If We Own Our Products, We Should Have the Right to Repair Them

Imagine buying a smartphone, a laptop, or a washing machine, only to discover that fixing a small problem is surprisingly expensive. Perhaps the manufacturer does not sell the necessary replacement part. Perhaps an independent repair shop cannot access the software needed to complete the job. In some cases, replacing the entire product may seem easier than repairing it.

This raises a simple question: If people pay for their products, why should they have so little control over how those products are repaired?

The right to repair is the idea that consumers should be able to fix products they own or choose an independent repair business without facing unnecessary restrictions from manufacturers. This issue affects electronics, household appliances, farm equipment, and many other products.

From a progressive perspective, the right to repair is about more than fixing broken objects. It concerns consumer freedom, corporate power, environmental protection, and the ability of ordinary people to make practical decisions about their possessions.

The United States should strengthen the right to repair because people deserve greater control over the products they purchase.

The Problem With Products That Are Difficult to Fix

Modern products often contain complicated electronic components and software. This can make repairs more difficult than they were in the past.

Some manufacturers restrict access to replacement parts, repair instructions, diagnostic tools, or specialized software. Other products are designed in ways that make certain components difficult to remove or replace.

The Federal Trade Commission examined these concerns in its 2021 report, Nixing the Fix. The agency discussed how repair restrictions can increase costs, limit consumer choice, and create difficulties for independent repair businesses.

These restrictions can affect ordinary decisions.

A person whose laptop stops working may have to choose between paying for an expensive authorized repair and purchasing a replacement. A family whose washing machine breaks down may have to wait for a particular technician or replacement part. A small business owner may lose valuable time when equipment cannot be repaired quickly.

Not every repair restriction is unreasonable. Some products require specialized knowledge, and manufacturers have legitimate interests in protecting safety and security. However, those concerns should not automatically justify restrictions that prevent reasonable repairs.

The important question is whether a restriction genuinely protects people or mainly protects a manufacturer’s control over the repair market.

Consumer Freedom Should Include the Freedom to Fix Things

Progressive Liberalism emphasizes individual freedom, equal opportunity, and protection against abuses of power.

The right to repair fits these principles because purchasing a product should provide meaningful control over its use.

Consumers already make choices about where they shop, what products they buy, and how long they keep their possessions. Yet those choices become limited when manufacturers make independent repairs unnecessarily difficult.

A person might prefer a local repair shop because it is closer, cheaper, or more convenient. Another person might want to replace a simple component themselves. Someone else might prefer an authorized repair center.

The point is that consumers should have reasonable options.

Manufacturers should not automatically control every part of the repair process simply because they designed the product.

A progressive liberal approach would support fair competition, clear consumer protections, and rules that allow people to make informed choices.

This would not require forcing every manufacturer to provide every possible tool under every circumstance. It would require a reasonable balance between legitimate safety concerns and the rights of people who own the products.

The Social Democratic Argument: Markets Need Fair Rules

A free market can encourage innovation and competition. Companies can develop new products, compete for customers, and improve their services.

However, markets do not always work fairly when one company controls both a product and access to the parts or information needed to repair it.

If consumers can only obtain certain repairs through the original manufacturer, they may have fewer choices and less ability to compare prices.

This can weaken competition.

Social democracy recognizes that markets can be useful while also supporting rules that protect the public from unfair business practices.

In the case of repair services, governments can help ensure that independent businesses have a reasonable opportunity to compete. Manufacturers could be required, subject to appropriate safety and security safeguards, to make necessary parts, repair documentation, and diagnostic tools available on fair terms.

Such rules could also help small repair businesses survive.

A neighborhood repair shop may be able to fix a device quickly and affordably, but it cannot compete effectively if it is denied access to essential components or software.

Supporting fair repair markets would give consumers more options while allowing independent businesses to create jobs and serve their communities.

The Democratic Socialist Perspective: Who Controls the Things We Buy?

A democratic-socialist perspective asks a broader question about the concentration of economic power.

When companies control not only the products they sell but also the conditions under which those products can be repaired, consumers may become dependent on the same businesses long after the original purchase.

This dependence can limit practical freedom.

Consider someone who owns a piece of equipment but cannot repair it, cannot obtain an affordable replacement part, and cannot choose a qualified independent technician. Although that person legally owns the product, the manufacturer retains considerable control over how long it remains useful.

Democratic socialism emphasizes the importance of giving ordinary people more influence over economic decisions that affect their lives.

That does not mean every product must be publicly owned or every repair service operated by the government. Instead, it means questioning whether businesses should have excessive control over the resources consumers have already purchased.

A stronger right to repair would help shift some of that control back toward owners and independent businesses.

