FARM Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Perez, Marie Gluesenkamp [D-WA-3]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 28, 2025
Bottom line
The FARM Act aims to establish a comprehensive 'right to repair' for agricultural equipment, empowering farmers and independent repair shops by mandating OEM access to repair resources and overriding copyright restrictions on repair.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of farm equipment make available all necessary documentation, parts, software, firmware, and tools for diagnosis, maintenance, upgrade, or repair to equipment owners and independent repair providers on fair and reasonable terms. It also explicitly overrides certain provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to allow circumvention of technological protection measures for repair purposes and imposes penalties for OEMs who cease offering repair resources.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this legislation is crucial for empowering farmers, reducing their operational costs, and minimizing equipment downtime by allowing them to choose their repair provider or perform repairs themselves. They contend it fosters competition in the repair market, breaks OEM monopolies on parts and service, and ensures the long-term viability of agricultural operations.
Opponents contend
Opponents, primarily OEMs and their authorized dealers, contend that the bill undermines intellectual property rights, creates significant security vulnerabilities, and could lead to unsafe or non-compliant modifications of complex machinery. They argue it could stifle innovation, increase liability risks, and negatively impact the established authorized dealer networks that provide specialized training and support.
The bill is concise and can be read quickly, allowing for a thorough understanding of its provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 3(a)
Mandate for OEM Provision of Repair Materials and Data
This provision requires Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to provide any documentation, parts, software, firmware, or tools necessary for diagnosing, maintaining, upgrading, reprogramming, or repairing farm equipment to both owners and independent repair providers. These resources must be made available on 'fair and reasonable terms.' Additionally, OEMs must provide farm equipment data to the owner or an authorized independent repair provider.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is fundamental to the 'right to repair,' empowering farmers to make timely and cost-effective repairs, reducing reliance on often distant or expensive authorized dealerships, and fostering a competitive repair market.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that mandating access to proprietary software and tools infringes on intellectual property rights, could compromise equipment security and performance, and may lead to unauthorized modifications that void warranties or create safety hazards.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the consumer's right to repair their property against the manufacturer's intellectual property rights and business model that often relies on exclusive control over repair ecosystems.
Section 3(b)
Access to Security Function Disablement Tools
This section requires OEMs to provide documentation, parts, software, or tools necessary to disable or enable technological protection measures or other security-related functions of farm equipment. This access must also be provided on fair and reasonable terms to owners and independent repair providers.
Section 3(c)
Circumvention of Technological Measures for Repair
This section explicitly overrides certain provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), specifically sections 1201(a) and (b). It permits individuals to circumvent technological measures that control access to copyrighted works (like embedded software) in farm equipment for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance, upgrade, reprogramming, or repair. It also allows the manufacturing and trafficking of tools designed for such circumvention, which would otherwise be prohibited under the DMCA.
Section 3(d)
Continuity of Repair Material Availability and Replaceability
This section prohibits OEMs from discontinuing the offering of any documentation, parts, software, or tools to authorized repair providers, independent repair providers, or equipment owners, with civil penalties for violations. It also mandates that any part required by the OEM's farm equipment must be replaceable using either a commonly available tool or a specialized tool provided by the OEM on fair and reasonable terms, preventing proprietary tools from becoming a barrier to repair.
This section provides a highly detailed definition of 'fair and reasonable terms' for parts, tools, and documentation. For tools, it mandates no charge for owners (except for physical copies) and the lowest actual cost for independent repair providers, including any discounts offered to authorized repair providers. It also prohibits OEMs from imposing substantial obligations or restrictions on the use of parts or tools, such as requiring registration, pairing, or becoming an authorized repair provider.
Section 2(6)
Why it matters:While defining terms upfront is standard legislative practice, the granular detail and prescriptive nature of this definition make it a substantive policy provision in itself, rather than just a clarifying statement. Its placement in definitions might obscure its direct impact.
Case for: Proponents argue that such a precise and detailed definition is absolutely essential to prevent OEMs from circumventing the spirit of the law by charging exorbitant prices or imposing overly restrictive conditions, thereby ensuring genuine access to repair resources.
Case against: Opponents might argue that such prescriptive definitions for pricing and terms limit OEM flexibility in managing their supply chains, pricing strategies, and distribution networks, potentially impacting their ability to compete or differentiate their service offerings.
Estimated impact: This definition is foundational to the entire bill, as it dictates the practical accessibility and affordability of repair for farmers and independent providers. Its specific mandates on pricing and terms will directly shape the economic landscape of agricultural equipment repair.
This section outlines several limitations to the Act. Notably, it clarifies that OEMs are not required to divulge trade secrets 'except as necessary' to provide repair access on fair and reasonable terms (6(1)). It also explicitly states that the Act does not permit modifications that permanently deactivate safety notification systems, bring equipment out of compliance with safety or emissions laws, violate emissions or copyright laws, or other illegal modification activities (6(5)).
Section 6
Why it matters:Including limitations is standard legislative practice to address potential concerns and make a bill more palatable. However, the specific wording of these limitations, particularly the 'except as necessary' clause for trade secrets and the detailed prohibitions on certain modifications, are highly substantive and shape the practical application of the bill.
Case for: Proponents argue these limitations are vital for addressing legitimate OEM concerns regarding trade secrets, product safety, and environmental compliance. They help make the bill more reasonable and prevent unintended negative consequences that could arise from an absolute 'right to repair,' thereby increasing its chances of passage.
Case against: Some advocates for a broader 'right to repair' might argue that the 'except as necessary' clause for trade secrets could still provide a loophole for OEMs to withhold critical repair information. Others might contend that the safety and emissions clauses could be broadly interpreted to limit legitimate repair and modification options for farmers.
Estimated impact: These clauses define the permissible boundaries of repair activities, preventing the 'right to repair' from being absolute and attempting to mitigate potential harms related to safety, environmental compliance, and intellectual property. They are critical for the bill's legal and practical viability.