The panel included both proponents of the Right to Repair movement—who say tech manufacturers are putting unnecessary restrictions on gadget repairs in order to perpetuate their market dominance—and those who believe there should be guardrails around personal electronics repairs, whether for safety or cybersecurity-related reasons.
As with many FTC workshops, it’s hard to say exactly what will happen in the weeks and months to come. But this workshop was particularly noteworthy in that it was the first of its kind held at the federal level. To date, Right to Repair legislation has largely been taken up at the state level. And proponents of Right to Repair bills say they felt bolstered by the FTC workshop, citing it as further evidence that this issue is becoming more relevant in the age of neverending electronic updates and subsequent repairs.“The FTC is paying active attention to the technology world, and whether we can repair our own devices is highly relevant to that,” says Kyle Wiens, the CEO of iFixit, who sits on the side of Right to Repair. “It’s part of the skepticism of technology companies on The Hill right now.”
Move Fast and Fix ThingsAt the heart of the issue lies the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, passed by the US Congress in 1975. The act was written in response to “widespread consumer dissatisfaction with both the content and performance of warranty obligations,” according to Fordham Law Review.
In short, it’s the law that governs consumer product warranties, and it prevents product manufacturers—ranging from automakers to lawn-mower makers to tablet makers—from denying warranty coverage on a conditional basis. Manufacturers can’t void the warranty on product just because the consumer went and repaired it themselves, swapped parts, or had it fixed by a third party.Some manufacturers still use language, though, that suggests your warranty will be voided if you tinker with the thing yourself. So last April the FTC sent warning letters to six major companies that were still illegally conveying this to consumers: Asus, Hyundai, HTC, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony. (Vice first obtained the list of manufacturers by filing a request under the Freedom of Information Act.) In some cases, as with Microsoft’s XBox One’s warranty, the language is just iffy enough to butt up against the law. In other cases, as with HTC, manufacturers are still applying stickers that suggest “the limited warranty shall not apply if the warranty seal (void label) has been removed…”Then, in October of last year, the non-profit US Public Interest Research Group published a report that said 45 out of 50 companies surveyed still void warranty coverage in the case of independent repair. These companies are all part of the Association of Home Appliances Manufacturers, and include Breville, Dyson, Haier, Hisense, LG Electronics, Philips Electronics, and Samsung Electronics America. (Disclosure: The author of that report, Nathan Proctor, has written opinion columns for WIRED.)
Charged ConversationsWhile the FTC’s warning letters on warranty seals and the US PIRG report may have been shots across the bow, the Commission insists there was no single major catalyst for last Tuesday’s hearings. Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s support of right-to-repair legislation for the agricultural community had no influence on it either, apparently.“A study by a private party, or a candidate putting it in their platform, really had no impact on our need to review the effectiveness of the law,” says Dan Salsburg, chief counsel and acting chief of the Office of Technology at the FTC.Well over a hundred people attended the workshop, though the FTC has not yet shared exact numbers, and nearly 20 people spoke during the four-and-a-half-hour session. State Senators David Osmek, a Republican from Minnesota, and Christopher Pearson, a member of Vermont’s Progressive Party, also weighed in.Wiens of iFixit and US PIRG’s Proctor spoke in favor of fewer restrictions imposed by manufacturers when it comes to product repairs, as well as increased education for consumers and repair shops. Manufacturers have access to specific instructions and specialized tools, the argument goes, making it difficult or nearly impossible for consumers and repair shops to fix the products they own.Jennifer Larson, the CEO of the Minnesota-based IT hardware reseller Vibrant Technologies, said at the workshop that she’s “lost millions in revenue—I can’t even quantify over twenty years how much I’ve lost,” due to repair barriers that prove to be too costly and time-consuming for the clients she sells servers to. She hears from angry clients who are upset they have to buy brand-new machines, after unsuccessfully attempting to update firmware, and can’t sell equipment back to her. “The business has changed from whole servers to having to part them down, so you have chassis in landfills,” she said.
For Your Own Good
Part of the opposing argument has traditionally been that allowing consumers and “unauthorized” repair shops to fix electronics could result in some type of safety hazard or security vulnerability.George Kerchner, a regulatory analyst at DC-based Wiley Rein who works on hazardous materials and dangerous goods regulations, spoke at length during last week’s session about lithium ion battery cells, and particularly “pouch cell” designs. (Kerchner is also the executive director of the Rechargeable Battery Association.) He emphasized that many batteries are designed for specific products, and therefore are designed to be repaired by those trained to work with them.“Batteries used where there is a continuous low drain, such as a computer, have different characteristics than those used in power tools, where an immediate burst of power is needed to drill a hole or cut a beam,” Kerchner said, holding up two similar-looking battery cells. Not knowing the difference between the two, he continued, would pose safety risks.Earl Crane, an independent cybersecurity consultant who previously served as the director of cybersecurity strategy at the Department of Homeland Security, laid out a multi-pronged argument against a more DIY repair approach. “On the issue of unauthorized repair, it removes accountability” from the manufacturers, he said. He said the industry would also “backslide” on the security progress it has made, as more and more consumer devices have been brought into enterprise environments.But Gary McGraw, a security researcher at Securerepairs.org, vehemently took issue with the position that repairing gadgets would make them less secure. Other members of his organization have argued against this as well.“How we can tease apart the spurious security argument and the repair argument? Because mixing them together is a sneaky trick,” McGraw said during his testimony. “The truth of the matter is we can design things to be repairable, we can design them to be secure, and those things are not orthogonal.”
What’s NextRepresentatives on both sides of the argument indicated that the FTC workshop was a worthwhile event, although, according to one attendee, the FTC came across as somewhat sympathetic to the Right to Repair side. “The fact that a federal agency is looking into this issue for the first time is a hugely positive sign,” Wiens told WIRED. “Companies have been getting away with taking our rights to fix our own things for too long.”
Kerchner, from the Rechargeable Battery Association, had a more measured response. “I think for the most part it was a very good workshop,” he said over the phone. “The FTC did a good job hearing balanced sides. But I think at the end of the day it will continue to be a state issue before it becomes a federal one.”
Kerchner is referring to the fact that, as of right now, 20 US states have considered right-to-repair bills that either close certain loopholes or require manufacturers to provide access to information, tools, and parts for independent repairs.But federal action, if any, could still be a long way off. Post-workshop, the FTC has put out a call for empirical research and public comment, open until September 16 of this year, and the agency might come up with some findings and make recommendations. It might even make a recommendation to amend the current law. But, as the FTC’s Salsburg put it, “this can go in any number of different ways.”
- Inside the Bulletproof Coffee guy’s new body-hacking gym
- The cryptocurrency rush transforming old Swiss mines
- The death of a patient and the future of fecal transplants
- Explaining the “gender data gap,” from phones to transit
- How nine people built an illegal $5 million Airbnb empire
- 🎧 Things not sounding right? Check out our favorite wireless headphones , soundbars , and bluetooth speakers
- 📩 Want more? Sign up for our daily newsletter and never miss our latest and greatest stories