Right To Repair – A Growing Trend for States Creating Compliance Challenges for Manufacturers

In 2023 and 2024, several U.S. states enacted extensive “Right to Repair” laws, reflecting a growing legislative focus on ensuring consumers have access to the parts and resources needed to repair their own products without relying on the product’s original manufacturer. Most recently, California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon implemented comprehensive regulations aimed at providing consumers direct access to tools, parts, and information for the repair of various electronic devices and equipment, including digital products and agricultural machinery. As the “Right to Repair” movement continues to gain significant traction across the United States, it is critical that manufacturers understand these laws and how these laws will impact their individual businesses.

Right to Repair laws generally require manufacturers to give consumers and independent repair providers access to the tools, parts, and information to repair certain consumer products and other equipment on fair and reasonable terms. Fair and reasonable terms require the manufacturer to offer these resources (and any applicable discounts) at the same (or similar) costs and terms as those given to authorized repair providers. Even if a manufacturer does not utilize authorized repair providers, these laws still require the manufacturer to share internal repair materials. Documentation and tools must also be made available. In some states, this is to be provided at no charge and without impediment, excluding the reasonable costs of preparing and sending the resource.

While there is some state-to-state variation, “Right to Repair” laws tend to cover a wide range of products, from digital electronics and household appliances to agricultural machinery and medical devices. Many of these statutes were created specifically to avoid electronic waste, eliminate barriers and limitations to third-party repair, and to provide consumers with better options to repair their devices, and limit the number of times a customer buys a replacement product.^[1] 

This web of complex and evolving regulations can be challenging for companies to track and follow to ensure compliance, especially with products sold nationwide. Below is a survey that provides a high-level summary on the state of “Right to Repair” laws as of January 2025.

Right to Repair States

California

California’s Right to Repair Act^[2] requires electronics and appliance manufacturers to provide consumers and independent repair shops tools, parts, software, and documentation to perform repairs on all devices that cost $50 or more. For products that cost more than $100, the law requires that the repair resources be provided to the consumer for up to seven years, after the device is first placed on the market. These resources must also be made available on fair and reasonable terms. For products that cost between $50 and $99.99, the law only requires the manufacturer to make these resources available for up to three years after the device is first placed on the market.

The law applies to all electronic or appliance products manufactured for the first time or first sold or used in the state on or after July 1, 2021. However, certain categories of products are exempt from the Act, including:

• • Those that pose significant safety or security risks if repaired improperly;
  • Those that no longer are provided by the manufacturer to authorized resellers;
  • Products for alarm systems (such as fire protection systems); and
  • Video game consoles.

In California, there is no private cause of action under this law. State actors may bring a civil action in Superior Court against persons or entities that knowingly violated, or reasonably should have known that they violated, the state’s Right to Repair Act. Violators may be civilly liable for $1,000 per day for the first violation, $2,000 per day for the second violation, and $5,000 per day for the third and subsequent violations.^[3]

Colorado

Colorado’s Right to Repair law^[4] covers digital electronic equipment, agricultural equipment, and powered wheelchairs. Digital electronic equipment encompasses all hardware products that were first manufactured and sold or used in the state on or after July 1, 2021. This includes products such as personal electronics, printers, appliances, HVAC systems, servers, routers and other IT equipment, e-Bikes, and music and sound equipment. Under this law, manufacturers are required to supply independent repair providers and consumers with the tools and information needed to diagnose and repair digital equipment.

Similar to California, Colorado requires manufacturers to ensure that those repair resources are available on fair and reasonable terms, and to provide the necessary tools and replacement parts for repair. Furthermore, Colorado prohibits manufacturers from interfering with independent manufacturers’ ability to repair, improve the digital device’s performance, or from creating misleading warnings about the device.

While the act covers most digital electronic equipment, the following products are excluded:

• • Marine vessels, aviation and motor vehicles;
  • Medical devices other than powered wheelchairs;
  • Video game consoles; and
  • Certain construction-related equipment.

Colorado also forbids manufacturers of digital equipment, if manufactured or used in the state after January 1, 2026, from using parts pairing to

• • Prevent an independent repair provider or owner from installing or enabling the function of an otherwise functional replacement part or component of digital electronic equipment;
  • Reduce the functionality or performance of digital electronic equipment; or
  • Cause digital electronic equipment to display misleading alerts or warnings about unidentified parts.

