Right to Repair Lawsuits

From tractors to wheelchairs, consumers and business owners are fighting to have a right to repair their purchased products without returning to the original manufacturer to exclusively fix a broken machine or product. Consumers, by law, have a right to repair a product independently for a fair price. When companies control the right to repair with sophisticated software, they may be violating antitrust laws. 

In many cases, state attorney generals and the Department of Justice will pursue companies who violate antitrust laws. However, private parties can also bring claims to enforce the antitrust laws. Antitrust lawsuits can be brought by small businesses and individuals seeking damages for violations of the Sherman or Clayton Act. Private parties can seek court orders to prevent anti-competitive behaviors or bring suits under state antitrust laws.

Yes, you may have legal grounds to sue a manufacturer that refuses to sell repair parts or diagnostic tools for products you own. Right to repair lawsuits argue that manufacturers violate consumer protection laws, antitrust regulations, and warranty obligations when they restrict independent repairs.

Many states have enacted right to repair legislation that gives consumers and third-party repair shops legal access to parts, tools, and repair manuals. If a manufacturer’s refusal causes you financial harm or forces you into expensive authorized repairs, you could potentially join a class action lawsuit or file an individual claim.

An experienced consumer rights attorney like Joe Lyon can evaluate whether the manufacturer’s practices violate federal antitrust laws or state consumer protection statutes in your jurisdiction.

Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have been challenged over game console repair restrictions. Medical device manufacturers face scrutiny for limiting hospital repair options on critical equipment.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.: An important right to repair case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992 began when independent service organizations challenged Kodak’s policy of refusing to sell them replacement parts.  

Deere & Company Repair Services Antitrust Litigation: The Deere right to repair case focused on the ability to repair agricultural equipment with certain onboard electronic control units.  

Lambrix v. Tesla, Inc.: In 2023, Tesla was hit with an antitrust class action alleging that it engaged in exclusionary conduct and restraint of the markets for compatible replacement parts and maintenance and repair services for Tesla vehicles.

In another automaker suit, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, essentially ruling against the automakers’ lawsuit and upholding the Massachusetts Right to Repair law. The law requires automakers to provide vehicle owners and independent repair shops with access to telematics data, allowing consumers to choose who services their vehicles.

Consumer rights attorneys say the decision is important for fair competition and consumer freedoms in vehicle maintenance.

By forcing manufacturer-authorized repair providers, restricting consumers’ repair options, and restricting replacement parts and software, it can (un)intentionly drive smaller, independent repair shops out of business. By eliminating competition, this also naturally increases wait time and costs for consumers.

Harley Davidson was hit with a right to repair lawsuit in 2022. The class action complaint alleged that Harley Davidson required the use of an authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts to maintain the validity of the warranty.  

Granato v. Apple: Apple was sued by a plaintiff who said Apple discourages customers from repairing their own Apple electronic devices, and that the company threatens to terminate warranty coverage, withhold parts, tools, repair information, and repair documentation and manuals.

Victims of anti-repair practices may recover several types of compensation through right to repair litigation. Economic damages include the difference between what you paid for overpriced authorized repairs versus what independent repairs would have cost, the diminished value of products with restricted repairability, and money spent on premature replacements due to repair restrictions. You may also recover costs for diagnostic tools or software you were forced to purchase.

In class action settlements, manufacturers have paid millions in restitution and agreed to change their repair policies. Some cases also pursue injunctive relief requiring companies to provide repair access going forward. Punitive damages may be available if the manufacturer’s conduct was particularly egregious or willful.

Document all repair expenses, correspondence with the manufacturer, and attempts to obtain parts or service information to strengthen your claim.

Essential evidence includes purchase receipts showing what you paid for the product, written denials from the manufacturer refusing to provide parts or repair information, quotes from authorized repair centers showing inflated prices compared to independent repair estimates, and correspondence where you requested repair resources.

Screenshots of error messages, software locks, or parts pairing restrictions strengthen claims about artificial repair barriers. Expert testimony from independent repair technicians can demonstrate that repairs were technically feasible but blocked by manufacturer policies.

Warranty documents, terms of service agreements, and marketing materials promising product longevity help prove the manufacturer’s obligations. Industry comparisons showing other companies provide repair access for similar products establish that restrictions are unnecessary.