California Becomes 20th State To Push 'Right to Repair' Legislation
from the monopolized-repair dept
A few years back, frustration at John Deere's draconian tractor DRM culminated in a grassroots tech movement. The company's crackdown on "unauthorized repairs" turned countless ordinary citizens into technology policy activists, after DRM and the company's EULA prohibited the lion-share of repair or modification of tractors customers thought they owned. These restrictions only worked to drive up costs for owners, who faced either paying significantly more money for "authorized" repair, or toying around with pirated firmware just to ensure the products they owned actually worked.
The John Deere fiasco resulted in the push for a new "right to repair" law in Nebraska that not only proposed protecting the consumers' right to repair their own tech, but protected independent, third-party repair shops from efforts by many major companies to monopolize repair (Apple and game console vendors like Sony and Microsoft usually come first to mind). This push then quickly spread to multiple other states, driven by a groundswell of consumer annoyance.
Last week, California became the twentieth state in the country to support such a law. It's the second year in a row the legislation has been proposed, with the folks at iFixit explaining that this latest version eyes simply updating the state's existing lemon law:
Last year’s bill was proposed to California law at large, while this year’s bill is an amendment to California’s effective Lemon Law, a.k.a. the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Unique to the state of California, this law requires companies to provide a repair option. It’s been effective at making sure that you can get your six-year-old MacBook Pro fixed by Apple in California—a service that Apple refuses to perform across the border in Arizona. But manufacturers found a loophole in the law allowing them to monopolize repair rather than providing parts to the repair provider of the consumer’s choice. This bill closes that loophole.
Granted the reason no bill has actually been passed yet is thanks to the extensive lobbying done by companies including Verizon, Microsoft, Apple, and Sony, who obviously don't want smaller independent shops (or smart consumers) eroding their repair revenues. More often than not, these companies have tried to scare folks away from such legislation by insisting it will create all manner of new and diabolical privacy and security problems. Apple in particular notoriously warned that the law in Nebraska would somehow make the state a "mecca for hackers."
The efforts proceed all the same. Of the 20 state laws proposed, Minnesota's effort (which has now passed through two state committees) has managed to proceed the furthest. For its part, iFixit notes that the legislation doesn't just aid consumer rights, it can help rein in waste made worse by companies like Apple which impose counterproductive restrictions on re-use and recycling:
"Consumers should have the right to choose their repair provider. Increasing independent repair options will encourage people to fix the electronics and appliances they already own, rather than toss their broken belongings and buy new ones. Independent and self-repair also help people save money, create local jobs, and prevent e-waste—which is now the fastest growing waste stream in the world."
And while numerous giants are working hand-in-hand to scuttle such legislation, it seems like 2019 is likely to see the first such bill finally passed, with many more clearly waiting in the wings as consumers grow increasingly annoyed by high costs and arbitrary restrictions.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, right to repair
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nice! But 20 out of 50 isn't anywhere near enough; let's keep adding states to that number!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But why??
And why do we need laws like this? Because repairs are being stymied under Copyright laws.
DCMA is what stands between us and our property.
That is what copyright is for, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But why??
It's a feature not a bug. The point of the DMCA's rules surrounding DRM is to allow others to control your product after you "bought" it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same stupid reason printers time out the cartridges even before they get empty and won't work. The claim is to protect the printer, but it's just to make you spend more money faster. The price of cartridges has gotten so it's cheaper to throw the printer away and buy a new one since that cost is less than new cartridges. So much for Green Policies at tech companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The latest thing is to sell you a printer full of ink, and make you pay extra to "unlock" the full amount. Kind of like Telsa's cars, which can receive an over-the-air "battery upgrade".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ink? That isn't ink you are buying. That is a hardware module with code containing encrypted and copyrighted information. It also has a small amount of ink.
DCMA extended copyright to ink carts and garage door openers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
iirc, the garage door thing was resolved in a manner that allows one to make, sell, purchase replacement openers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know what printers you've been using, but the Canon MFPs I've used for years let me run carts nearly dry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what about ICE?
But without repair shops to shut down what will California-based ICE agents do now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean THIS Micro$oft? This Appl€?
The ones that could provide search results on their OWN search engines?
The ones that people would use if they actually WANTED to?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-21/eu-fines-google-nearly-one-and-a-half-billion-for-antitru st/10923000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You mean THIS Micro$oft? This Appl€?
From my parents' home in Wyoming, I stab at thee!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You mean THIS Micro$oft? This Appl€?
And what the fuck all does this have to do with the right to repair?
Go spew your bullshit somewhere else!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You mean THIS Micro$oft? This Appl€?
Companies attacking Google in Europe for "monopoly":
Microsoft
Apple
Companies that provide alternative internet search options:
Microsoft
Apple
Companies monopolizing repair in the US:
Microsoft
Apple
Pots calling kettles black:
Microsoft
Apple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You mean THIS Micro$oft? This Appl€?
Sorry, the question was "And what the fuck all does this have to do with the right to repair?"
...and I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't have a search engine that competes with Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean THIS Micro$oft? This Appl€?
They don't, but since when did facts matter to these guys when they can roll a conspiracy theory?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean THIS Micro$oft? This Appl€?
Their ranting is so incoherent I'm not even sure if it's a conspiracy theory. It could be Whataboutism, changing the subject, accidentally posting in the wrong tab, or good old-fashioned non sequiturs. Or just the comedown from a paint chip high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean THIS Micro$oft? This Appl€?
