Our Picks For The Top Repair Stories of 2022
Our Picks For The Top Repair Stories of 2022
We dug into our catalog of repair stories from the past year – here's what trends are becoming clear and where to look in 2023 in the fight to repair.
2022: a breakthrough year for the right to repair
The right to repair movement’s main goal has always been to give everyone the right to maintain complete ownership of their property. At the federal level the House introduced an electronics and automotive repair bill and the Senate introduced an agricultural repair bill. Alas, nothing materialized in a vote. That suggests, state-wide laws remain the best option for passing a legal right to repair, with sector-specific laws remaining the primary vehicle for success.1
Looking at the states, there is reason for optimism that 2023 will see progress in the fight for the right to repair. Namely:
New York had a win in 2022, albeit with a major asterisk. Governor Kathy Hochul succeeded in watering down the Digital Fair Repair Act (an electronics right to repair bill) in return for her signature, with major give-aways to TechNet the lobbying organization that works on behalf of major technology firms. By clinging to disproven claims of “cybersecurity risks” and threatening a veto waiting until the very end of the legislative session -signing a deeply amended bill at the 11th hour - she avoided having her veto overridden by strong, bi-partisan majorities in the New York legislature who passed a stronger, more consumer friendly bill.
Colorado’s governor, in the face of (private equity-funded) corporate consolidation of the durable medical equipment industry, signed a law creating a right to repair power wheelchairs in the state. As with other, proposed right to repair laws, the bill - which took effect on January 1, requires manufacturers to share the software, parts, service manuals and other information they provide to their authorized repair providers with wheelchair owners and independent repair professionals. However, with the law newly in force, it remains to be seen if these medical device manufacturers intend to abide by its requirements. Stay tuned!
Industry continues to flex its muscle
Despite those successes there were many more bills that died in their infancy - shunted off to study groups or committees and then ignored. That has been a winning strategy for R2R opponents, who have killed more than 100 such bills in 40 states since 2014.
In 2022, for example, Nebraska legislators got close to passing an agricultural repair bill only to see it filibustered - in part due to industry opposition. The same was true in Los Angeles, where an electronics bill was “quietly killed… despite broad consumer support.” A lawmaker in North Carolina tried a savvy tactic by adding an amendment to the state’s Farm bill – which was then taken out in the face of push back from dealers and agricultural company representatives.
FTC to the rescue?
Some of the most promising developments in the fight for the right to repair in 2022 came courtesy of the Federal Trade Commission, which has become the biggest champion of right to repair in Washington D.C.
The FTC, whose 2021 Nixing the Fix report shot down common industry arguments against repair and set the tone for the Biden Administration, in 2022 began actively pursuing companies for practices that unfairly restricted repair options. Among other things, the Commission issued fines to motorcycle maker Harley Davidson, backyard Barbecue giant Weber and Westinghouse to both punish anti-competitive practices while sending a message to others not to stifle repair.
There were also developments that could greatly impact right to repair through legal precedent. In Massachusetts, carmakers are stalling on following the popularly passed ballot initiative passed in 2020 – though we have been left waiting by a judge who keeps delaying the decision. Another case, a class-action lawsuit from farmers against John Deere for their restriction and consolidation of the repair market accuses the company of cutting out competition for repairs while keeping farmers from fixing equipment themselves. The decision on Deere will not be final any time soon, but hopefully the act of building power as individuals against companies continues.
Takeaway: It’s clear that corporations are willing to spend money and significant effort to cut down repair legislation, but as the right to repair movement matures there are many more opportunities in 2023 for legislative wins. While the most popular strategy is to focus on particular industries such as agriculture or consumer electronics, its becoming clear that translating right to repair’s popular support into legislation is possible, but difficult in the face of moneyed interests.
Apple’s malicious compliance on repair
Apple was the first major technology company to announce its self-repair program, with others like Google and Samsung following close behind. The move was seen by critics (including us) as too limited and expensive.
“If anything, Self Service Repair appears engineered to fail, doing more to underscore the comparative affordability of Apple’s Genius Bar and authorized repair than to empower Apple’s customers to actually fix their own stuff.”
While the company is offering the very same tools that Apple employees use to fix iPhones and Macs, it’s much like offering your friend a gas-powered chainsaw when they ask you for hedge clippers – overkill. But the program got Apple positive headlines, co-opting repair while still maintaining significant control over how repairs are conducted.
That led to criticism that Apple's self-repair program is “engineered to fail:” the cost for customers to complete repairs under the program is often comparable to what Apple or a third-party repair shop would charge. This also combined with a lack of transparency around repair documentation has made it harder for people to make informed decisions about how to repair their devices.
Takeaway: Actions speak louder than words. Companies like Apple and Deere may have ceded ground on giving customers options for repair. However, without detailed legislation that ensures consumers’ right to repair and provide for enforcement, it’s likely they will continue to make half steps or offer empty promises on repair.
