FTC Report Blasts Manufacturers For Restricting Product Repairs (theverge.com) 68
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has published its long-awaited report on how manufacturers limit product repairs. From a report: The "Nixing the Fix" [PDF] report details a host of repair restrictions, especially those imposed by mobile phone and car manufacturers. The anticompetitive practices covered by the FTC range from limited availability of spare parts and diagnostic software to designs that make repairs more difficult than they need to be. In response, the FTC wants to develop new laws and rules surrounding repairs, but it also wants better enforcement of existing legislation like the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA). While debates around right to repair rules in the EU have tended to focus on the environmental impact of sending broken devices to landfills, the FTC's report leads with the impacts they have on people. It says repair restrictions are bad for consumers when they can't easily repair their devices, and adds that these "may place a greater financial burden on communities of color and lower-income Americans." Independent repair shops also suffer as a result of repair restrictions, "disproportionately [affecting] small businesses owned by people of color."
[...] According to the FTC, manufacturers are guilty of using numerous tactics that make it difficult for customers and independent businesses to repair their products. Here's the full list from the FTC's report:
Product designs that complicate or prevent repair;
Unavailability of parts and repair information;
Designs that make independent repairs less safe;
Policies or statements that steer consumers to manufacturer repair networks;
Application of patent rights and enforcement of trademarks;
Disparagement of non-OEM parts and independent repair;
Software locks and firmware updates; or
End User License Agreements
[...] According to the FTC, manufacturers are guilty of using numerous tactics that make it difficult for customers and independent businesses to repair their products. Here's the full list from the FTC's report:
Product designs that complicate or prevent repair;
Unavailability of parts and repair information;
Designs that make independent repairs less safe;
Policies or statements that steer consumers to manufacturer repair networks;
Application of patent rights and enforcement of trademarks;
Disparagement of non-OEM parts and independent repair;
Software locks and firmware updates; or
End User License Agreements
Yep, software locks in cars (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just owning a Jaguar/Land Rover is a money making scheme for dealer service centers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a problem though, only people with money to waste buy those overpriced things that are just riding out the name in the 21st century. Imagine someone buying Land Rover for their trip to country club or salon, because as kid they saw the thing on nature shows going over rugged terrain, while the reality now is that they are just stylish attachments on fragile and unreliable cost reduced crap.
As for jaguar, always was finicky engine needing constant tuning, now they're just unreliable.
Status symbols for t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not anything against capitalism though, or do you imagine those with state made and mandated equipment have more choice? You don't have to buy a John Deere anything...
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that go against the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act [wikipedia.org]?
Of course that's only applicable in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they have some language that "using non genuine parts will void the warranty" kind of statement
which is unlawful, and had been for a long time, the government has generally only been interested in locking up people not in the upper-classes.
Steal a pack of gum from Walgreens, you're tried under criminal law. Depending on how many times you've stolen before, you could be locked in a cage for many years.
If, however, you knowingly steal money from people's bank accounts to which you know you are not en
Re:Yep, software locks in cars (Score:5, Informative)
Try replacing a headlamp on a Jaguar/Land Rover and see what happens - nothing. You need to access the car's encrypted configuration file via the OBD-II connector, with appropriate encryption keys, to update the serial numbers for the CAN bus-connected lights before they'll operate. Just so dealers can milk more money from customers.
A battery in a BMW required resetting the charging circuit using special software. Fortunately, for BMWs, you can do that with 3rd party software but even than isn't cheap if that's all you want to do. The upside is if you do work on your car it does a lot more diagnostics and resets as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Same for VW. My battery died, and AAA told me they couldn't replace it. Fortunately, they were able to get me started so I could go to the dealer and get it done.
Re:Yep, software locks in cars (Score:4, Informative)
Same with Mini / BMW. I have a '13 Cooper S, and the battery is one of them weirdo AGM batteries... anyway... the car has to be "told" -- via proprietary software, of course -- that it has a new battery. Otherwise the charging curves will be off, or so I'm told.
Battery - 120 bucks, Varta.
