and repair your own stuff,” said Putsch, an auto enthusiast and builder, who on some other issues is running to the right of Ramaswamy.

While Oregon’s 2024 law was notably the first to restrict “parts pairing” — the practice of requiring replacement components to be matched to devices using proprietary manufacturer software — New York State’s was the first in the nation and the bill “had huge bipartisan appeal,” said Patricia Fahy, a New York State senator who sponsored the landmark legislation.

In New York, Fahy’s aim ended up being surgical: allowing people to get their smartphones fixed. “There has been a rise in independent repair shops and it makes it more affordable. Fixing screens was $250 if you didn’t have insurance,” Fahy said. The average savings for a family is estimated at $400 a year across electronics and smartphones. “And the early estimates are repair shops would hire 15 percent more workers,” Fahy added. 

But the original New York bill was far more expansive. “We had to strip away at our own legislation. We ran into the buzzsaw immediately from John Deere and Caterpillar,” Fahy said, “so we stripped out large equipment and we will fight that another day.” Medical equipment and home appliances were also removed. But Fahy has introduced a bill that would expand right to repair to wheelchairs.

Tech corporations remain split on their lobbying. Apple initially opposed right-to-repair legislation but it has softened its stance in recent years, while Samsung continues to garner criticism for difficult repair options.

For its part, Deere says that it isn’t anti right-to-repair. “We want farmers to be able to fix their equipment. In fact, our industry depends on it,” said Denver Caldwell, vice president, aftermarket & customer support. Farmers already have access to repair tools, information, and diagnostics through national agreements with the American Farm Bureau Federation, Caldwell said, “without creating a patchwork of state‑by‑state mandates.” 

Deere also says that the existing frameworks agreed to before the 2022 New York law include a process for updates in repair capabilities as technology evolves, while New York’s legal requirements for paper manuals and offline processes, as well as free or “at cost” access to technology, are at odds with investments the industry is making. Investments needed for real-time diagnostics, updates and accurate repair won’t continue with laws like the ones in New York, Caldwell said. 

Deere’s repair options remain a controversial issue in farm states and nationwide. The FTC filed a lawsuit against Deere in 2025 alleging that access to diagnostic software for customers has been limited to company-affiliated dealers, which the government claims is an unfair, illegal practice that has “boosted Deere’s multi-billion-dollar profits on agricultural equipment and parts, growing its repair parts business while burdening farmers with higher repair costs.”

Just a few weeks ago, Deere settled a separate class-action lawsuit filed by farmers over the right-to-repair issue, agreeing to pay farmers $99 million and provide access to technology tools for diagnosis and repair for up to a decade, while admitting no wrongdoing.

Bipartisan movement in House, Senate

“We need national legislation, this is a bipartisan issue,” Fahy said.

Her message has been received at the federal level by lawmakers. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) are unlikely political bedfellows but have joined together to sponsor the REPAIR Act. Unlike Fahy’s New York bill which focused solely on electronics, REPAIR focuses on autos. Luján is also sponsoring a separate bill called the Fair Repair Act which goes beyond autos to other appliances and electronics. 

The REPAIR Act would require automakers to give vehicle owners, independent repair shops, and aftermarket manufacturers secure access to vehicle repair and maintenance data, preventing manufacturers from funneling consumers into their own exclusive and more expensive dealership repair networks. 

“Consumers deserve options when it comes to repairs. My REPAIR Act and Fair Repair Act would do just that. It expands options that are affordable, dependable, and safe,” Luján told CNBC, adding that consumers would be able to repair their electronics or cars at a price feasible to them, not what a large corporation tells them to pay. 

The National Automobile Dealers Association voiced its opposition in February, when a House subcommittee moved the REPAIR Act ahead to a full committee vote, and a version of the Fair Repair Act was reintroduced by Lujan and other lawmakers in Congress.

NADA says that people can already get their cars repaired at independent garages, and that a 2014 agreement that ensured independent mechanics have access to vehicle diagnostic and repair data has worked. NADA has also called the Hawley-Lujan bill a trojan horse that would open up the door to a lot other activities that have nothing to do with right to repair, including harvesting and selling driver data. Supporters of the bill counter that it will do the opposite, and Luján says that industry fears of trade secrets being spilled are addressed in his bill. 