"Companies MONOPOLIZING REPAIR in the US:
Microsoft
Apple"
(emphasis mine)
"Companies attacking Google in Europe for "monopoly":
Microsoft
Apple"
I think Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2019 @ 6:26pm was addressing the "monopoly" and "right to repair" that was queried by Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2019 @ 5:24pm.
Both Mi¢®o$o£t and Appl€ provide PLATFORMS upon which users can initiate alternative internet searches if they wish, using engines other than Google.
Ultimately it is the height of hypocrisy for those two to cry "Google monopoly", when they set the bar in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean THIS Micro$oft? This Appl€?
Whataboutism, then. Thanks for clearing that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean THIS Micro$oft? This Appl€
"Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
"Google's foe, the Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace, said regulators should stay vigilant. "Competitors have withered or died. It's time for the EU and governments around the world to step in and address the underlying wrong," its chairman, Michael Weber, said in a statement."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-21/eu-fines-google-nearly-one-and-a-half-billio n-for-antitrust/10923000
"The Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace or ICOMP is a lobbying organisation and based in London with a membership including various publishing and software companies. It exists to lobby legislators to take measures to increase competition in online advertising, to regulate the collection of information about online users and protect the rights of authors and publishers.[1]
....
The Daily Telegraph has described ICOMP as "a organisation whose sole purpose appears to be to attack Google".[3] The Register[6] published an article following the submission of a complaint by Foundem to the European Commission suggesting that an attempt on behalf of Google was to focus on Microsoft’s membership of ICOMP to “deflect attention from its antitrust issues”[7] ICOMP legal counsel David Wood submitted a response to these media criticisms, accusing Google of making "seriously misleading statements" about ICOMP, and of "Shooting the messenger to avoid having to deal with unpalatable messages".[8]
As of late 2016, Microsoft no longer financially supports ICOMP. `After Microsoft withdrew its financial support, some voting members also left ICOMP. One such member, Foundem, left due to alleged internal disputes about shifting the sole purpose of ICOMP away from Google's alleged anti-competitive practices. The details of the events leading to Foundem's claims of ICOMP working against a free internet are unknown, but ICOMP has acknowledged that the organisation is "aligning [its] focus to evolving interests of [its] membership." [9] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative_for_a_Competitive_Online_Marketplace
"Almon Brown Strowger (February 11, 1839 – May 26, 1902) was an American inventor who gave his name to the Strowger switch, an electromechanical telephone exchange technology that his invention and patent inspired.
.....
Anecdotally, Strowger's undertaking business was losing clients to a competitor whose telephone-operator wife was redirecting everyone who called for Strowger.[1] Motivated to remove the intermediary operator, he invented the first automatic telephone exchange in 1889"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almon_Strowger
Almon Strowger didn't run whinging to the regulators about the effect his competitor was having on his business. He came up with an ALTERNATIVE, and he INNOVATED. As has been stated elsewhere about legacy business dinosaurs "If you can't innovate, litigate"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/07/02/if-you-cant-innovate-litigate/
htt ps://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/04/20/losing-market-share-litigate-dont-innovate/
https://www.virgi n.com/disruptors/if-you-cant-innovate-litigate-are-entrepreneurs-being-prevented-innovating
and so on.
But rather than focus on their OWN ability to provide ALTERNATIVE search results, these same companies that are fighting YOUR right to repair, are attacking Google through proxies.
So NO. NOT Whataboutism. Merely pointing out that those same companies are also stifling alternatives elsewhere.
Out_of_Lube and Jhon Smith will no doubt be happy to stifle your right to repair. TD is often accused of being an echo chamber, but clearly not all of us agree on everything all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting…
By Jove, I think you've cracked it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
worth pondering
Oh..Really!? That's mean California will be better in the future. Waiting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue and Richard Bennett pissing their pants in 3, 2, 1...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whenever Poochie's not onscreen, all the other characters should be asking, "Where's Poochie?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"When are they getting to the fireworks factory???"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as right as it is, this 'right to repair' isn't the law that needs changing or introducing, as the case may be. what is needed is that when you buy something, you ACTUALLY FUCKING WELL OWN IT! the judge who first decided that this isn't the case needs stringing up by the nuts, covering in honey and lowering on to an ants nest! i mean, come on! what a friggin dick head! i wonder what he got for arriving at that ruling??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So we need a certain outcome, and what we get is a major step in the right direction, and therefore because the judge didn't go further on a case that wasn't actually about anything further, he was horrendously wrong and needs to be punished severely?
Does not compute! And even if you're right, you're still wrong. Judges going far beyond the bounds of what a case is about is how we end up with legal abominations such as the Citizens United ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Run(s like a) [from the] Deere
John Deere's DRM foolishness has worked wonders to promote the competing Mahindra and Kubota brands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so what.
I think the 'right to repair' crowd are conflating two different things. OEM (original equipment manufacturer) and AM (after market) parts. I'm all for allowing 3rd pary repair shops to purchase use AM parts to repair iPhones. I'm also for Apple being able to prevent OEM's from selling OEM parts in the AM market. I'm also 100% behind Apple in its decision to only repair OEM-only hardware. So, if you have your power connector replaced with an AM connector, Apple shoud be within its rights to tell you to take it to the 3rd party repair shop for everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]