On July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission, together with the attorneys general of Illinois, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, announced a proposed settlement with…
On July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission, together with the attorneys general of Illinois, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, announced a proposed settlement with Deere & Company resolving a 2025 lawsuit that alleged the manufacturer unlawfully restricted farmers' and independent providers' access to key repair tools and software. The resolution stands as one of the most significant right-to-repair enforcement actions to date and offers a clear template for how federal and state regulators intend to police aftermarket repair restrictions going forward.
Under the proposed 10-year consent order, Deere must provide independent repair providers with the same repair resources, tools, and software it makes available to its authorized dealers. The company will also pay $1 million toward the states' legal costs and remain subject to ongoing FTC oversight for the duration of the order. Together, these terms create both immediate structural obligations and a sustained compliance runway that will shape Deere's aftermarket practices for the next decade.
Equally noteworthy is the enforcement architecture the case reveals. The joint action reflects a coordinated federal-state model in which the FTC and multiple state attorneys general aligned resources, legal theories, and remedies against a single defendant. Manufacturers should expect this coordinated posture to be replicated across other industries where restrictions on repair access have drawn regulatory attention, and should anticipate that state enforcers will continue to work in parallel with federal partners rather than defer to them.
Companies with aftermarket repair restrictions should treat this settlement as a prompt to reassess their exposure. Businesses in agriculture, consumer electronics, medical devices, and heavy equipment in particular should undertake a careful review of their dealer agreements, software licensing terms, diagnostic tool distribution, and parts allocation practices. Provisions that limit independent providers' access to firmware, diagnostic software, technical manuals, or authorized parts channels warrant particularly close attention, as do warranty terms that may condition coverage on the use of authorized service. Documenting the competitive and safety rationales for any remaining restrictions will be increasingly important as enforcers press further into this space.
This alert is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Clients facing right-to-repair questions or considering changes to their aftermarket programs should seek tailored counsel based on their specific facts and circumstances.