However, this provision does not prohibit a manufacturer from using parts pairing for “standalone biometric components used for authentication purposes in digital electronic equipment.”

Violating Colorado’s Right to Repair law would be considered a deceptive trade practice, and thus may be privately enforced. In Colorado, any person who has committed a deceptive trade practice may be civilly liable for a penalty of up to $20,000 per violation.^[5]

New York

New York’s Digital Fair Repair Act^[6] requires digital electronic equipment manufacturers to make repair information and parts available to consumers and third-party repair services. New York also requires that any tools, parts, and information that are available to employees also be made available to consumers.^[7]

New York’s new regulations apply to products sold starting on July 1, 2023 and excludes:

• • Refrigerators, ovens, microwaves;
  • Air conditioning/heating units;
  • Security or alarm systems; and
  • Gaming or entertainment consoles.

Under the Repair Act, the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) is tasked with enforcing this law and is authorized to investigate potential violations and take action when appropriate, including seeking restitution and civil penalties up to $500 per violation.^[8]

Minnesota

Much like New York’s law and yet, known as the “broadest one,” Minnesota’s Digital Fair Repair Act^[9] requires equipment manufacturers to share software, diagnostics, or any documentation needed to make repairs on digital electronic equipment with independent repair providers. This new law applies to a broad range of products, new and used, sold on or after July 1, 2021. “Digital electronic equipment” or “equipment,” which is defined as: “[a]ny hardware product that depends, in whole or in part, on digital electronics embedded in or attached to the product in order for the product to function, for which the original equipment manufacturer makes available tools, parts, or documentation to authorized repair providers.”^[10] Essentially, if a product relies on digital electronic elements to function, then it is likely covered under this statute.

Minnesota’s law excludes:

• • Farm machinery;
  • Portable generators;
  • Motor vehicles;
  • Cybersecurity products;
  • Medical Equipment and devices; and
  • Video game consoles.

Under Minnesota’s Digital Fair Repair Act, a violation is considered a deceptive trade practice.^[11] A private cause of action for an unlawful practice may be brought under Minnesota’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. To enforce the law, the attorney general is given broad discretion and may choose to pursue a range of remedies, which include civil penalties up to $25,000.^[12] The attorney general is also permitted to recover the costs of investigation and reasonable attorney’s fees.^[13] Recently, Keith Ellison, the Minnesota Attorney General, filed one of the first lawsuits under this Act, alongside the Illinois Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission. 

Massachusetts

Massachusetts’ right to repair law, An Act Relative to Automotive Repair,^[14] centers on automobiles. Under this law, consumers have the right to have their vehicle serviced at any repair facility. Similar to New York and Minnesota, this law also requires manufacturers to give independent repair facilities access to the manufacturer’s diagnostic and repair information systems (such as navigation and GPS).

Any violation of the state’s right to repair law is considered an “unfair method of competition and an unfair or deceptive act.”^[15] Owners and independent repair facilities can file a private cause of action for violation of this statute under Section 6(c). This can only occur after the independent repair facility or owner notifies the manufacturer, in writing, through the National Automotive Service Task Force Service Information Request process detailing the alleged complaint and allows the manufacturer an opportunity to cure the issue. In Massachusetts, civil penalties are available up to $10,000 for each violation.^[16]

Massachusetts’ Act Relative to Automotive Repair was the central dispute in Alliance for Automotive Innovation v. Healey,^[17] A lawsuit in which the Alliance for Automotive Innovation challenged the Act on preemption grounds and argued that it potentially created safety and cybersecurity risks for consumers.^[18] The case stalled for several years due to delayed rulings, attorney replacements, and new judicial assignments.^[19] On February 11, 2025, Judge Denise J. Casper ended the five-year-long litigation in the district court by dismissing the two remaining counts of the complaint.^[20]

Oregon

Oregon’s legislation,^[21]  which went into effect January 1, 2025 revolves around consumer electronic equipment, particularly products that are primarily used for personal or family purposes that “[f]unction[] on the basis of digital electronics that are embedded within or attached to the product.”^[22]

Under Oregon’s legislation, the attorney general is permitted to respond to consumer complaints by bringing civil actions against violators of the law. Civil penalties apply up to $1,000 for each day the violation continues.^[23]

Federal

While this Alert is focused on state laws, Companies should also be aware that there are federal laws affecting right-to-repair, including the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”). This law, which is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission and private plaintiffs, prohibits manufacturers from conditioning warranties on the use of specific replacement parts. The FTC has been active in this space, with several enforcement actions against certain manufacturers of motorcycles, outdoor generators, and grills.

