FTC Warns Hardware Manufacturers Over Repair Restrictions

The Growing Push for Repairability and the FTC's Response

Consumer electronics, while continually increasing in functionality, have simultaneously become more difficult for owners to repair. Apple is frequently cited as a leading example of this trend. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has acknowledged a past lack of stringent oversight in this area, but now indicates a commitment to prioritizing potential illegal restrictions imposed by manufacturers on consumers’ rights to repair, reuse, and repurpose their purchased goods.

Challenges in Modern Device Repair

Contemporary device design often prioritizes neither ease of repair nor future upgrades, such as RAM expansion or battery replacement. While companies like Apple may provide long-term hardware support, repairs – particularly screen replacements – often necessitate utilizing the manufacturer’s services.

This situation presents several concerns, as consistently highlighted by right-to-repair advocate and iFixit founder Kyle Wiens. The FTC initially requested public feedback in 2019, subsequently released a report detailing the current state of affairs, and has now issued a policy statement – a move potentially influenced by the leadership of Chair Lina Khan.

The FTC's Policy Statement

The unanimously approved statement emphasizes that deliberately limiting repair options can have significant negative consequences, particularly for consumers with limited financial resources who may struggle to afford manufacturer repair costs.

The statement outlines four key areas of focus. Firstly, it encourages consumers and organizations to report perceived unfair or problematic repair restrictions to the FTC. The agency typically requires complaints to initiate investigations, similar to those concerning data privacy issues with companies like Facebook.

Antitrust and Unfair Practices

Secondly, the FTC will investigate potential antitrust violations, examining whether restrictive practices such as tying arrangements or exclusionary designs are being employed. This could involve inflated pricing for upgrades or intentionally designing products to stifle competition.

Furthermore, the FTC will assess whether these restrictions constitute “unfair acts or practices,” a broader standard than requiring proof of a monopoly. Misleading claims regarding “open standards” or deliberately slowing third-party applications are examples of practices that could fall under this category.

Collaboration with States

Finally, the agency intends to collaborate with state governments in developing new regulations and laws. This initiative references successful “right to repair” legislation, such as the bill passed in Massachusetts, and anticipates incorporating lessons learned from both successes and failures at the state level.

Industry Response and Future Outlook

This represents a significant step forward in the right-to-repair movement. Tech companies have already begun to respond, expanding independent repair programs, though these actions may have been preemptive in anticipation of the FTC’s evolving stance.

The FTC has not fully revealed its strategy, but it signals a willingness to take action against companies that aggressively restrict repair options. Further developments are expected as the agency analyzes consumer complaints and gains a clearer understanding of the repair market.