The case is part of broader scrutiny in the U.S. over so-called right-to-repair practices, with regulators and plaintiffs arguing that some manufacturers limit competition by controlling access to repair tools and software.

What does the settlement cover?

The settlement fund covers eligible plaintiffs who paid Deere’s authorized dealers for repairs to large agricultural equipment from January 2018, according to a document filed on Monday in the federal court in Chicago, Illinois.

In the settlement, Deere also agreed to make available to farmers for 10 years “the digital tools required for the maintenance, diagnosis, and repair” of large agricultural equipment, including tractors, combines, and sugarcane harvesters, the filing showed.

The proposed accord requires a judge’s approval.

“This settlement addresses the issues raised in the 2022 complaint and brings this case to an end with no finding of wrongdoing,” Deere said in a separate statement.

Deere faces FTC suit

Deere also faces a separate lawsuit brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. A U.S. judge ruled in 2025 that Deere must face that lawsuit, which accused the company of forcing farmers to use its authorized dealer network and driving up their costs for parts and repairs.

Deere is blocking farmers from acquiring the “tools and information necessary to repair their equipment in a timely and cost-effective manner,” the FTC had said in a court filing in April. Deere has denied the wrongdoing.

— Reporting by Carlos Méndez, Mrinmay Dey in Mexico City and Mike Scarcella in Washington

The post Deere settles U.S. right-to-repair lawsuit with $99 million fund, repair commitments appeared first on Farmtario.

Australia’s National Farmers Federation announced on Dec. 1 that it had secured a commitment from the Australian federal government to extend the existing right-to-repair legislative reforms to include farm machinery.

“Farmers will finally have more freedom to choose who services and repairs their machinery,” said NFF president Hamish McIntyre in a press release.

“That means less downtime, lower costs and more control over their own businesses.”

According to a news report from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the existing consumer regulations enacted in 2010 only covered goods valued at less than A$100,000 (C$94814.54), so most farm equipment didn’t qualify.

“Waiting days, weeks or months to have machinery repaired by an authorized dealer when it could be done locally makes no sense,” Australia’s Treasurer Jim Chalmers told ABC.

The government decision to include farm equipment in the legislation came after several years of lobbying by the NFF.

“When a machine breaks down in the middle of harvest, waiting on an authorized dealer isn’t just inconvenient, it can cost tens of thousands of dollars,” McIntyre said.

“This reform will help farmers stay productive and competitive, which is exactly what farmers and the economy needs.”

That effect on the Australian economy doesn’t appear to have gone unnoticed in the government’s decision-making process.

The published results of a 2021 inquiry by the government’s own Productivity Commission showed that greater competition in the repair sector could add an additional $311 million to the country’s gross domestic product and provide a $97 million boost directly to Australian farmers. It would also add significantly to government revenue.

Several other farm organizations in the country have expressed support and approval for the decision to act on the report and include farm equipment in the legislation.

Right to repair was only one part of the commission’s 2021 study, which looked at the broader issue of improving the country’s overall productivity, GDP and government revenue.

According to ABC, consultation will begin early next year on how to include agricultural machinery in the right-to-repair legislation.

The post Australia adds farm equipment to right to repair appeared first on Farmtario.

U.S. District Judge Iain Johnston in the federal court in Rockford, Illinois on Monday ruled for now to reject Deere’s effort to end the lawsuit, which was filed at the end of Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration in January.

The lawsuit alleges Deere is violating federal antitrust law by controlling too tightly where and how farmers can get their equipment repaired, allowing the Illinois-based company to charge artificially higher prices. The FTC was joined in its lawsuit by Michigan, Wisconsin and three other U.S. states.

Deere did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and the FTC declined to comment. Deere has denied any wrongdoing.

Ruling adds to legal woes

The ruling adds to Deere’s legal woes over repair services. Johnson ruled in 2023 that the company must face similar claims from crop farms and farmers that it illegally restricted maintenance and repair services through the use of authorized dealers.

The FTC and states, like the private plaintiffs, contend that Deere is abusing its market power, allowing the company to control prices and minimize competition.

Deere is blocking farmers from acquiring the “tools and information necessary to repair their equipment in a timely and cost-effective manner,” the FTC had said in a court filing in April.

‘No basis in law’

Deere countered that it does not compete in the market for repair services. The government plaintiffs filed their lawsuit “with two vague federal antitrust claims that hide the ball and have no basis in law,” Deere told the court.

