The “right to repair” movement is gaining steam as consumers push corporations to offer them more freedom to fix products – from cars to dishwashers to toys.
In April 2026, farm equipment maker Deere & Co. inked a US$99 million settlement in a class action suit over its prohibition on independent repairs to its increasingly high-tech equipment – another win for the movement. While the company didn’t admit wrongdoing, it will let farmers make more repairs themselves.
Equally significant, this case showed that the Federal Trade Commission, a lead plaintiff, may be more willing to protect consumers against the growing corporate control over servicing products after purchase.
Even President Donald Trump has weighed in. At an Oval Office event on June 4, 2026, he described existing restrictions as “strange” after he met with auto executives. “Nobody’s allowed to fix their car. … So I thought we’d do something about that,” he said, without offering details.
This push is understandable. As consumers want more reliable products, gaining the right to repair them with their own parts makes sense.
But they often overlook existing protections in their product warranties, which obligate the manufacturer to repair or replace if something goes wrong.
As a scholar focused on operational sustainability in supply chains, I have found that strong warranties aren’t just a safety net for buyers. They help companies build trust and stand out. Hyundai and Apple, for example, have used strong warranty programs to keep customers coming back for repairs within their own networks while maintaining profit margins. But many shoppers overlook this tool as the political momentum for the right to repair grows.
Back to the 1970s
Many automotive and electronics manufacturers have been making it harder for consumers to use parts not produced or authorized by the original manufacturer. For example, data can be transmitted back to the manufacturer in real time and flag a part from an independent supplier as incompatible.
Another common tactic is the use of “warranty void” stickers, which claim that repairs done by a third-party service will cancel the manufacturer’s product warranty. These practices have drawn widespread criticism for suppressing competition and encouraging planned obsolescence – and are among the main targets of right to repair advocates.
But consumers have a tool that’s widely underused: A 1975 law that prohibits voiding a warranty simply because an independent mechanic or a part from an independent vendor was used. This measure was designed to discourage the production or sale of low-quality products and sought to protect consumers from excessively restrictive coverage and bad-faith corporate negligence.
It was this law as well as several other consumer protections that the Biden administration’s FTC cited in 2024 when it warned several companies that they improperly restricted their warranty terms.
One reason consumers are largely unaware is that most find the text of warranty terms and the disclaimers difficult to read. And this isn’t an accident. Many manufacturers see warranties as sunk costs that should be avoided, and they have no incentives to clarify the terms or honor them.
Trust pays
Companies should rethink their approach to warranties – because it makes good business sense.
When manufacturers see they can no longer prevent third-party repairs, or offer warranties that are hard to redeem, it’s usually because they decide it’s more cost efficient to produce low-quality products. But that choice often cuts into the producer’s own profit while leaving the consumer worse off – and has a worse environmental impact, a recent study suggests.
A smarter option for manufacturers would be to establish a better, more efficient service network and offer more attractive warranty programs to retain customer loyalty.
Some companies have demonstrated that strong warranties pay off. Outdoor apparel maker Patagonia offers an “ironclad guarantee” to repair or replace its products for any reason. The “all mighty guarantee” offered by Osprey, which also manufactures outdoor gear, will repair or replace any damaged or defective product free of charge.
Then there’s retail giant Costco’s automatic extension of manufacturers’ warranties on major appliances and electronics – a major driver of its success.
Meanwhile, under the right to repair measures currently proposed, the post-purchase service and repair markets would likely get more competitive. New rules would let outside service providers and warranty companies gain better access to fix the products. Extended warranties and service contracts would then become even more prevalent, and manufacturers would need to become more vigilant.
Consumers also need more protection from the FTC, the top federal regulator tasked with consumer protection. Indeed, the right to repair movement reflects, in part, public disappointment that the government has failed to serve as a watchdog amid misleading corporate claims about warranty protections.
While the FTC has occasionally sued companies to protect consumer rights under the 1975 law, it has the legal tools to be more aggressive. Such a shift would not only change the corporate culture around warranties but send a message to consumers that warranties should work for them.
Enforcement, not just choice
If manufacturers embraced stronger warranty enforcement, consumers would benefit the most, provided they’re aware of what these protections entail. But manufacturers would come out ahead, too. By building up efficient service networks and offering more versatile warranties, they would remain competitive and foster customer loyalty, Hyundai being a good example.
The right to repair movement is in many ways a live policy experiment on expanding access to repair markets and giving consumers more choices. But more choices don’t necessarily lead to a better outcome. Coupling repair rights with stronger warranties and better enforcement is the best way a company can claim the prize it always says it wants: more satisfied consumers.
This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.