It would also challenge the idea that replacing products should be the default response whenever a manufacturer-controlled repair becomes inconvenient or expensive.

Repairing Products Can Help the Environment

The right to repair also has an environmental benefit.

Manufacturing electronics and appliances requires raw materials, energy, transportation, and industrial production. When a product is discarded earlier than necessary, the resources used to manufacture it may provide less value than they could have.

Discarded electronics can also create waste-management problems, especially when they contain materials that require careful handling.

Repairing products can extend their useful lives and reduce the need to replace them as frequently. It can also reduce the amount of electronic waste generated by households and businesses.

Repair is not always the best environmental option. A severely damaged product may be unsafe, inefficient, or impossible to fix at a reasonable cost. Replacement may sometimes be the more practical choice.

Nevertheless, people should have the opportunity to repair products when doing so is safe and reasonable.

Environmental policy should encourage people to make good use of existing resources rather than treating disposable consumption as the normal solution.

The right to repair is one practical way to support that goal.

Repair Restrictions Can Hurt People With Limited Incomes

The cost of replacing a product can be a serious burden for people with limited financial resources.

A wealthy household may be able to purchase a new laptop when an old one breaks. A lower-income household may depend on the same laptop for several more years because buying another would require sacrificing money needed for other expenses.

The same problem applies to household appliances, tools, and other essential products.

When repairs are unnecessarily expensive, the financial burden falls especially heavily on people who cannot easily afford replacements.

This is an issue of economic fairness.

Progressive politics should recognize that consumer protection is not only about preventing fraud. It is also about making sure that ordinary people have reasonable choices when spending their money.

Affordable repair options can help families extend the useful lives of their possessions and avoid unnecessary expenses.

They cannot eliminate economic inequality, but they can prevent certain business practices from making everyday financial pressures worse.

What Should the Government Do?

The United States should establish stronger, clearer protections for the right to repair.

First, manufacturers should generally make necessary replacement parts, repair instructions, and diagnostic tools available to consumers and independent repair businesses on reasonable terms.

Second, manufacturers should not use software restrictions or warranty conditions to prevent lawful repairs without a legitimate justification. Consumer protections should make it clear that using an independent repair service does not automatically mean a person has done something wrong.

Third, repair laws should include reasonable safeguards for product safety, cybersecurity, and intellectual property. A right to repair should not mean that anyone must be allowed to perform dangerous work without proper qualifications or access sensitive information without protection.

Fourth, governments should support fair competition between authorized repair centers and independent businesses. Consumers should be able to compare services and prices without facing unnecessary barriers.

Finally, policymakers should encourage manufacturers to design products that are easier to maintain, disassemble, and repair. Products that can be repaired efficiently are more useful to consumers and may generate less waste over time.

These changes would not solve every problem in the consumer economy. However, they would establish a fairer relationship between manufacturers, repair businesses, and the people who purchase products.

Companies Should Compete by Making Better Products

Some manufacturers argue that repair restrictions are necessary to protect safety, security, quality, or intellectual property. These concerns deserve consideration.

A poorly performed repair can create risks, and some products require specialized equipment or training. Companies also have legitimate reasons to protect their inventions and prevent the unauthorized use of proprietary information.

However, these concerns should be addressed through reasonable standards rather than used as a blanket justification for restricting all independent repairs.

Manufacturers should be able to compete by producing durable products, offering reliable service, and developing useful innovations.

They should not have to rely on making ordinary repairs unnecessarily difficult to keep customers purchasing replacements.

A company that produces a well-designed product should have the opportunity to earn customers’ loyalty because its product is useful and reliable.

That is a healthier form of competition than limiting the choices available after a sale.

A Fairer Relationship Between Companies and Consumers

The right to repair may sound like a small issue compared with national elections, international conflicts, or major economic debates. Yet it reveals something important about the relationship between ordinary people and powerful businesses.

People work to earn money, use that money to purchase products, and reasonably expect those products to serve their needs. When something breaks, they should have a fair opportunity to decide whether to repair it, replace it, or seek help from an independent business.

Progressive Liberalism supports this freedom as part of consumer rights. Social Democracy supports fair rules that allow repair markets to function more competitively. Democratic Socialism questions why companies should retain excessive control over products after consumers have purchased them.

All three perspectives provide reasons to support a stronger right to repair.

A better policy would protect legitimate safety interests while giving consumers more choices, supporting small businesses, reducing unnecessary waste, and helping people avoid avoidable expenses.

When people buy something, they should have a reasonable right to keep it working. A fair economy should reward companies for making good products, not give them unnecessary power over how those products are repaired.

Latest Mini-Pods: Islamophobia, Political Advertising, Superhero Propaganda

Back to: The Spectacular Misfits