Talking to the car -- another 200 bucks.
Yeah, this is the last mini I buy, and I shall never get a BMW after this.
Back to Mazda I go, and soon. The instant the warranty is up on this mini. Bring out the straight 6 and I'll make it happen even before the warranty is up.
Great car.. but BMW can suck my left nut. Don't care how superlative the car itself may be.
Re: Yep, software locks in cars (Score:2)
Mini is one of those cars that doesn't have parts in common with other cars, so they're harder to find and way more expensive to inventory.
Re: (Score:2)
Mini is one of those cars that doesn't have parts in common with other cars, so they're harder to find and way more expensive to inventory.
Parts are expensive and so is labor, but Mini / BMW isn't as insane as Porsche or Ferrari or Lotus. My Mazda dealers sold Porsche and Lotus too, and in the mid 90's, when I had a mid-80's Rx-7, I was getting a pair of headlight lifting rods (ten dolla each!) a guy came in and got got taken for $800 for a rotor, wire set and plug set for a Porsche 928. Oof.
But if you wanna get broke, buy an Rx-anything. *laughs in Wankel Rotary* The reason I have none now, is because those cars do try to eat you out of h
Re: (Score:2)
Same with Mini / BMW. I have a '13 Cooper S, and the battery is one of them weirdo AGM batteries... anyway... the car has to be "told" -- via proprietary software, of course -- that it has a new battery. Otherwise the charging curves will be off, or so I'm told.
Yes, you have to tell it the specs of your new battery, otherwise it will charge it the same way it has adapted to doing with your old battery. I just traded my 2011 335i, and it still had the original battery in it working just fine. I'm sure regular trickle charging helped, but getting 10 years out of an auto battery is still pretty good IMO.
Re: Yep, software locks in cars (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If anything AGM batteries are more robust than a standard battery. That being said, the Absorbant Glass Mat is just something to hold onto the acid. Its still a lead acid battery that should charge the same.
Right. Which means.. why does BMW bother with all the duplicity, just to make $200 on what should be a self-fix?!
My 1994 Miata had an AGM from panasonic, trunk-mounted. It did 8 years hard labor before it died. I replaced with an AGM Westco that gave another 2 more before that car got shot out from under me. I never had to tell it anything, it never spoke to a computer, that car was as dumb as a bag of rocks and it still used AGM with no problem.
BMW is straight-up ripping people off with this.
Talk is cheap. (Score:1)
Like many three-letter agencies publishing "damning" reports, talk is cheap.
Wake me up when a corrupt agency actually does something about it other than publish papers and wag fingers.
Fake bullshit outrage, is fake bullshit outrage no matter who's slinging it.
Re: Talk is cheap. (Score:1)
Well in this case they pulled the race card. Pulling the race card has been a pretty effective means of getting your way lately. Think back to a few years ago when Comcast paid Jesse Jackson to pull the race card on keeping cable boxes around, only better in this case because they didn't have to buy anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Currently the only commonly used anti-right to repair tactic that is actually illegal that I know of is the warranty void if removed sticker and refusing warranty service if other work has been performed. That's all explicitly illegal under Magnusson-Moss. But they are poorly enforced.
Everything else you commonly see done, over use of glue to prevent accessing parts. Designing chassis in such a way that they cant be opened without destroying them. Paying off suppliers to prevent them selling parts to third
Re: (Score:2)
. The failing of Magnussen-Moss is that its hard and often not worth it to sue over the warranty coverage on consumer electronics
The failing of Moss-Magnuson (Moss is pissed at you for giving him second billing), is that it targets companies who contribute heavily to political campaigns and companies which spend major advertising dollars. If you were the target of Moss-Magnuson, they wouldn't it so hard or not-worth-it.
The government spends $1 million collecting $100,000 in back taxes because they want the
Re: (Score:2)
Two things can be true. America definitely has a problem with regulatory capture and outsized political influence by corporations. We also have a problem where quality of justice is often determined by how much money you put in to it. Suing Apple over Magnussen-Moss (sorry it just sounds better that way) will cost more than the value of the device you are suing them over. Same goes for just about any consumer electronic device.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying you want unelected officials performing government functions currently reserved for elected officials?
