Fair Repair Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 10, 2026
Bottom line
The Fair Repair Act aims to expand the "right to repair" by requiring OEMs to facilitate independent repair of digital electronic devices, potentially lowering repair costs and increasing repair options for consumers.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of digital electronic equipment provide independent repair providers and equipment owners with documentation, parts, and tools on fair and reasonable terms for diagnosis, maintenance, and repair. It also prohibits "parts pairing" and other mechanisms that restrict the use of non-OEM parts or reduce functionality, aiming to expand consumer and independent repair access.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill empowers consumers and small businesses by breaking OEM monopolies on repair, fostering competition, reducing electronic waste, and extending the lifespan of devices. They contend it will make repairs more affordable and accessible, giving consumers more control over their purchased products.
Opponents contend
Opponents, typically OEMs and their authorized repair networks, express concerns about intellectual property theft, potential security vulnerabilities if unauthorized parties have access to proprietary information, and the risk of damage to devices or injury to users from improper repairs. They also argue it could undermine warranty programs and brand reputation.
The bill is concise and relatively easy to read, allowing for a quick understanding of its core provisions.
Section 2(a)
OEM Obligation to Provide Repair Resources
This provision requires original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of digital electronic equipment to make available all necessary documentation, parts, and tools, including updates, to independent repair providers and equipment owners. These resources must be offered on "fair and reasonable terms" for the purpose of diagnosing, maintaining, or repairing the equipment.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is fundamental to establishing a true "right to repair," enabling a competitive repair market and empowering consumers to choose where and how their devices are fixed.
Critics contend
OEMs contend that sharing proprietary tools and documentation could compromise intellectual property, lead to security risks, and allow for substandard repairs that damage their brand reputation.
Tradeoffs
Balances consumer and independent repairer access to repair resources against OEM control over their products, intellectual property, and authorized service networks.
Section 2(b)
Ban on Restrictive Parts Pairing Practices
This section explicitly prohibits OEMs from using "parts pairing" (software-based identification of components) or any other mechanism to prevent the installation or functioning of non-manufacturer-approved parts, inhibit functionality with replacement parts, create misleading alerts about parts, charge extra for future repairs based on part origin, or limit who can purchase parts or perform repairs.
Section 3
Federal and State Enforcement Powers
This section establishes that violations of the Act will be treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the Federal Trade Commission Act, granting the FTC enforcement powers, including the ability to prescribe regulations. It also empowers State Attorneys General to bring civil actions in Federal or State courts to enjoin violations, enforce compliance, and obtain civil penalties, damages, or restitution, with provisions for FTC notice and intervention.
Section 4
Scope and Exclusions
This section clarifies the Act's scope, including a requirement for OEMs to provide security-related tools for diagnosis and repair, while protecting trade secrets only as necessary. It also explicitly excludes motor vehicle manufacturers, medical device manufacturers, off-road/non-road vehicle manufacturers, and safety communications equipment manufacturers from its provisions.
Section 5
OEM Liability Protections
This section limits the liability of OEMs and authorized repair providers for any damage or injury to equipment, persons, or property resulting from repairs, diagnosis, maintenance, or modification performed by independent repair providers or owners. It specifies that OEMs are not liable for indirect, incidental, special, or consequential damages, loss of data/privacy, or reduced functionality. It also clarifies that OEMs are not required to warrant repairs by independent parties and are not liable for improper use of personal data during such repairs.
Defines "fair and reasonable terms" for documentation, parts, and tools as equivalent to the most favorable costs and terms offered by an OEM to an authorized repair provider, accounting for discounts, delivery, functionality, and not imposing substantial obligations unrelated to repair.
Section 6(4)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define key terms, but the detailed criteria here are highly consequential for the bill's effectiveness.
Case for: Supporters argue this definition is critical to prevent OEMs from complying with the letter but not the spirit of the law by making resources available at prohibitive costs or with unreasonable restrictions. It ensures genuine access.
Case against: OEMs might argue that this definition could force them to subsidize independent repair providers or reveal commercially sensitive pricing strategies, undermining their business models.
Estimated impact: High, as it directly determines the economic viability of independent repair.
Defines "digital electronic equipment" as "any product that depends for its functioning, in whole or in part, on digital electronics embedded in or attached to the product."
Section 6(2)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice for defining scope.
Case for: Proponents argue this broad definition is necessary to cover a wide array of modern devices, from smartphones to home appliances, ensuring comprehensive "right to repair" coverage.
Case against: OEMs might argue that such a broad definition could inadvertently capture complex industrial equipment or specialized devices for which independent repair poses unique safety or proprietary challenges, despite the specific exclusions in Section 4.
Estimated impact: High, as it sets the boundaries for what products are covered by the Act.
States the Act takes effect 60 days after enactment and applies to equipment sold or in use on or after the effective date.
Section 7
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice for effective dates.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures the bill has immediate and broad impact, covering existing devices and not just newly manufactured ones, which is crucial for consumer benefit.
Case against: OEMs might argue that applying the Act to equipment "in use" creates a retroactive burden, requiring them to develop and provide resources for older models that were not designed with these requirements in mind.
Estimated impact: Significant, as it determines how quickly and broadly the bill's effects are felt across the market.