'I Have the Right to Repair the Gadgets I Own, Right?' Well, Not Exactly

Even simple appliances now come with computer chips, adding more points of failure that can't be easily addressed. Image used for representative purposes. 

(Photo: The Quint)

The right to repair movement is gaining traction globally. In January, US President Joe Biden formally backed the movement and acknowledged the anti-competitive practices of electronics manufacturers.

While you are legally allowed to repair your property, manufacturers are making it increasingly difficult, pushing you to replace your products instead.

Here's a scenario:

You dropped your laptop and it now has a crack on the screen. The nearest official service center is at the opposite end of the city and will charge you a bomb. The local repair shop doesn't have the necessary parts because the brand sues every third party manufacturer to oblivion. Even if they manage to repair it, you'll void your warranty.

This is the kind of thing that right to repair is trying to address.

What is the Right to Repair?

The goal is simple – if you own something, you should be able to use it, modify it, and repair it yourself, or take it to a technician of your choice.

The demands of the movement can be split into four broad heads, as detailed by Repair.org, a right-to-repair advocacy group:

• Information: Manuals, schematics, and software updates should be publicly accessible. Contracts shouldn’t limit support options and should be easily understandable.

• Parts and tools: The parts and tools necessary for repairing devices, including diagnostic tools, should be made available to third parties and individuals.

• Unlocking: The government should legalise unlocking, adapting, or modifying a device to install custom software.

• Repair-friendly design: Devices should be designed with repair in mind.

Why You Should Care

Electronics continue to get more complicated to open up and repair. Manufacturers use proprietary screws, refuse to publish repair documentation or blueprints, glue the parts together, and drop software support among other things.

Notoriously, wireless earphones like Apple's Airpods and Samsung's Galaxy Buds are near-impossible to repair without damaging them, while the iPhone 13 is difficult to fix outside an Apple Store, even with authentic parts.

Even simple appliances now come with computer chips, adding more points of failure that can't be easily addressed. You often need special software to diagnose what's wrong with your machine.

Right to repair legislation would establish rules to check these practices and promote repairability across industries like consumer technology, agriculture equipment, and medical equipment.

Without such legislation, buyers are often at the mercy of the manufacturers, which leads to incidents like these:

• Apple is trying to hold a small, independent iPhone repair shop in Norway liable for importing what it says are counterfeit iPhone screens into his home country, reports Vice.

• US Farmers are reportedly having to hack their John Deere tractors with Ukrainian software to make repairs.

• Nintendo is facing multiple class action lawsuits for its problems with Joy-Con drift, which it refuses to fix, according to Polygon.

Planned Obsolescence

A marketing practice called planned obsolescence is another major problem that consumers face.

Manufacturers artificially shorten the life of a product to make sure people keep buying new units regularly. To encourage this buying habit, they also ensure that repairing your electronics is pricey or a hassle.

While this results in steady profits, it has terrible implications for the environment due to the amount of e-waste produced. It also negatively impacts the repair industry, which could otherwise create more local jobs.

Apple, for example, settled for over 600 million in 2020 for artificially slowing down older models of the iPhone. The company insists it was to preserve battery life.

What Companies Have To Say

Corporations, including electronics and automotive manufacturers, are lobbying hard to stop right to repair legislation from coming into effect.

They have five major arguments to back their case:

• There are security risks from giving criminals access to technical information, especially for laptops, phones, and tablets. This could leave customers at risk of fraud and data theft.

• There are safety risks if customers or third-party technicians try to do unauthorised repairs, especially on heavy machinery and automobiles.

• Intellectual property and trade secrets could be stolen or compromised if technical information is publicly released.

• Manufacturers will face liability or reputational harm if independent repair shops make faulty repairs.

• Design decisions are made keeping demand and safety in mind. For example, customers want lighter products, leading to less durability.

The US Federal Trade Commission, however, disagrees with the reasons that manufacturers put forward, "Based on a review of comments submitted and materials presented during the workshop, there is scant evidence to support manufacturers’ justifications for repair restrictions."

“There’s a lot to be done to make connected device ecosystems more secure, but the price of having connected devices can’t be a monopoly on aftermarket service parts and repair,” Paul F Roberts, founder of SecuRepairs.org told The New York Times.

Right to Repair in India

In the US, some form of right to repair legislation has been proposed in most states, and bills have also been filed at the national level.

In the UK, a right to repair law went into effect in July last year, requiring appliance manufacturers to provide public access to spare parts and make complicated parts available in professional repair shops. This excludes smartphones and laptops, however.

The European Union has the most effective right to repair laws by far, they require manufacturers to ensure that electronic goods can be repaired for up to a decade.

India, however, does not have any specific right to repair legislation. Instead, legal precedents and judgments do most of the heavy lifting.

For example, in the Shamsher Kataria case, the court held 14 automobile companies liable for indulging in anti-competitive practices by allowing the sale of goods and services only from authorised dealers while denying independent repair shops access to spare parts.

In the Sanjeev Nirvani vs HCL case, a district court held that companies are under an obligation to provide spare and consumable parts, exclusive to a product, beyond the warranty period as paid services.

In the Tekla Corporation case (2014), the Delhi High Court held that any contractual restrictions, which limit or impede the rights of the consumers after the sale of a product cannot be enforced in a court of law.

(With inputs from Polygon, Vice, and The New York Times)