Interest in the “right-to-repair” movement continues to grow, as a number of states propose new legislation in this realm for consumer electronics, with five states successfully enacting such laws. But these laws are not uniform; they focus on different right-to-repair principles, protect different classes of consumers, and exempt products from different industries. Affected businesses must stay abreast of the intricacies of each jurisdiction’s law, including its scope, applicability, and enforcement mechanism, to avoid potential penalties for noncompliance.
As we previously reported in our August 25, 2023 blog post, three states—New York, Minnesota, and California—passed consumer electronics-focused right-to-repair laws last year. In 2024, Colorado and Oregon followed suit, although Colorado expanded the scope to agricultural equipment and powered wheelchairs. In addition, more than a dozen states have considered or are considering right to repair bills for digital electronic equipment.
Oregon’s right to repair law is the first to ban “parts pairing”—i.e., using software to identify component parts with a unique identifier—to prevent the installation or functioning of a replacement part, inhibit or reduce the functionality or performance of a replacement part, or display false or misleading alerts regarding unidentified parts. Colorado’s law and the Repair Association’s 2024 version of the “Model State Digital Electronics Right to Repair Act” (the Model Act) also explicitly prohibit parts pairing.
Below is an updated chart that compares and contrasts each law’s main features:
| |
NY
|
MN
|
CA
|
|
When does the law go into effect?
|
Dec. 28, 2023
|
July 1, 2024
|
Jan. 1, 2024
|
|
What are the penalties?
|
Up to $500 per violation.
|
Up to $25k, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.[1]
|
$1k–$5k per day.
|
|
Is there a written notice requirement for IRPs?
|
Yes.
|
No.
|
Yes.
|
|
Are there exceptions for security-related features?
|
Yes.
|
Yes.
|
Yes.
|
|
Can an OEM provide pre-assembled parts instead of individual components?
|
No, unless safety issues.[4]
|
Not addressed.[5]
|
Not addressed.[6]
|
|
Do repair resources need to be available for modifying DEE?
|
No.
|
No.
|
Not addressed.
|
|
Is an OEM required to divulge any trade secrets?
|
No.
|
No, with limited exceptions.[7]
|
No, with limited exceptions.[8]
|
|
Is an OEM required to license any intellectual property?
|
No.
|
No, with limited exceptions.[11]
|
No, with limited exceptions.[12]
|
|
Is an OEM or ARP liable for damage that occurs due to repairs performed by an IRP?
|
No.
|
No.
|
No.
|
|
Is an OEM prohibited from “parts pairing”?
|
Not addressed.
|
Not addressed.
|
Not addressed.
|
|
|
Model
|
OR
|
CO
|
|
When does the law go into effect?
|
N/A
|
Jan. 1, 2025
|
Jan. 1, 2026
|
|
What are the penalties?
|
Mirror state’s deceptive trade practices act.
|
Up to $1k per day per violation or injunctive relief.
|
Not addressed.[2]
|
|
Is there a written notice requirement for IRPs?
|
No.
|
Yes.
|
Yes.
|
|
Are there exceptions for security-related features?
|
Yes.[3]
|
Yes.
|
Yes.
|
|
Can an OEM provide pre-assembled parts instead of individual components?
|
Not addressed.
|
Not addressed.
|
Not addressed.
|
|
Do repair resources need to be available for modifying DEE?
|
Not addressed.
|
Not addressed.
|
Not addressed.
|
|
Is an OEM required to divulge any trade secrets?
|
No.
|
No, with limited exceptions.[9]
|
No, with limited exceptions.[10]
|
|
Is an OEM required to license any intellectual property?
|
Not addressed.
|
No, with limited exceptions.[13]
|
No, with limited exceptions.[14]
|
|
Is an OEM or ARP liable for damage that occurs due to repairs performed by an IRP?
|
No.
|
No.
|
No.
|
|
Is an OEM prohibited from “parts pairing”?
|
Yes.
|
Yes.
|
Yes, with limited exceptions.[15]
|
Looking Ahead
As right-to-repair legislation for digital electronic equipment continues to spread across the United States, manufacturers should take a proactive approach by developing compliance strategies and determining whether those measures are sufficient for each state’s law. Morrison Foerster’s products liability team remains available to assist with understanding the potential impact of these laws on your operations and legal strategies.