The company also challenged the lawfulness of the structure of the FTC, an independent, bipartisan board that enforces antitrust and consumer protection laws. Deere alleged that restrictions against removing FTC commissioners illegally bar the president from exercising lawful oversight.

Johnston said Deere failed to show how it was harmed by the FTC’s removal procedures.

The post Deere must face FTC’s antitrust lawsuit over repair costs, US judge rules appeared first on Farmtario.

Equipment manufacturers across the board are working to protect their digital systems against malicious intrusion. At the same time, those defences have to leave enough room that thousands of producers can access the platforms they need.

The degree of access those individual users should get is an ongoing conversation.

It’s “making sure that people who use John Deere systems have the right access, but not more access than they need,” said Heather Schladt, Deere’s engineering manager for identity and access management, in one of the brand’s digital information posts.

“It’s a delicate balance between security and usability. We’re focused on ease of use and efficiency of systems and processes through automation and intelligence.”

Another aspect of that balancing act lands squarely in the right to repair debate. Again, the question is, how much access is enough?

Brands have so far refused to grant owners the right to delve deeply into a machine’s central processing unit (CPU), insisting that’s off limits. Right to repair advocates, on the other hand, insist owners should be entitled to do anything they want with a machine they bought and paid for, and that includes making modifications.

Many producers have become frustrated with breakdowns that required only a simple fix, but they couldn’t access enough of the on-board computer to make any corrections or diagnose the problem. Some brands, such as John Deere, have promised to permit more access to some systems to help prevent those types of problems.

Industry is also eyeing the risk inherent when granting unfettered access to complex software that controls a modern machine. It’s a growing concern as machines evolve toward realistic autonomous operation.

“Farmers, producers are used to being able to do what they need to (to keep going),” said cybersecurity expert Brennan Schmidt, a principle of ALEUS Consulting Group. “If they need to use baler twine and duct tape, they will. But now, there’s a lot of technology that’s not in their domain. They want to get hands-on with the tech.

“As a complexity to that, if you’re doing the equivalent of duct tape and baler twine in software, now there’s something you accidentally did and changed and all of a sudden the machine isn’t working. We can now see how manufacturers are not so eager to support that.”

With unrestricted access to all the software in a machine’s CPU and anyone, regardless of knowledge level, able to modify it, could that cause general loss of confidence in the integrity of onboard digital systems? Would that affect the used equipment market in a significant way? Could hackers gain access to a brand’s online system?

Schmidt says he believes manufacturers will eventually have to accept that the pressure to permit more user access to machine digital systems isn’t going to go away. Being proactive may be the key to a solution.

“The next question becomes, how do we strike the right balance?” he said. “We pave the way to say to folks, ‘here’s what you can make modifications to; here’s how you do it and how to do it safely.’

“I think this is a great opportunity for industry to get plugged into manufacturers and start asking those questions, and flip the question from, ‘how do we prevent tinkering, potentially impacting a million dollar-plus machine?’ to ‘what can you as a manufacturer do so I (a producer) can do my business and start linking things up safely?’”

Schmidt believes the brand that eventually grants the best controlled access to digital machine systems may gain significant marketing advantage. That would accommodate the growing demand for more control over machine operations by a new generation of producers who are becoming increasingly tech savvy.

The post Is the right to repair farm equipment a cybersecurity problem? appeared first on Farmtario.

Bill C-244 amends the Copyright Act by allowing farmers and others to bypass digital locks and access diagnostic software needed to repair machinery. Bill C-294 amends the Act to allow for increased interoperability of different technologies, including parts and computer programs, without violating copyright laws.

“After years of advocacy, these bills provide farmers the ability to repair their own equipment, ensuring the continued functionality of the advanced technology essential to modern agriculture,” said the Grain Growers of Canada (GGC) in a statement praising the passage of the legislation. “Together, these bills enshrine the right to repair, helping farmers manage their operations sustainably and independently.”

The GGC called on the provincial governments to consider similar measures in their jurisdictions.

Bill C-244 was first introduced to Parliament as a private members bill in February 2022, by Wilson Miao, the Liberal Member of Parliament for Richmond Centre in B.C. Bill C-294 was introduced by Jeremy Patzer, the Conservative MP for Saskatchewan’s Cypress Hills—Grasslands riding, in June 2022.

The post Right to repair bills passed by Canadian government appeared first on Farmtario.

