Farmers Are Getting Control Of Their Equipment Back
from the right-to-repair dept
For years, John Deere had actively made repairing their tractors near-impossible for anyone but itself and the few “authorized” repair shops—regardless of the ability of its customers to actually visit such shops. Now, in a major win for farmers and right to repair advocates, John Deere must soon provide farmers with not just the tools and resources to finally repair their own John Deere equipment, but also access to future updates for said equipment.
In 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought a suit against farm equipment manufacturer John Deere, alleging John Deere used their control over equipment repair tools and resources to limit the ability of farmers and independent repair providers (IRPs) to repair John Deere equipment. Earlier this month, John Deere reached a settlement with the FTC in which they will immediately make available a tranche of repair resources, then continue to make further resources available until the end of the year. Five states joined the FTC in this suit, and over the next 10 years these states will work alongside the FTC to ensure John Deere complies with this settlement.
It is worth noting there is a second, farmer-initiated antitrust lawsuit against John Deere, also concerning a farmer’s right to repair their own equipment. In April, John Deere agreed to a $99 million settlement in that case, which also includes right to repair provisions.
This fight is just one example of how, as machines become increasingly computerized, companies like John Deere restrict your ability to repair machines behind software subject to legal regimes that don’t just lock down repair, but make unauthorized repair a potential criminal offense.
John Deere’s market dominance in farm equipment led to an extraordinary power over access to the tools and resources of repair. John Deere actively restricted who had access to repair tools, and monopolized who could do the repair. This revenue stream—and control of it—is built into the business models of a lot of the technology we buy today. It also encourages companies to move away from the kinds of devices that can be easily fixed at home to ones that offer bells and whistles no one wants but makes repair difficult—like app-enabled toasters.
This whole saga with John Deere has been an exemplar of the greater need for right to repair laws, policy, and enforcement. There was a time when you bought a tractor and with some know-how and a manual could fix it yourself. It is easy to envision why someone with John Deere farm equipment might find it inconvenient to wait for John Deere approved repairpeople to come and fix any broken equipment. Especially when it meant waiting for days or weeks. Especially if it meant their crop was withering on the vine. This settlement will help ensure this is no longer the case.
But it’s not just about farm equipment; If you can’t fix it, you don’t own it. While some might feel more willing to agree they “shouldn’t” futz with laptops or smartphone, it still stands that — whether it’s farm equipment, a car, a laptop, or even your phone — if you legally cannot fix it yourself, if you must go hat in hand to an “approved provider,” you are at the mercy of a corporation. It is why EFF continues to support right to repair laws that ensure people truly own what they buy. And it is why EFF continues to fight for exemptions to the law that makes it most difficult to tinker and repair your own devices.
Originally published to the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.
Filed Under: ftc, ownership, right to repair
Companies: john deere
Comments on “Farmers Are Getting Control Of Their Equipment Back”
Not just right to repair. Right to full ownership is what we need.
Repairs can plow ahead.
I basically agree, but I also feel like these legal mechanisms are almost a subsidy to the likes of John Deere. It shouldn’t be necessary to force a company to stop shitting on its customers. That’s what competition is supposed to do.
Holistically dealing with the situation would require one to seek out the root causes of this lack of competition, and to address those. One cause, noted by me often and by others not quite often enough, is copyright law (the “legal regimes” link talks about it, but that’s a bit buried). Maybe also patents, to a lesser degree. I’m not sure either has a place in the modern world; if they do, abuse should result in effective cancelation of such. John Deere has abused the copyrights on their software to prevent competition, so those copyrights should be considered unenforceable.
Maybe we should also consider actual financial subsidies to competitors who do not engage in anticompetitive behavior. Or at the very least, governments shouldn’t be allowed to acquire equipment associated with anticompetitive companies, without a very good reason.
Odds of this resulting in exorbitantly-priced, constantly-changing tools?
One hopes, but let’s see how this actually plays out. So far, most RTR has turned out to be a pallid and unenforced version of what was supposed to be a win.
As someone that has been a shade-tree mechanic...
I can say that sometimes you didn’t even need a manual to repair tractors. Just a set of wrenches, pliers, etc., a wire brush, cutting torch, and arc welder. And parts, naturally. That later point is becoming more and more a problem. Parts sometimes just aren’t available, either, even for “authorized repair” facilities.
I had a 2011 vehicle that had a known faulty part that should have been the subject of a recall it went bad so often. After around 4 years or so after that model released, owners couldn’t get that part any longer, and it wasn’t a part aftermarket parts mfgs could manufacture because it’s the vehicle’s PCM (power computer module- the computer’s central computer module). Result: bunch of vehicles from that entire year model that are no good for anything but scrap regardless of how well the rest of the vehicle has aged.