Epson’s ink jet kill switch
One of the major arguments that companies make in response to calls to democratize repair is “safety.” From car to cell phone manufacturers, manufacturers are quick to play to fears that people will physically injure themselves while conducting simple repairs. That logic was at work when New York Governor Kathy Hochul watered down the nation’s first electronics right to repair bill in exchange for her signature, parroting industry talking points when she warned that “the legislation as drafted included technical issues that could put safety and security at risk, as well as heighten the risk of injury from physical repair projects.” And whether it’s exploding Lithium Ion batteries or electrocution or pricked fingers, safety is always the first talking point by industry lobbyists and right to repair opponents.
And sometimes those arguments are, well, laughable. Take our report from July that inkjet printer maker Epson was purposely killing off perfectly functional printers when it determined that a sponge inside the printers had become saturated. A software feature counted the number of pages printed and shut the printer down when it hit the limit that Epson programmed. Their rationale? Avoid “property damage from ink spills.”
The reality, of course, is that the sponges in question were entirely replaceable. Instead, the company uses software to cripple the printer and push customers towards (expensive) “authorized” repair or better yet: a new printer).
After catching a ton of flack from media outlets, the company backpedaled: removing language about the danger associated with sponges in the printers. They did however say:
"Epson does not recommend that users without technical training undertake service of the components inside the printers."
Takeaway: Planned obsolescence used to mean designing products to wear out, break and get replaced. But software makes the “planning” part of planned obsolescence much easier. Hopefully 2023 will see regulators in states and Washington D.C. begin to take an interest in those kind of anti-competitive, waste-generating practices!
Bionic eyes glimpse our tech dystopia
The Biotechnology company Second Sight gave us a glimpse into the dystopian future created by corporations monopolizing repair. What seemed like a life-changing “retinal implant technology” which helped restore vision in blind people ended up being life altering in more way than one.
After setting up a number of patients with tech to give them back their vision, the company’s financial issues stopped all support of the tech – leaving patients to fend for themselves.
Takeaway: As we lurch toward a future where everything we use (even medical devices that dictate our quality of life) is run by software, there is a growing need for consumers - and the commons - to be able to maintain and repair hardware and software after manufacturers abandon that responsibility - either by choice or necessity.
Exposing greenwashing with GPS trackers
A couple of journalists from New Zealand popped GPS trackers into a couple of household appliances to see if company’s hold true to their word on recycling and refurbishing products. The unsurprising news is frequently returned items end up in a dump rather than back on shelves.
Each year, 5 billion pounds of waste are created from returned goods. When products are broken, many companies have warranties or other agreements to replace or reimburse customers – oftentimes noting that goods will be refurbished instead of dumped. The GPS data collected by these journalists who returned kitchen mixers and fridges showed that most of the products ended up in the nearby dump.
Takeaway: The hollowness of “recycling” as a solution to our waste problem is becoming clearer every day. Most of the waste - electronic or not - that consumers think they are recycling ends up in landfills. That is why the emphasis needs to shift to re-use over recycling and extending manufacturers responsibility for the waste they create.
One port to rule them all
The EU has begun the process of regulating the design of smartphones to extend lifespans and reduce waste created by the trashing of functional devices. Part of this regulatory oversight is the selection of the USB-C port to be made the common charger across all phones in the Union. As companies pump out newer models of electronics faster than ever, there is a clear need for consistency and standardization in order to minimize e-waste.
India’s government has also begun the process of standardizing mobiles phones to the USB-C, though it is likely a few years behind Europe. The world’s fifth largest economy, in addition to Europe, taking up this task is likely to have major impacts.
That isn’t to say companies will play ball. Marques Brownlee believes that the European Union’s USB-C standardization will likely lead Apple to remove ports altogether, opting instead for wireless charging entirely.
Takeaway: As the consumption of electronics continues to grow, governments are starting to get more serious about standardizing designs of electronics. Much like we see with right to repair legislation, there will always be attempts by companies to avoid regulation and maximize profits.
The Bottom Line
Right to repair isn’t going anywhere – it’s a movement that is maturing and gaining the momentum, even in the face of heavy corporate opposition.
Most activity aimed at holding companies accountable is likely to happen through state governments and - in Washington - Federal Trade Commission. Though let’s not rule out new, federal legislation!
There are countless entry-points for growing support for right to repair since it intersects with other large-scale movements:
Environmentalism
Anti-monopoly and anti-trust regulation
Localism and community self-reliance
There are a number of reasons state level legislation is the most effective means of enacting a functional right to repair. Polarization, lobbying, and lack of interest at the federal level have kept a large-scale law from passing in Congress – and most activists we speak to are skeptical of federal legislation happening anytime soon.