The right-to-repair debate is changing from a dispute over screwdrivers into a design rule for connected products. A modern phone, laptop or appliance may require a proprietary diagnostic tool, a software handshake for a replacement component, a security update and access to cloud documentation. Laws increasingly address that entire technical chain, forcing manufacturers to consider independent repair when they design hardware and firmware.
The policy case rests partly on market evidence. In its 2021 report to Congress, the US Federal Trade Commission cataloged restrictions including adhesives, unavailable parts and manuals, software locks and firmware updates. After reviewing the record, the agency found "scant evidence to support manufacturers' justifications for repair restrictions". The report did not dismiss legitimate intellectual-property or safety issues; it concluded that broad restrictions had steered users toward manufacturer networks or premature replacement.
Access now includes software
Early repair laws often required manufacturers to provide the same tools, parts and documentation offered to authorized shops on fair terms. Oregon's 2024 Senate Bill 1596 follows that model for covered consumer electronics. It also defines parts pairing as software that identifies components through unique identifiers and limits a manufacturer's ability, for equipment first made and sold after January 1, 2025, to use pairing to block or degrade qualifying replacement parts in the enrolled legislation.
That provision reaches an important control point. Serializing a battery, display or camera can serve calibration, anti-theft and safety functions. It can also reserve installation to the original vendor if independent repairers cannot obtain the required pairing tool. Good regulation has to distinguish an objectively necessary authentication check from a commercial lockout and ensure that a lawful replacement still receives appropriate warnings, calibration and security support.
The European Union's repair directive takes a similarly functional view. Directive 2024/1799 requires manufacturers to repair products already covered by EU repairability rules when consumers request it, unless repair is impossible. It says manufacturers cannot refuse solely for economic reasons or because another party repaired the product previously, and prohibits hardware, software or contractual techniques that impede repair unless justified by legitimate, objective factors in the legal text. EU member states must apply their implementing measures from July 31, 2026.
Product rules alter the engineering brief
Repair law is most consequential when paired with product-specific requirements. From June 20, 2025, the EU ecodesign regulation for smartphones and slate tablets requires covered operating-system updates to remain available at no cost for at least five years after a model leaves the market. It requires access to repair information for professional repairers and availability of specified spare parts for seven years, with delivery deadlines of five working days for the first five years and ten days for the final two under Regulation 2023/1670.
The same regulation sets durability baselines: non-foldable covered devices must pass 45 falls in a prescribed test, batteries must retain at least 80 percent of rated capacity after 1,000 full charge cycles, and security or corrective updates must arrive within four months of the underlying release under specified conditions in the regulation's requirements. Repairability thus becomes one element of longer support, not an isolated promise to sell a screen.
These rules change design incentives. A company must manage parts inventories longer, write maintainable documentation, expose diagnostic interfaces and separate components that can be replaced. Modular construction may improve serviceability but can add volume, connectors or ingress risks. Conversely, highly integrated products may be thin and efficient but expensive to restore after one failure. Regulation sets minimum outcomes while leaving room for those engineering tradeoffs.
Security is a requirement, not a blanket exception
Manufacturers reasonably worry that service tools could expose customer data, weaken anti-theft systems or install unsafe components. Independent shops face the same responsibility. The answer is controlled access: technician authentication where risk warrants it, auditable software tools, secure device reset, clear provenance for parts and narrow access to personal data.
The FTC told California lawmakers in 2023 that it found no empirical evidence that independent shops were more or less likely than authorized shops to misuse customer data, or that access to diagnostics and firmware patches necessarily created cybersecurity risk in its testimony. That finding argues against treating security as an automatic veto. It does not remove the need for threat modeling and enforceable standards.
Enforcement will determine the market
A right on paper can fail if parts are priced near the cost of a new product, registration is burdensome or required tools remain unavailable. Regulators therefore need test purchases, clear timelines, complaint channels and authority to examine whether software restores full function. Manufacturers need predictable rules and protection for genuine secrets unrelated to completing a repair.
The emerging framework is not a command that every owner open every device. It is a requirement that repair remain a practical option. As products become more software-defined, that option depends as much on code, credentials and update policy as on physical access.