“My Fair Repair Act is not about stifling innovation. It gives consumers the opportunity to find the repair service that’s right for them and their budget. The Fair Repair Act specifically outlines that nothing in the bill would require an original equipment manufacturer to divulge a trade secret,” Luján said. 

Meanwhile, Hawley criticized big corporations in his arguments in favor of right-to-repair legislation. 

“Big corporations have a history of gatekeeping basic information that belongs to car owners, effectively forcing consumers to pay a fixed price whenever their car is in the shop,” Hawley told CNBC. “The bipartisan REPAIR Act would end corporations’ control over diagnostics and service information and give consumers the right to repair their own equipment at a price most feasible for them.” 

The largest small business lobby in the U.S., the NFIB, says 89% of its members support right-to-repair legislation, making it a top legislative priority for 2026.

New ‘economics of ownership’ and consumer frustration

David Friedman, professor of law at Willamette University, nodded to the populist nature of the right-to-repair movement which transcends party lines and has been building for some time. 

“The historical transition from mechanical goods, such as watches, to software-defined consumer electronics has fundamentally altered the economics of ownership,” said Friedman. By bundling repair services with initial sales, he says manufacturers have created a closed ecosystem that effectively compels consumers to choose between high-margin proprietary service or premature device obsolescence under the threat of voided warranties. 

“When every seller plays this game, and profits from captive repair, it’s hard for any seller to opt out and remain competitive,” Friedman said. “The right-to-repair movement is a response to sophisticated market structures that limit consumer agency and leave individuals without competitive alternatives. The sellers may make arguments about preservation of quality in repairs, but there’s only so far that argument can go,” Friedman said. 

There is also an element of “comfort-class consumer populism,” he says, in the movement. “Right to repair has gained significant legislative traction because it functions as a populist issue that simultaneously intersects with the frustrations of affluent demographics,” Friedman said, comparing right to repair with the broader regulatory push against “junk fees,” and hotel resort fees. 

Some see danger lurking in the growing set of laws covering the issue.

“My concern, speaking as a personal injury attorney, comes from seeing too many product liability cases,” said Yosi Yahoudai, co-founder and managing partner of J&Y Law, a Los Angeles-based practice that focuses on injury and liability law. “Whether it’s pressure cookers exploding or issues with electric vehicle and scooter batteries, there’s a lot that can go wrong with today’s technology,” Yahoudai said.

The more people start repairing or modifying products themselves, the higher that risk becomes. “Then you add in the secondary market. If you’re buying a used product, what if it’s been repaired multiple times and is barely holding together? How do we really know that the products we’re using are still safe?” he said.

Supporters wave off concerns that the right of repair also allows consumers the right to transfer their own risks to others through the legal system. But despite the bipartisan appeal, some tech companies, including IBM, have gone on the offensive for other reasons. In Colorado, which now has some of the most comprehensive right-to-repair laws, IT companies have thrown their support this year behind a bill which would exempt business IT equipment. 

“IBM supports right-to-repair policies that empower consumers while appropriately protecting cybersecurity, intellectual property and critical infrastructure,” said a spokesperson. The company’s support of Colorado Senate Bill 26-090, the spokesperson said, reflects a narrow but important distinction — the bill exempts technology designed for use in critical infrastructure, as defined by federal law, while preserving repair rights for consumer devices. 

Opponents say the designation is too vague and will be used to hollow out the right-to-repair protections in Colorado, but they think right to repair retains its momentum regardless. 

“The growing, bipartisan momentum behind right to repair is rooted in a simple idea: ownership,” said Paul Roberts, the founder of SecuRepairs, a network of cybersecurity and IT professionals who advocate for the passage of right-to-repair laws. “Most consumers believe that if they buy a product, they should be able to use, modify, and fix it. For decades, manufacturers largely supported that expectation: distributing service manuals, selling replacement parts and so on,” Roberts said.

That changed with the rise of software, connectivity, and outdated laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that shifted control back to manufacturers. 

“Today, companies use digital locks, software restrictions, and subscriptions to limit repairs, inflate costs, and even kill off products entirely,” Roberts said. “Consumers are pushing back. From restricted smartphone repairs to devices being ‘bricked’ when services shut down, these practices have made ownership feel conditional. That frustration, shared across political lines, is fueling one of the strongest consumer rights movements in decades.”