Every week, we get a roundup of recent developments in Right to Repair news, courtesy of Paul Roberts from Fight to Repair, a reader-supported publication. Sign up to receive updates in your inbox. (It’s free!) Or become a premium subscriber for access to exclusive content and live events!
Onerous and cumbersome procurement contracts that the U.S. Department of Defense has entered into with its equipment suppliers in recent decades are hobbling the U.S. military’s ability to repair its equipment. Relief has appeared on the horizon: a bill currently under consideration in the Senate would give the military back its right to repair its own equipment. But recently, Congress received a letter arguing that a military right to repair is unnecessary, signed by a very broad group of opponents—including some with little or no stake in military contracts but lots of stake in the success of right to repair on the whole.
Contracts Block Maintenance, Force Shipping, and Deny Spare Part Fabrication
The troublesome military contracts are a byproduct of 1990s legislation that freed the military to contract with commercial equipment providers but left it vulnerable to the same kinds of onerous warranty terms that bedevil farmers, medical facilities, and consumers, according to a letter that was sent to the Federal Trade Commission by Elle Ekman, a logistics officer in the US Marine Corps. Ekman’s letter includes these examples:
- “While in Korea for an exercise, a mechanic was prohibited from conducting maintenance on a generator because the warranty would be voided, leaving the unit with the choice of voiding a warranty or losing the equipment that supported their training. Deployed Marines who did conduct maintenance on warrantied equipment were reprimanded because they voided the contract when they fixed the equipment.
- The process for managing secondary reparables (SECREPs), costly parts that are economical to repair (e.g., various types of engines and transmissions), includes shipping these items back to the contractor in the continental United States from Okinawa, Japan, because repair efforts by Marines would violate repair support contracts. This creates significant transportation costs and time costs, and reduces forward-deployed unit readiness.
- Marines possess capabilities to fabricate, machine, and manufacture repair part using a variety of tools (e.g., water-jets, CNC mills). While creating parts can save money and time, these parts either need to be reverse engineered or made according to manufacturer specifications. Often, those specifications are cost-prohibitive or Marines are not allowed to create the part due to manufacturer restrictions. As the Marine Corps continues to expand its capabilities in additive manufacturing (i.e., 3D printing capabilities), part manufacturing will continue to face vendor-induced obstacles. These obstacles will prevent Marines from repairing equipment if a part is unavailable due to supply chain issues in austere environments”
The practical result, in the last 30 years, has been the U.S. military signing on to restrictive repair and maintenance agreements that mandate manufacturer authorized personnel to service military equipment—even in an active war zone. The impact of that on any military fighting force is on full display in Ukraine, where U.S. equipment that has been damaged in combat (or that just suffers breakdowns) currently has to be shipped to other parts of Europe to be serviced by authorized repair personnel, rather than being serviced in the field by skilled service members. Rather than loosen those onerous restrictions, the Biden Administration is actually contemplating sending authorized repair personnel from military contractors into the field in Ukraine to speed up repairs.
Enter: A Right to Repair Military Equipment
Fortunately, a remedy is in the works: Section 828 of the Defense Reauthorization Act, which would prohibit the head of an agency from entering into a contract for the procurement of goods or services unless the contractor agrees to provide the DoD “fair and reasonable access to all the repair materials, including parts, tools, and information, used by the manufacturer or provider or their authorized partners to diagnose, maintain, or repair the good.”
This Right to Repair military equipment would ensure that servicemembers can maintain their own equipment in the field, fabricate spare parts where they’re able, and keep equipment maintained and in good order without long delays. The cost savings will likely be huge (though the bill includes formal investigations of expected cost savings before proceeding), and faster repairs could mean lives saved in combat.