An announcement this week from the federal government called for an adjustment to the Competition Act that would prevent manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of device and product repair in an “anti-competitive manner.”

That declaration came in the government’s 2023 Fall Economic Statement, released Tuesday.

Why it matters: The right-to-repair debate has been a long-fought battle on between producers and manufacturers.

Grain Growers of Canada was among those applauding the decision.

“Enabling growers to access essential tools and software for maintaining their equipment — such as tractors and combines — will foster a more equitable landscape between manufacturers and consumers,” GGC executive director Kyle Larkin said in a release.

This right to repair will enable producers to save time during critical points of the growing season, the farm group argued.

READ MORE: Right to repair still an issue

Those on the manufacturing side have been more lukewarm on right to repair.

In a webinar held by the Canada West Foundation last year, Eric Wareham of the North American Equipment Dealers Association defended manufacturers’ ability to hold certain repair tools and methods in-house. He argued that farmers already have the ability to repair 98 per cent of a piece of ag equipment.

“The two per cent we do not allow access to is our critical safety and emissions criteria functions,” said Wareham.

The association supports “the right to repair but not to modify,” he added.

Manufactures have concerns that, if given proprietary repair tools, some owners will damage their equipment by altering it.

Gaps

Although Larkin classified the announcement as a step in the right direction, he added that there needs to be more clarity as to what would and would not be included under the amendment.

“The devil is going to be in the details,” he said. “Of course, we want agriculture, equipment, tractors, combine, etc. to be included. It’s not precisely clear in the economic statement that it will be included.

The right-to-repair lobby would also like to see amendments to the Copyright Act, said Larkin.

“One of the challenges that farmers have experienced is that a lot of the time manufacturers will stand behind their intellectual property and that’s what they’ll use to not offer farmers the access to tools and diagnostics information to actually repair their equipment themselves,” he said.

“They also hold back a lot of that software from independent shops.”

Other nuggets

Beyond the right-to-repair announcement, mentions of agriculture were light in the Fall Economic Statement Nov. 21.

A search of the 141-page document for the term “agriculture” revealed only a handful of results.

Non-agriculture features of interest to farmers include plans to ease the exemption reporting requirements for the federal Underused Housing Tax (UHT), for certain classes of property and property owners.

One of the few other sections of interest for farmers referred to the use of waste biomass to generate electricity and heat.

Industries such as canola have eyed the biofuel market as a potential avenue for growth. Speaking at an early November event at the Richardson Centre for Food Technology and Research in Winnipeg, Curtis Rempel, Canola Council of Canada vice-president of crop production and innovation, noted the hype biofuels have created for the commodity.

A significant chunk of the council’s research dollars is going to processing technology to tailor canola for the new market, as well as yield to meet the anticipated demand, he told attendees.

“Biofuels seem to be taking the front-and-centre space for the oilseed sector, at least in Western Canada,” he said.

The recent economic statement says that “During the course of production, industries like forestry and agriculture generate organic by-products, such as leftover wood chips and crop residues, which have the potential to be used to generate affordable energy while also reducing emissions.”

Tax credits expanded

The statement proposed expanded eligibility for the 30 per cent Clean Technology investment tax credit, which could play into the future of the biofuel market.

“This expansion… would be available to businesses investing in eligible property that is acquired and becomes available for use on or after the date of the 2023 Fall Economic Statement,” the document read.

Another tax credit expansion would see wider eligibility for the 15 per cent Clean Electricity investment tax credit, to include systems that produce electricity or a mix of electricity and heat from waste biomass. That tax break would be available as of the date of Budget 2024 for projects that did not begin construction before March 28, 2023.

— Jeff Melchior reports for Alberta Farmer Express from Edmonton.

The post Ottawa lines up with farmers on right-to-repair appeared first on Farmtario.

The right to repair allows consumers to repair goods themselves or have them repaired by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) or at independent repair shops. Key elements of the right is that repair manuals, tools, replacement parts and services must be available at competitive prices.

Right-to-repair movements have sprung up in the United States, Europe, South Africa, Australia and Canada, encompassing a range of products. Most familiar might be efforts to allow consumers to choose independent shops to repair their phones and computers.

But the right to repair also involves battles over who should be able to fix Internet of Things devices (all physical objects related to accessing the internet), as well as other products that function via embedded software systems, such as vehicles, agricultural equipment and medical equipment.