Motherfuck yes! Our "elected officials" are all corrupt, and don't give a rats asshole about us. I'd say anyone else performing government functions would be better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Talk is cheap. (Score:4, Interesting)
Wake me up when a corrupt agency actually does something about it other than publish papers and wag fingers.
Well then stay asleep for forever, because Congress hasn't granted the FTC any authority to do something outside of wagging fingers. It's the exact same reason Pai suggested the FTC handle the actual regulatory function of ISP access during the whole net neutrality thing. He knew the FTC lacked the teeth to actually go after anyone. In his mind, I'm guessing, is that if ISPs got totally out of hand, then Congress would be forced to actual write rules of enforcement rather than the FCC trying to extend the meaning of Title II to grant authority for ISP regulations.
From the article
With the findings submitted to Congress, the question now is how to make repairing devices easier. The FTC’s report makes several suggestions, including the introduction of new legislation to address repair restrictions and open repair markets.
Because that's the extent of the FTC's granted authority in this matter. The FTC's granted authority is outlined in 15 USC 2310(a)(2) [cornell.edu]
The Commission shall prescribe rules setting forth minimum requirements for any informal dispute settlement procedure which is incorporated into the terms of a written warranty to which any provision of this chapter applies. Such rules shall provide for participation in such procedure by independent or governmental entities.
Outside of this, a House report directed a review for this in relation to HR 7668, that is in House Report 116-456 [congress.gov] from the House Appropriations Committee.
Not later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, the FTC is directed to provide to the Committee, and to publish online, a report on anticompetitive practices related to repair markets. The report shall provide recommendations on how to best address these problems.
So there you go. That's it. That's all the FTC CAN do about this. If you want the FTC to do more, you are going to have to ask Congress to "do something" about it. But the FTC isn't going to be recommending jack in terms of regulatory or remedy because the second they do, these companies will be more than happy to have a Judge tell the FTC exactly where it can shove that order.
A lot of agencies exist for the sole purpose of "informing" Congress and nothing more. Sometimes they get the power to issue orders, but not always and sometimes if it's really egregious and Congress is taking a pass on the matter, the agency will attempt or the President will "ask" them to twist and turn their granted power into something that justifies and order or fine. But that also means that these companies can bring that twisted logic before a judge. Most agencies want to wait for Congress to provide clarification before going forward and as we all know, that can literally take an Act of Congress in terms of time before it happens and magnitude of energy required.
Re: (Score:2)
Not later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, the FTC is directed to provide to the Committee, and to publish online, a report on anticompetitive practices related to repair markets. The report shall provide recommendations on how to best address these problems.
Society asks for this shit when competition refuses to stand up and start manufacturing an easily to upgrade and repair product. Society doesn't give a shit about that anymore.
If they did, we would have a healthy amount of competition offering exactly that, and they would be successfully outselling the competitors of shitty disposable hardware.
The FTC may be neutered in power (dead wrong), and Congress holds the actual power to do something (corruption won't let them). So that leaves good old fashioned c
Re: (Score:2)
Like many three-letter agencies publishing "damning" reports, talk is cheap.
Wake me up when a corrupt agency actually does something about it other than publish papers and wag fingers.
Fake bullshit outrage, is fake bullshit outrage no matter who's slinging it.
Gee, thanks Debbie Downer. These "reports" are supposed to give us meatbags the illusion of enforcement, without actually threatening the companies or their ability to flout the law.
Yeah, the sane amongst us know that the FTC does little more than hol
Yet, nothing a report says changes a damn thing (Score:2)
Industry motors-on EULA, contracts and subscriptions are in-place. Like telephone poles that only a 100X technology can subvert. People(wetware) are held hostage by people(paperware) that have legally captured them in their matrix.