Unfortunately, however, as 404 Media reported this week, powerful interest groups have lined up in opposition to the bill, co-signing a letter. And, while a couple, like the National Defense Industrial Association, are defense industry groups one might expect to sound the alarm over a proposal like Section 828, the vast majority of the more than five dozen industry groups that signed the letter are only tangentially associated with the defense industry, including groups like Advamed, the Motorcycle Industry Council, the Graphic Media Alliance, the National Mining Association and TechNet—a leading opponent of electronics right to repair laws.
Why do graphic communication companies in Ohio, Michigan, and Kentucky not want the military to be able to repair tanks in combat? Why does the lobbying group representing Apple, Garmin, and Samsung want to deny soldiers the right to 3D print repair parts wherever they can?
The most obvious answer is that any public win for Right to Repair makes it harder for those groups to fight it where repair openness might hurt their bottom line, namely consumer electronics.
The letter in question reads like a “greatest hits” playlist from years of bogus industry testimony against federal and state right to repair laws. Providing service manuals and repair tools risks exposing “sensitive trade secret information,” requirements to offer replacement parts and repair tools at a reasonable price would “impose significant burdens on contractors throughout the country.” Besides, right to repair laws are unnecessary as “already provide a wide range of resources, including parts, manuals, product guides, product service training, and diagnostic tools, to the Department,” the letter reads. (Not so, says Marine Corps logistics officer Elle Ekman.)
While the impact of the letter is yet to be determined, the long list of industry groups that are signatories to it is proof of an ever-more-coordinated pushback against a run of increasingly muscular right to repair laws that have passed in five states. Their interest? The bottom line.
The cost of lobbying lawmakers to kill or kneecap pro-consumer laws is a drop in the bucket compared to the bottom line impact of more pro-consumer and pro-environment legislation. What’s missing, of course, is the cost to society of those stifled laws and regulations. And, in the case of military equipment, the price could eventually be measured in lives and limbs.
More News
- California lawmakers approve wheelchair right to repair: Both chambers of the California Legislature voted on Monday to approve SB 1384, a bill to allow wheelchair users expanded opportunity to repair their mobility equipment. It now awaits the signature of Governor Gavin Newsom to become law, and would make California the second state in the U.S., after Colorado, to grant wheelchair owners a right to repair their own equipment. Current California state law does not require manufacturers of power wheelchairs to provide information or replacement parts directly to users or independent repair shops, KEYT reports. “If you have a power chair and are using it daily, it needs regular maintenance,” explained Sacramento disability rights activist and powered wheelchair user Russell Rawlings. But with authorized repairers facing no competition and being short on parts and staff, that can result in days, weeks or months of delays for even simple repairs—a time in which wheelchair users lack mobility.
- Indian government planning to launch repairability index: India may become the next country to institute a “repairability index”—following on the heels of France, with competition from Belgium and the EU more broadly—for electronics products, according to the country’s Department of Consumer Affairs. The Consumer Affairs Ministry said it will provide a score on key parameters to inform consumers about the ease with which a product can be repaired, according to statements by officials speaking at a national workshop on the right to repair.
- Alabama farmer drops out of Deere class action suit: An Alabama farmer, Trinity Dale Wells, has dropped a right-to-repair lawsuit against John Deere that was part of a series of antitrust lawsuits against the company. In a filing, Wells’ case was dismissed without prejudice, allowing him to seek compensation in the future. The lawsuit was originally filed in January 2022. More than 17 farmers have filed similar lawsuits against John Deere, citing violations of the Sherman Act. The next case status hearing is set for September 9, 2024. Discovery is expected to end in October 2024, with key deadlines for expert reports and motions extending into summer 2025. In his suit, Wells said he faced difficulties when his Deere tractor broke down, leading to a costly $615 repair for roughly 3 minutes of work done by a dealer technician. The farmers argue that Deere’s practices limit their ability to repair equipment, pushing for more right-to-repair legislation and agreements with manufacturers. Deere has also significantly reduced the number of dealership locations over the years, from around 3,400 in 1996 to just over 1,500 in 2021.
0 Commenti