As of last week, all 50 states are now actively participating in the fight for our collective right to repair. Notably, Wisconsin and New Mexico introduced repair legislation for the first time, filling the final gaps on our nationwide map. Meanwhile, states like New York, Oregon, and Minnesota continue to enhance their existing laws, marking steady progress across the country.

Our signature color scheme of black, red, and white has traditionally been used to signal clear legislative action. However, with many states now expanding their laws, we are exploring new ways to visually represent these developments without sacrificing clarity.

Legislators are finding encouragement in the legislative successes of other states. Bills that pass in one state often pave the way for similar actions in others. By leveraging our experience from over 300 individual legislative efforts, we have been able to guide bill sponsors and drafters in avoiding early pitfalls and loopholes.

Over the years, discussions with legislative and committee counsel, state attorneys general, and federal agencies have led to significant improvements in bill clarity, strength, and consistency. At present, approximately 27 states have bills in progress—with the potential for even more initiatives as inspired legislators introduce new proposals.

Three Legislative Approaches

There are currently three main approaches being debated across the nation:

• Repair.org Template Legislation: This model, which has received strong backing from the FTC, is the foundation for the vast majority of state efforts.

• FTC’s Congressional Proposal: Developed for potential national application, this version is notably more stringent than the template we promote.

• OEM-Backed Approach: Favored by trade associations such as TechNet, CTIA, and CTA, this method tailors legal positions to different product types. However, it often results in a fragmented “crazy quilt” of laws that lack both legal and practical consistency.

OEMs have pushed for these varied approaches to ensure their interests are protected. For instance, while Apple continues to influence part distribution protocols, other major brands like Google and Microsoft have opted for more balanced policies. The ongoing debates highlight that monopolistic control over repair options is detrimental to everyone.

Similarly, companies such as IBM, Cisco, and HPE argue that repair options for equipment in “secure” data centers could compromise both physical and cybersecurity. For nearly a decade, we have requested concrete examples of these risks—only to be met with silence. Legally, the owners of data centers control both physical and cybersecurity measures, not the OEMs. Data center operators, along with government, military, and even industry giants like Amazon, determine the necessary credentials for access.

Compliance and the Path Forward

The recent US PIRG Failing the Fix Report illustrates that while certain equipment categories have benefited from repair-friendly legislation, many industries remain non-compliant—either through oversight or deliberate resistance. For example, while cell phone repair has seen marked improvements, appliance repairability has stagnated. One incident involved GE informing a concerned member that they do not provide repair manuals, despite statutes in Minnesota, Oregon, and California mandating that such manuals be accessible nationwide.

In response, we are expanding our role to include “enforcement awareness.” We now host a complaint collector on our website, allowing consumers to report non-compliance. These reports will be used to engage with OEMs directly and to alert state attorneys general about potential violations. We encourage you to share your experiences on our complaint portal or contact your state attorney general directly—links are available on our website.