Embedded software has transformed the way modern devices function. Today, just about everything—from smartphones and household appliances to automobiles, medical devices, and military equipment—runs on proprietary code.
These “smart” systems enable remarkable features and capabilities. Yet they also come at a cost. Repairing a device is often difficult and expensive—if not impossible. Manufacturers block fixes through digital locks, restrictive licensing agreements, cryptic diagnostic codes, and opaque designs.
This has fueled the rise of the Right to Repair Movement. Increasingly, consumers and activists are raising objections to proprietary systems they can’t fix. Closed systems could also represent a defense risk to the U.S. and other countries. As a result, regulators and policy makers around the world are responding with laws that restore repair access and broaden consumer protections.
“Right to Repair is a direct outgrowth of the erosion of consumer property interests that we’ve seen over the past couple of decades,” said Aaron Perzanowski, Thomas W. Lacchia Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School and author of The Right to Repair: Reclaiming the Things We Own.
Repair restrictions are more than an inconvenience, however. They drive up costs, accelerate purchases and worsen the e-waste crisis. “In the past, people kept and repaired things. There was an entire economy built around repair,” said Michelle Trim, Senior Teaching Faculty at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and chair of the ACM Special Interest Group on Computers and Society (SIGCAS). “Now we throw things away and buy new ones.”
Closed Case
The traditional idea of ownership is based on a basic concept: once you buy something you can do whatever you want with it. If the object breaks or needs repair, you can fix it yourself or take it to a repair shop.
“Repairing devices and machinery was once a normal part of ownership,” Trim said. “It was especially important for people who didn’t have a lot of disposable income. There also was a robust economy surrounding repairs. It enabled a lot of people to operate viable businesses.”
Yet starting in the 1980s, manufacturers began embedding proprietary software in their systems. In 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act made it illegal to bypass digital rights management. At that point, manufacturers began using intellectual property laws to reduce competition, raise prices, and block access to systems, Perzanowski noted.
Product manufacturers argue that handing over repairs to third parties and individuals introduces safety hazards, cybersecurity risks, quality control and liability issues, and threats to intellectual property (IP). However, a 2019 U.S. Federal Trade Commission report stated that there is “scant evidence” these claims are true.
Broken Promise
The practical result is that consumers often struggle to fix everyday items—whether it’s replacing a battery in a smartphone, troubleshooting a vacuum cleaner, or understanding an error code in a car. However, Right to Repair also affects wheelchairs, hearing aids, insulin pumps, and even hospital ventilators. Proprietary restrictions also limit the ability of the U.S. military to maintain essential equipment in the field.
In almost every instance, embedded software makes it easier to block repairs and control the aftermarket. This includes locking devices and controlling who can fix them, charging higher prices for replacement parts and labor, and threatening to void warranties if someone opens a device or tampers with a system. Over-the-air software updates allow manufacturers to add controls and change the terms of a user agreement.
The result is a tightly controlled ecosystem with limited consumer choices and inflated prices. “Manufacturers, publishers, and other rights holders undermine personal property rights in order to control post-sale use of their products,” Perzanowski explained. “Sometimes it’s about preventing resale on secondary markets. Sometimes it’s about limiting functionality or selling subscription access to built-in features. And sometimes these choices are driven by a desire to restrain repair.”
Breaking Points
A 2023 report by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) found that despite declining electronics prices, U.S. households spent approximately $1,767 annually on new electronic products, a 19% increase from 2019. The same report found that better access to repair options could save $49.6 billion annually, or $382 per household.
The electronic waste stream generated by this constant churn of devices is also a problem. The World Health Organization reports that only 22.3% of e-waste is formally collected and recycled. “Much of this e-waste winds up in landfills in developing nations. These heavy metals pollute groundwater and create health problems for people,” Trim said.
Society may be reaching a tipping point. According to Repair.org, 46 U.S. states have introduced or passed some form of Right to Repair Legislation. In the European Union (EU), the Right to Repair Directive—officially titled Directive (EU) 2024/1799—has established common rules for promoting the repair of goods. Australia has also established a law to promote the right to repair automobiles.
“There is an awareness of the need to rebalance the relationship between manufacturers and consumers,” said Leanne Wiseman, a law professor at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. “Without access to troubleshooting codes, diagnostic software, information, and spare parts, it’s impossible for owners of products and devices to maintain, service, or repair them. You wind up having to buy something new every couple of years.”
The Fix Is In
True change begins with better design, Wiseman said. “We must get past the point where a circuit board goes bad or a component fails and you’re forced to pay for an artificially high repair or replace the entire refrigerator or vacuum cleaner,” she said. “We need to have products that can be disassembled and repaired, more open and modular systems, and ensure that manufacturers can’t block the use of third-party parts.”
Regulators must also take a tougher stance, Wiseman said. “There is a tendency to accept the argument that independent or DIY repairs create greater risk and problems but there is no evidence to support this contention.” In addition, Trim emphasizes the need for market incentives—such as taxing non-reparable goods, subsidizing repair-friendly designs, and holding companies accountable for the e-waste they generate.
Several states, including California, New York, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota and Texas, now require manufacturers to provide parts, tools, and information. But that’s not enough, Perzanowski warned. “State law, for example, can’t overcome federal copyright barriers or tighten design patent standards that allow automakers to corner the market on collision replacement costs—and drive up repair costs.”
Perzanowski also scoffs at the notion that closed systems and IP protection drive ongoing innovation. “What companies often try to pass off as innovation is merely product differentiation,” he said. “If anything, widespread, affordable repair would create stronger incentives for genuine innovation because manufacturers would have to present a compelling case for consumers to upgrade their devices.”
Samuel Greengard is an author and journalist based in West Linn, OR, USA.
Join the Discussion (0)
Become a Member or Sign In to Post a Comment