Progress on Repair Rights Movement
In August 2024, we reported on taking legal action in Oregon to facilitate profits, ban “part pairings,” and stall the continuation of outdated corporate strategies. Since then, the movement has gained momentum, achieving victories at various levels—state, federal, and even international.
This movement emphasizes the American belief that consumers, including end users and operators, should have the ability to modify, repair, or adjust cars, electronics, and other products without excessive interference from manufacturers. It’s about ensuring that these efforts aren’t unnecessarily complicated or blocked.
The trend of planned obsolescence primarily benefits businesses but undermines citizens by stealing away generations’ worth of skills and knowledge. It erodes national preparedness and weakens the middle class, all while falsely claiming lower costs and greater security. This manipulation is done by restricting access to tools, funneling repairs through authorized dealers only, and repackaging components to enforce circular financial practices.
As of 2025, the initiative to slow down planned obsolescence and restore rights to repair has made substantial headway.
Currently, all 50 states in the US have introduced some legislation on this topic, with six states already passing laws. Meanwhile, Canada and Australia are moving towards similar restorations. A class action lawsuit from US farmers against John Deere is ongoing, with allegations that the company is pushing repair work away from local businesses and owners, compelling farmers to rely solely on John Deere-certified services.
On May 21, Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash) addressed the House Armed Services Committee, advocating for the inclusion of the Rights to Service Act in the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act for five fiscal years.
The aim of Gluesenkamp Perez’s legislation mandates that contractors supply the Department of Defense with necessary parts, tools, and information for military personnel to repair equipment, while also expanding access to authorized repair providers. Additional goals involve improving repair independence, cutting costs, decreasing wait times, promoting accountability, and bolstering military readiness.
For everyday citizens, this all boils down to property rights. We purchase products that should last and, if those products fail, we should have the option to either fix them ourselves or have them repaired by local technicians. It’s concerning how often the design of planned obsolescence just seems to prioritize profits over product integrity.
Just like when American taxpayers contribute funds for crucial government functions, it feels ridiculous that a corrupt alliance among politicians and government contractors has persisted, often working against the interests of the public.
Although not yet established, the right to restoration is gaining traction. For instance, the Secretary of Defense recently issued a memo instructing the Army to prioritize “appropriate restoration” clauses in current and future defense contracts.
Importantly, Hegseth memos indicate that while not all modifications are implemented, they do send important messages. Given the ongoing momentum, it’s likely that actual legislation will soon follow. This memo enables the Army to handle repairs and maintenance internally, offering substantial savings in time and cost. There’s even been talk about utilizing 3D printers on military bases. Some branches of the DOD have already begun doing their own repairs, demonstrating more flexibility in handling their equipment and arms.
Of course, pushback from major companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin is to be expected. Still, the movement against planned obsolescence continues to gain serious traction in 2025. Recently, Washington State became the sixth state to pass similar laws, preserving American consumers’ ability to repair, especially concerning electronics.
When addressing the House Armed Services Committee, Gluesenkamp Perez remarked, “It also removes them from gaining skills needed for the workforce, which is a long-term cost to our military readiness as well as our collective skill set in this country.”
