Fair Repair Act

The Fair Repair Act establishes a comprehensive federal framework requiring original equipment manufacturers to provide independent repair providers and product owners with access to the documentation, parts, and tools necessary to diagnose, maintain, and repair digital electronic equipment. The legislation addresses the growing concern that manufacturers have created monopolistic repair markets by restricting access to repair resources, thereby limiting consumer choice and increasing repair costs. By mandating that manufacturers make repair resources available on fair and reasonable terms equivalent to those offered to authorized repair providers, the Act seeks to democratize the repair market and empower consumers and independent businesses. The bill applies broadly to digital electronic equipment, defined as any product that depends in whole or in part on digital electronics for its functioning, while carving out specific exceptions for motor vehicles, medical devices, and safety communications equipment to address unique regulatory and safety considerations in those industries.

The Act imposes affirmative obligations on original equipment manufacturers to make available to independent repair providers and owners all documentation, parts, and tools necessary for the diagnosis, maintenance, and repair of digital electronic equipment. These resources must be provided on fair and reasonable terms, defined as costs and terms equivalent to the most favorable conditions under which the manufacturer offers such resources to authorized repair providers. The legislation establishes a liability shield protecting manufacturers and authorized repair providers from responsibility for damages, injuries, or data breaches that occur as a result of repairs performed by independent providers or owners. Section 5 explicitly states that manufacturers shall not be liable for improper use of personal data, data privacy breaches, security breaches, or any damage to equipment, persons, or property resulting from independent repairs. The Act becomes effective on February 5, 2026, or sixty days after enactment, whichever is later, providing manufacturers with a transition period to establish compliance systems. The definitional framework in Section 6 establishes clear boundaries for covered equipment and parties, distinguishing between authorized repair providers who have formal arrangements with manufacturers and independent providers who operate without such relationships.

The Federal Trade Commission serves as the primary enforcement authority for the Fair Repair Act, exercising the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as if all applicable terms of the Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated into this legislation. The Commission possesses rulemaking authority under Section 3(b)(B) to prescribe regulations necessary to carry out the Act's provisions, providing flexibility to address implementation challenges and evolving technology. Enforcement follows the established FTC framework for unfair or deceptive acts or practices, treating violations of the Act as violations of rules under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Commission may issue regulations without being subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of title 5, United States Code, allowing for expedited rulemaking when necessary. Manufacturers must establish systems to provide repair resources on fair and reasonable terms by the effective date, requiring development of pricing structures, distribution channels, and documentation repositories. The Act does not specify dedicated funding mechanisms, relying instead on the FTC's existing appropriations and enforcement resources to carry out its mandate.

The Fair Repair Act directly benefits consumers who own digital electronic equipment by providing access to more affordable repair options through independent repair providers, potentially reducing repair costs and extending product lifespans. Independent repair businesses gain legal rights to access manufacturer resources, enabling them to compete more effectively with authorized repair networks and manufacturer-controlled repair services. The legislation imposes compliance costs on manufacturers who must develop systems to distribute documentation, parts, and tools to independent providers, potentially requiring investments in new distribution infrastructure and pricing mechanisms. Small and medium-sized manufacturers may face disproportionate administrative burdens in establishing compliant systems compared to larger corporations with existing authorized repair networks. The liability protections in Section 5 provide manufacturers with certainty that they will not face legal exposure for repairs performed outside their control, potentially reducing litigation risks and insurance costs. Environmental benefits may accrue from extended product lifespans and reduced electronic waste as consumers gain greater ability to repair rather than replace devices. The Act contains no sunset provisions, establishing a permanent regulatory framework for the repair market. Economic impacts include potential job creation in the independent repair sector and possible price competition effects in the repair services market.

The Fair Repair Act derives its constitutional authority from the Commerce Clause, regulating interstate commerce in digital electronic equipment and repair services. The legislation operates within the established statutory framework of the Federal Trade Commission Act, incorporating its enforcement mechanisms and treating violations as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under existing consumer protection law. The Act creates federal regulatory requirements that may preempt state and local right-to-repair laws to the extent they conflict with federal standards, though the legislation does not contain explicit preemption language addressing the relationship with state law. The definitional framework establishes clear jurisdictional boundaries by excluding motor vehicles subject to separate federal safety regulations, medical devices regulated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and safety communications equipment subject to specialized regulatory regimes. The FTC's enforcement authority includes the full range of remedies available under the Federal Trade Commission Act, including cease and desist orders, civil penalties, and injunctive relief. Judicial review of FTC enforcement actions follows standard administrative law procedures, with affected parties able to challenge agency determinations in federal court. The Act's rulemaking provisions grant the Commission authority to develop implementing regulations that carry the force of law, subject to judicial review for arbitrary and capricious action under the Administrative Procedure Act framework.

The Fair Repair Act raises significant implementation challenges regarding the definition and scope of fair and reasonable terms, as manufacturers and independent providers may dispute whether pricing and conditions truly match those offered to authorized repair networks. The broad definition of digital electronic equipment potentially encompasses an enormous range of products from smartphones to industrial machinery, creating compliance complexity and uncertainty about coverage boundaries. Intellectual property concerns arise as manufacturers may argue that providing documentation and tools to independent providers compromises trade secrets, proprietary software, and patented technologies, potentially leading to legal challenges under patent and copyright law. The liability shield provisions in Section 5 create moral hazard concerns by potentially reducing manufacturer incentives to design safe and secure products if they bear no responsibility for consequences of independent repairs. Data security and privacy implications emerge from requiring manufacturers to provide diagnostic tools that may access sensitive user data, raising questions about whether independent providers have adequate cybersecurity safeguards. Small manufacturers may face disproportionate compliance costs relative to their revenue, potentially disadvantaging them compared to large corporations with existing authorized repair infrastructure. The Act's interaction with existing warranty law remains unclear, particularly whether manufacturers can void warranties based on independent repairs or must honor warranties regardless of who performs service. Enforcement challenges include the FTC's limited resources to monitor compliance across thousands of manufacturers and the difficulty of determining whether pricing truly meets the fair and reasonable standard. Opposition arguments emphasize that mandatory access to repair resources may compromise product security, enable counterfeit parts markets, and undermine manufacturer investments in authorized service networks that ensure quality control.