Repair Mandates Can Harm Innovation, Say Tech Groups; Advocates Urge FTC Crackdown

The commission began its probe six months ago, including a July 16 workshop into whether manufacturer restrictions on independent repair can undermine consumer protections in the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (see 1903130060). "We will consider next steps after reviewing the feedback from the workshop and all the comments," emailed FTC spokesperson Juliana Gruenwald Tuesday.

The consumer tech industry was “disappointed" the workshop (see 1907160058) and "much of the anecdotal commentary presented" there were based on "flawed premises," said CTA and six other tech groups. Their gripes started with "the very title of the workshop,” said the groups, which also included CompTIA, the Entertainment Software Association, Information Technology Industry Council and PRBA-The Rechargeable Battery Association. Several also commented individually.

“Members are not ‘Nixing the Fix,’" said the groups. They have "a variety of lifecycle support systems that are designed to ensure that customers can depend on those products.” Tech firms “collectively offer their customers a range of choices when they seek to repair or refurbish a product and, depending on the product, may provide the customer with the choice of multiple avenues for repair,” they said. Manufacturers have “legitimate reasons for establishing requirements for repair networks,” said the groups. Some repairs can be “extremely detailed, complicated, and in some cases dangerous to perform without proper training, parts, and equipment,” they said.

Tech companies “have made significant investments to ensure that consumers have a variety of ways in which they can seek to repair or refurbish a product,” said the groups: Factory-affiliated repair providers “are bound by contract to conduct repairs in a safe, secure, and reliable manner.”

Manufacturers “invest in making improvements in their products in order to meet customer demands and preferences in a competitive market,” said the associations. “They face legitimate design choices that may, in some cases, result in devices being more difficult to repair.” Gluing a component to a device chassis, a common complaint of right-to-repair advocates, isn't done to thwart repair but to meet consumer demand for a lighter or slimmer device or longer battery life, they said.

Consumers rely on the products CTA members produce, said the association. They have “reasonable expectations regarding the ability of those products to maintain their privacy and the security of the data,” it said. Independent repair providers affiliating with one or more OEMs are “a critical element of OEM efforts to prevent unauthorized access to user information stored on devices,” said CTA. Ensuring employees with access to sensitive consumer data “are properly trained, vetted, and contractually bound to handle that data in an appropriate manner is fully in keeping with the FTC’s guidance,” it said.

An “insecure” repair mandate would limit innovation in “predictable and unpredictable ways,” said CompTIA. Consumer demand has yielded “ultra-thin devices where the battery is adhered to the product casing,” it said. Under a mandate, manufacturers “may be required to revisit such designs,” it said.

The public benefits from factory-affiliated repair networks with proper training, said CompTIA. Authorized repair networks give the “assurance that their products are serviced by properly trained and vetted repair professionals that have the necessary skills,” it said. Those pros “understand the intricacies of such products and have spent time procuring the knowledge necessary,” it said.

Consumer privacy and safety are “paramount” among “legitimate interests” manufacturers have for “establishing requirements for product repair and facilitating a robust repair network,” commented the Telecommunications Industry Association. Part of the “nature” of connected devices is the “potential risk to a consumer’s privacy,” it said. Through authorized repair, “manufacturers help protect consumer privacy and data security by limiting the ability of employees to access customer data and by contractually prohibiting the use of customer data,” it said.

Servicing “complex devices” without the “requisite skill” also “poses a safety risk to consumers,” said TIA. Devices with “high-energy lithium ion batteries" need to be repaired "only by a trained professional,” it said: The cells use “very specific safety mechanisms to ensure that internal temperatures remain within a safe range."

“Manufacturers make significant investments in the development of software, products and services, and any requirement for manufacturers to provide this information to non-affiliated independent repair shops increases the likelihood of trade secrets becoming public knowledge,” said TIA.

The Open Markets Institute, which opposes corporate monopolies, urged the FTC to use its “significant” antitrust authority to restore consumers’ “right to repair their products on their own or at a provider of their choosing.” By “attacking” manufacturer practices that “limit competition in the aftermarkets for parts and service," the agency, “together with other policymakers at the federal and state level, can play an important role in restoring the public’s right to repair,” it said.

The FTC should legally challenge manufacturers’ “tying of parts with service” under the Sherman, Clayton and FTC acts to “ensure competitive aftermarkets,” said the institute. “Draw on existing legal precedents and authorities to ensure that aftermarkets are open to all comers and that owners of durable goods, whether iPhones or tractors, have the right to repair their products where they want.”

Monopolizing repair markets "chokes off opportunities for small businesses, drives up the costs for repairs, increases wait times, and results in the underserving of many communities," said the institute. "Manufacturer control of aftermarkets can discourage or prevent repair altogether."