For too long the right to repair has been a casualty of the digital economy. Many manufacturers have discouraged or outright prohibited independent repair. They do this in part by threatening penalties for copyright infringement or by voiding warranties for products repaired by independent shops or using non-OEM parts.

The corporate power to deny repair is possible because companies that control the digital hearts of software-enabled products can use copyright law to restrict their customers or third-party services from fixing these products. Today, this includes everything from laptops to refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, tractors and fitness wearables.

READ MORE: Agco, Kubota sign onto U.S. right-to-repair pledge

Identifying problems with software-enabled goods often necessitates the use of diagnostic software, while undertaking repairs often requires copying all or part of the product software. However, manufacturers’ licensing agreements typically prohibit any actions, including repair, that copy or alter the product’s software.

The manufacturers contend that such actions constitute copyright infringement. Companies typically cite this provision to prohibit any repairs undertaken by individuals not licensed by the original manufacturer. Companies may not actually sue customers for copyright infringement, but they may target independent repair shops.

Such tactics may discourage self-repair or the use of independent service people.

Questions of who can repair products and under what circumstances are fundamental to the nature of ownership and control. In fact, control over intangible forms of knowledge such as intellectual property and software-enabled goods is central to exerting power in the knowledge economy.

The right-to-repair movement can be understood as a consumer pushback against the commodification of knowledge and a battle over who should be allowed to control and use knowledge — to repair, tinker or innovate — and in whose interests.

Battles over the right to repair have particular relevance for Canada. Major manufacturers, often headquartered in the U.S. or Europe, set rules regarding repair that privilege their business models. These rules favour their branded suppliers and authorized repair technicians to maximize control over repair services.

This not only shuts out Canadian third-party businesses that supply replacement parts and repair services, but also disadvantages Canadian consumers.

As the Canadian government prepares for consultations on implementing the right to repair, I offer several suggestions.

First, policymakers should build upon right-to-repair efforts elsewhere, particularly Australia, the European Union and the U.S.

Australia appears to be moving toward a right to repair. Its consumer watchdog agency, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, studied the effects of restrictive repair practices on the agricultural machinery and the after-sales market in that country in 2020.

The European Parliament adopted resolutions on the right to repair in 2020 and 2021, and is planning a legislative proposal on the matter by mid-2023, building upon several years of working to make manufacturing and product design more eco-friendly.

In the U.S., President Joe Biden strengthened the case for right to repair in July 2021 with an executive order supporting competition. Recently, attorneys general from 28 states called on lawmakers to advance a right to repair federally.

Second, it’s important to effectively counter industry opposition, which has been successful in defeating right-to-repair legislation. Such legislation continues to face stiff industry opposition at the state level in the U.S.

Big companies in the technology, vehicle and agricultural industries have long lobbied against the right to repair. They argue that repairing or tinkering with their software-enabled products raises potentially serious security and safety complications.

Though such concerns may be valid in some cases (particularly when dealing with safety-critical goods such as medical devices), these are exceptions. In many cases, however, independent repair by appropriately trained technicians can be a safe, viable alternative to manufacturers’ “authorized” repairs.

Third, policymakers should ensure broad engagement with and representation from the people who are most affected by restrictive repair policies. These include farmers, independent repairers, small retailers of refurbished goods, people who patronize second-hand or reseller stores, and those in the aftermarket industry selling third-party parts.

Input is also needed from people living outside major population centres who must travel to authorized repair shops or otherwise incur costs in time and money in receiving service.

Fourth, it’s time to recognize that the right to repair has benefits beyond consumer rights. Repair bolsters secondary markets, including second-hand stores and resellers that provide their customers with viable used goods, which are important money-savers for economically marginalized communities.

Repair also helps decrease the environmental burden of modern consumerism. This problem is particularly acute in the manufacture of many electronic technologies. Once these products no longer function, they are dumped as e-waste, often in developing countries.

Finally, policymakers should consider a broad interpretation of the right to repair. This could include requiring manufacturers to make available at competitive prices the necessary items for repair, including diagnostic software and replacement parts. It could restrict manufacturers’ practice of planned obsolescence; that is, letting functional goods be rendered inoperative by withholding essential software updates.

The federal government is offering Canadians a chance to create a right to repair. We should seize the opportunity.

Natasha Tusikov is an associate professor in the Department of Social Science at York University and an expert on digital and technological policy.

The post Giving Canadians the ‘right to repair’ appeared first on Farmtario.