Antitrust laws can also provide a basis for challenging right-to-repair practices, including monopolization and unlawful tying, which occurs when the sale of one product such as spare parts is conditioned on the purchase of a second product such as repair services.

Proposed Laws

Additionally, 28 states have pending proposed “Right to Repair” legislation.^[24] Many states, such as Delaware, New Jersey, Ohio, and Rhode Island have opted for legislation that covers a broader range of products. A fair number of states have also considered legislation that revolves around farming equipment.

What Can Companies Learn From This Growing Trend?

1. The Trend Will Likely Continue: These legislative actions highlight a trend toward increased regulation on repair practices, with the potential to impact various sectors including consumer electronics, automotive vehicles, and agriculture. While the focus has thus far been on more expensive consumer electronics, there is a mounting interest from State AG offices, including as reflected in a recent discussion at the Democratic Attorneys General Association (“DAGA”) advocating against repair limitations on consumers for products they purchase. Additionally in 2023, attorneys general from 28 U.S. states and jurisdictions called for lawmakers to prioritize Right to Repair legislation in Congress.^[25] As more states consider similar measures, the landscape of repairability and maintenance in the United States is likely to continue evolving. State AGs will continue to play a crucial role and may ramp up enforcement if federal action wanes.
   
   
2. Digital Equipment Will Continue To Be The Focus: The majority of the legislation successfully thus far enacted focused on digital equipment. Nonetheless, many states have introduced bills that would expand the focus to consumer and enterprise electronic equipment, agricultural tools, automotive vehicles, and powered wheelchairs.
   
   
3. Operational Costs Will Increase: The requirement to provide repair tools, parts, and documentation may initially increase operational costs and logistical complexities. Companies will need to reevaluate their service models, terms of service, agreements with authorized repair providers, and warranty policies to ensure compliance. These changes will also require some modification of the exclusivity provisions in existing deals with authorized service repairers, and potential modifications to warranty provisions. In doing so, companies will need to stay abreast of the changing landscape and ensure compliance that may vary from state-to-state.
   
   
4. Potential Pushback: Although Right to Repair laws are supported in several states, such support is not ubiquitous. Some states have faced direct industry opposition. States, like Virginia, Texas, and Connecticut, have seen their right to repair bills fail or get adjourned.
   
   
5. Litigation: While compliance with Right to Repair laws is important to mitigate litigation risk, companies must also be mindful that their conduct in complying with Right to Repair requirements can also expose them to litigation if consumers allege to suffer harm as a result. This includes harm allegedly following insufficient warnings or instructions to enable consumers to repair their own electronic products.
   
   
6. MMWA/Antitrust Laws: On top of considerations associated with state Right to Repair laws, companies should be aware that other tools, such as the MMWA and antitrust laws, exist that may be used by the FTC or private plaintiffs to contest alleged restrictions on repairs. It has become increasingly common for private plaintiffs bringing litigation for Right to Repair to include antitrust claims in addition to other claims.
   
   
7. Intellectual Property Strategy: Intentional IP strategy can serve both as a sword and as a shield with respect to Right to Repair laws. The federal nature of registered IP rights supersedes the state laws, several of which explicitly identify that those state laws do not permit IP infringement. Thus, original equipment manufacturers can protect their original/innovative products and components using design patents and utility patents (as well as copyright and/or trademark including trade dress in some circumstances). Although care must be taken not to engage in tying or other patent-misuse behaviors, IP rights provide Original Design Manufacturers and authorized Original Equipment Manufacturers with a limited-time right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or offering to sell parts, software, user-interfaces, etc. that are covered by federal IP rights, with patent-enforcement litigation as tool to deter unauthorized competitors. On the flip side, third-party manufacturers must exercise due diligence to make certain that their replacement parts and services are not infringing others’ intellectual property rights.