S-3821-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsored by Ben Luján (D-NM)
What it does
This bill would require manufacturers of digital electronic equipment to provide owners and independent repair shops with access to documentation, parts, tools, and diagnostic information needed to repair their products, on fair and reasonable terms. It would prohibit manufacturers from using software-based "parts pairing" or other mechanisms to block third-party repairs, degrade device performance after independent repair, or display false warnings about non-manufacturer parts. The Federal Trade Commission would enforce the law, and state attorneys general could bring civil actions as well. The bill exempts motor vehicles, medical devices, aircraft, and certain safety communications equipment.
Who benefits
Consumers who own digital electronics (smartphones, laptops, appliances, farm equipment, etc.) and want cheaper or faster repair options. Independent repair shops and technicians who currently cannot access manufacturer tools or parts. Small businesses that depend on electronic equipment and need faster turnaround than authorized service centers provide. Low-income consumers who cannot afford manufacturer repair prices. Rural residents far from authorized service centers. Aftermarket parts manufacturers and suppliers. Environmental advocates who argue repairability reduces electronic waste. Farmers who use digitally-controlled agricultural equipment and have faced restrictions on self-repair.
Who is hurt
Original equipment manufacturers (e.g., Apple, Samsung, John Deere) who would lose revenue from exclusive repair ecosystems and authorized service networks. Authorized repair providers whose competitive advantage over independent shops would be reduced. Manufacturers may argue that forced disclosure of repair information could expose trade secrets or create cybersecurity vulnerabilities, despite the bill's trade secret carve-out. Consumers who experience device damage or data breaches from independent repairs would have reduced recourse against manufacturers under the bill's liability shield. Workers at authorized repair centers could face reduced business volume.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that manufacturers have increasingly used software locks and parts pairing to monopolize repair markets, forcing consumers to pay inflated prices or discard repairable devices. They contend that the FTC's own 2021 report found no empirical evidence that independent repairs compromise safety or security, and that repair restrictions cost consumers billions annually in unnecessary replacements. They further argue the bill promotes sustainability by extending product lifespans and reducing the estimated 50 million metric tons of electronic waste generated globally each year.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that requiring manufacturers to share diagnostic tools, security codes, and repair documentation — even with a trade secret carve-out — creates meaningful cybersecurity risks by expanding access to sensitive system information that bad actors could exploit. They contend that manufacturers invest heavily in integrated hardware-software design, and that forced sharing of proprietary repair infrastructure amounts to a compelled subsidy of competitors without compensation. They further argue that the bill's liability shield for manufacturer-caused harms from independent repairs removes important consumer protections.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate manufacturer-to-consumer commercial relationships rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as digital electronics are sold in interstate commerce. The bill directly delegates rulemaking authority to the FTC; under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts would independently review whether any FTC rules exceed the statutory authority granted here, rather than deferring to the agency's interpretation. If the FTC issues broad rules, the major questions doctrine from West Virginia v. EPA (2022) could be invoked if a court finds the rules carry vast economic significance beyond what the bill's text clearly authorizes.
Checks and balances
The FTC gains new enforcement and rulemaking authority under this bill; checks include congressional oversight, state AG coordination requirements, judicial review of FTC rules under the post-Loper Bright independent judgment standard, and explicit statutory carve-outs limiting the FTC's reach.
Historical precedent
Several states — including New York (2023) and Colorado — have enacted right-to-repair laws for electronics and agricultural equipment, and the EU adopted a right-to-repair directive in 2024, but this bill would be the first federal right-to-repair law for general digital electronics in the United States.