Malicious Compliance with Right to Repair Laws

You’re approaching an intersection with a “no U-turn” sign, and you need to start heading in the other direction. To avoid making that illegal U-turn, you instead make a three-point turn a hundred feet before the intersection. Other drivers might honk, but hey—you’re just obeying the sign, right? 

Complying with the letter—but not the spirit—of the law is called “malicious compliance,” and it’s exactly what manufacturers are doing with Right to Repair. 

Manufacturers are now using unfair and deceptive practices to avoid compliance with statutes directed at preventing unfair and deceptive acts and practices.  If your head spins with this misdirection, it should. 

For example, Apple made a big splash announcing their Right to Repair support in California in October of 2023.  However, their support came with a major compromise: They amended the law so that they could comply without any changes on their part. They have protected their business model, which requires their active involvement to complete repairs; to complete screen, battery, and many other repairs, owners must buy parts directly from Apple and pair the part via a software tool managed by Apple. This functionally kills independent repair.  Their goal has always been to prevent competition for repair, so their choice of legislative language is not accidental – it is malicious.  And when they say they’re in support of a national Right to Repair law, know they really mean a malicious compliance-compatible kind of law.

Samsung made announcements of their favorable position on Right to Repair over a year ago, but are now wrapping their parts distribution plans into monopolistic agreements with parties excluding independents or owners.  They have selected the worst of the worst ideas to follow –  making battery replacements 5x as expensive as necessary by gluing batteries to their screens, limiting parts sales only to those few parts assemblies they want to sell, and refusing to sell parts in batches to independent repair shops, all while adding exclusive dealing to their portfolio.  If they were marginally good guys before, they have gone over to the dark side. 

John Deere is still enacting their own form of malicious compliance through their MOU agreement with AFBF which was written to avoid legislation and the requirements that come with it.  The MOU, for instance, allows them to continue to keep farmers from being able to buy dealer-level diagnostic software.   Their dodge isn’t working.   Producers are increasingly supportive of Right to Repair legislation through crop groups – such as corn, wheat, and soy growers in Colorado.  AFBF carries a big stick but they are not the only stick. 

We expect some OEMS will continue to engage in malicious compliance, but the loopholes they leave behind will get filled.  Seasoned legislators are good at discerning hype from fact.  Each new OEM that attempts to block repair through compliance manipulation will lead to more determined and aggressive requirements from state legislators and wider engagement by States’ Attorneys General.  No three-point turns just before the intersection on our watch!