Right to repair should be legally mandated

What's this about?

People disagree about whether laws should make product makers help people fix things they buy.

The main question asks how far those laws should go.

What supporters say

• Makers often control spare parts, fix guides, check tools, and computer code needed for repairs.
• Without these things, buyers may use only an approved repair shop or buy a new item.
• Laws could give buyers and local repair shops fair access to key repair tools and parts.
• Tests of easy-to-fix phones show that repair can help items last longer and cut device trash.

What critics say

• A law should not promise that anyone can fix every product in every way.
• Some repairs may cost too much, fail to work, or create safety risks.
• Rules should set clear limits based on what makers can reasonably provide.
• Repair may cut waste, but the size of that help can differ between products and places.

The bottom line

The evidence supports laws that give people a fair right to repair.

But these laws need clear limits, rather than giving an unlimited right to any repair.

Governments should require companies to make products easier to repair, but the rules should be targeted rather than universal. The evidence favors legal repair rights that work in practice while preserving sensible safeguards for safety, privacy and cybersecurity.

The case for

The strongest argument for a legal right to repair is that manufacturers can limit competition by controlling replacement parts, specialized tools, software and repair manuals. When independent shops and consumers cannot get those materials, they may have little choice but to use the manufacturer’s own service or replace a product early. The Federal Trade Commission found limited evidence for many of the broad reasons manufacturers give for restricting repairs, while identifying access to parts, tools, software and documents as important competition issues. Opening that access can give consumers more choice and strengthen the repair market 1.

Economic research points in the same direction, though with limits. A peer-reviewed model found that repair access can improve consumer welfare under some market conditions. But the results depend on factors such as repair costs, product durability, prices and how manufacturers respond. In other words, repair rights can help, but they are not a guaranteed benefit in every market 1.

Repairability could also help address the growing problem of electronic waste. The Global E-waste Monitor reports that global e-waste is rising rapidly and identifies longer product lifetimes, reuse and repair as part of the response. A repair law alone cannot prove it will cut waste, but it can make repair a more realistic alternative to replacement. The environmental case is stronger when legal access is combined with requirements for durable design, available spare parts and long-term software support 2.

Voluntary company programs may not be enough. Apple’s self-service repair program, for example, has offered formal access to parts and tools, but Consumer Reports found that specialized equipment, technical complexity, expense and software procedures could make that access difficult to use. Apple has also announced changes to allow used genuine parts in some cases, showing that companies can ease restrictions voluntarily. Still, a law can provide a more dependable baseline when voluntary access is expensive, difficult or tightly controlled 3.

Rules can also be designed around particular products rather than imposed identically on everything. European requirements for certain phones and tablets cover durability, spare-parts availability, repair information and software support. That approach shows how governments can tailor obligations to product categories and their risks (see Figure 3) 4.

The case against

A legal right to repair does not mean people will actually repair their devices. Consumers still weigh price, convenience, reliability and trust. If a repair is costly, slow or uncertain, many people may continue to buy a replacement. Formal access alone may have little effect unless repairs are affordable and practical 5.

Safety and cybersecurity concerns are real, especially for complex or safety-critical products. The Government Accountability Office has highlighted the growing technical complexity of modern vehicles, including issues involving diagnostic access, calibration, privacy and cybersecurity. Some repairs may require controlled documentation, authentication, training or safety procedures. Unrestricted access for every product and every task would be a poor policy design 6.

The environmental argument is also conditional. Repair can sometimes create less environmental harm than replacement, but not always. Transport, new parts, energy use and unsuccessful repairs can reduce—or in some cases reverse—the life-cycle advantage. The same economic research that found possible consumer benefits also identified trade-offs involving costs, durability and manufacturer behavior 8.

Manufacturers and industry groups also argue that mandates could weaken incentives to innovate or create liability problems. Those concerns deserve consideration, but the evidence here does not establish them as broad, proven outcomes. The main supporting industry report is manufacturer-sponsored, while the FTC found limited evidence for many generalized manufacturer arguments for repair restrictions 7.

The bottom line

The evidence supports legally mandated right-to-repair rules, with clear limits. The best approach is not an unrestricted, one-size-fits-all right, but a category-by-category framework that provides usable access to parts, tools, information and software while protecting safety, cybersecurity, intellectual property and trade secrets.

Such laws should also address what makes repair happen in real life: cost, convenience, parts availability and support periods. Policymakers should measure results after implementation, because direct evidence remains limited on how particular repair laws affect repair rates, prices, product life, safety incidents and e-waste. Even so, the evidence gives high confidence that carefully designed repair mandates are better supported than leaving access entirely to manufacturers.