[1] A violation of the Digital Fair Repair Act is a deceptive trade practice, and “[a]ll remedies, penalties, and authority granted to the attorney general under section 8.31 are available to the attorney general to enforce this section.” Minn. Stat. § 325E.72, Subd. 4 (2023).
[2] Colorado’s bill addresses neither an enforcement mechanism nor a civil penalties scheme, but the fiscal note for the bill suggests that a violation of the state’s right-to-repair law for digital electronic equipment is a deceptive trade practice. Brendan Fung, HB 24-1121 Final Fiscal Note, Colorado General Assembly (June 24, 2024), https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/fn/2024a_hb1121_f1.pdf. Under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, any person who engages in a deceptive trade practice may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $20,000 for each violation. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-112(1)(b) (2023).
[3] The Repair Association’s 2024 version of the Right to Repair Legislative Template adds the following provision regarding security-related features: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a manufacturer to make available special documentation, tools, and parts that would disable or override anti-theft security measures set by the owner of the product without the owner’s authorization.” Comparing the 2023 and 2024 Right to Repair Legislative Templates, Right to Repair Legislation, https://www.repair.org/legislation (last visited Nov. 4, 2024).
[4] No, unless “the individual components may pose a heightened safety risk if installed improperly.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 399-nn(3)(i) (McKinney 2023).
[5] The MN Act is silent on this topic. Like California’s Act, Minnesota defines “part” to include “any replacement part or assembly of parts[.]” Minn. Stat. § 325E.72, Subd. 2(p) (2023).
[6] The CA Act is silent on this topic. However, the CA Assembly on Privacy and Consumer Protection’s 06/23/23 Analysis stated that “the bill’s definition of ‘part’ includes an ‘assembly of parts.’ [So] if it would be hazardous for a product owner or repairperson to handle a specific component, the manufacturer can provide the component as part of a safer-to-handle assembly.” Jesse Gabriel, SB-244 Bill Analysis, CA Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection (June 21, 2023).
[7] No, “except as necessary to provide documentation, parts, and tools on fair and reasonable terms.” Minn. Stat. § 325E.72, Subd. 5(a) (2023).
[8] No, “[e]xcept as necessary to comply with this section.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 42488.2(c) (2023).
[9] No, “except as necessary to provide, on fair and reasonable terms, any documentation, tool, part or other device or implement used to diagnose, maintain, repair or update consumer electronic equipment.” S.B. 1596, 82nd Leg. Assemb., 2024 Reg. Sess. (Or. 2024).
[10] No, “except that a manufacturer shall not refuse to make available to an independent repair provider or owner any documentation, part, embedded software, embedded software for agricultural equipment, firmware, tool, or, with owner authorization, data necessary to provide services on grounds that the documentation, part, embedded software, embedded software for agricultural equipment, firmware, tool, or, with owner authorization, data itself is a trade secret.” H.B. 1121, 74th Gen. Assemb., 2024 Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2024).
[11] No, “except as necessary to provide documentation, parts, and tools on fair and reasonable terms.” Minn. Stat. § 325E.72, Subd. 5(a) (2023).
[12] No, “[e]xcept as necessary to comply with this section.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 42488.2(c) (2023).
[13] No, “except as necessary to provide, on fair and reasonable terms, any documentation, tool, part or other device or implement used to diagnose, maintain, repair or update consumer electronic equipment.” S.B. 1596, 82nd Leg. Assemb., 2024 Reg. Sess. (Or. 2024).
[14] No, “unless such licensing is necessary for providing services[.]” H.B. 1121, 74th Gen. Assemb., 2024 Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2024).
[15] Yes, except the following is not prohibited: “(I) The use of parts pairing to enable digital electronic equipment to record, catalog, and display information related to repairs done on that digital electronic equipment; or (II) A manufacturer’s use of parts pairing for standalone biometric components used for authentication purposes in digital electronic equipment, which components are not bundled in commonly replaced parts, such as a device’s screen, keyboard, ports, or battery.” H.B. 1121, 74th Gen. Assemb., 2024 Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2024).