Nothing short of Constitutional Right-to-Repair can change it! ‘Cuz software trumps wetware and paperware rules the world. This is simple friction corporations are used to handling with a little grease to oil the paper machinery.
Re: (Score:3)
Industry motors-on EULA, contracts and subscriptions are in-place. Like telephone poles that only a 100X technology can subvert. People(wetware) are held hostage by people(paperware) that have legally captured them in their matrix.
Nothing short of Constitutional Right-to-Repair can change it! ‘Cuz software trumps wetware and paperware rules the world. This is simple friction corporations are used to handling with a little grease to oil the paper machinery.
Username checks out.
So - let's take the traditional devil, the smartphone.
How long should any and all parts of any and all smartphones be available for any and all repair shops to repair them?
How long should chip manufacturers be required to continue manufacture of any and all chips that allow repairs to any and all of these devices?
Pick how many years - forever? 10 years? 20 years?
You see, it isn't just a "Muh Right to repair!" thing. If manufactured products must do this, it will make some pre
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well how about we start by preventing them from restricting who can buy the parts to begin with, how will that stifle innovation and improvements?
One of the first things to remember with components is that while there are some standard components that have been around for a long time, a lot of components are produced on a rather short lifetime. This is a problem for manufacturers at times.
So the question is how to distribute these parts, and for how long?
I have a Radio Transceiver that isn't terribly old - 6 years or so, but the transmitter finals are no longer manufactured. I have another one that during the production process, the company th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yet, nothing a report says changes a damn thing (Score:4, Insightful)
How long should any and all parts of any and all smartphones be available for any and all repair shops to repair them?
While this is a valid question, I think what's more appropriate to ask is much more basic: "Should any and all parts of smartphones be available and the manufacturer be prevented from restricting their availability?". I'd settle for simple availability of [OEM] parts first rather than quibbling about how long those parts should be made available for.
How long should chip manufacturers be required to continue manufacture of any and all chips that allow repairs to any and all of these devices?
Pick how many years - forever? 10 years? 20 years?
Or how about the missing option there: "As long as they want to keep manufacturing and selling them and/or for however long there's a market for them?" I'd rather not be hung-up on the disconnect between where the parts should come from and for how long, and the basic premise of actually being able to obtain parts without being prevented from doing so by the device manufacturer whether by stifling of the supply chain via legal threats, or by applying unnecessary software locks to replacement parts, for example. The supply logistics are just that - logistics. If there's a demand, the "free market" will solve that by itself. What's much tougher to resolve is legal barriers and needless DRM obstacles, and it's this latter part that warrants due scrutiny and regulation/legislation.
Re:Yet, nothing a report says changes a damn thing (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, forcing companies to manufacture replacement parts for X years isn't the problem, although that has been required for certain industries in the past (things like household appliances).
When I can buy used 30yo chips for an IBM XT compatible it's not because the government mandated that to be the case, but rather because IBM et all didn't conspire to restrict the trade of the necessary chips.
When you start looking into the details of these problems it gets really silly though. Apple is paying for power controllers to be designed in an intentionally nonstandard way to prevent any replacements from being made. When we're dealing with densely populated boards this can be as simple in practice as putting the pins in the "wrong" place on the chip since it's not like you're going to rearrange the traces on a 6 layer PCB.
There's probably some room to manage requirements for the solidarity of part availability though. If we're dealing with undocumented secret parts with no alternates available or possible set the requirement to something absurd to match - 100 years. OTOH, using standard parts with open documentation unladen by patents probably doesn't need any restriction (if you don't want to offer replacements, someone else can and will).
Re: (Score:2)
Having spent one career in complex analog RF/IF semiconductor design, and another in communications product design, I get the point that as things get smaller, with greater functionality, and improved features, it becomes less and less feasible to repair, especially without perhaps onerous tooling that may be required to do it, and maintain fundamental things like water resistance and stuff. Hell, I'm on my third iPhone now, after having had traditional cell phones for a decade and a half (Nokia, Ericcson,
And nothing will change. (Score:4, Insightful)
To address unlawful repair restrictions, the FTC will pursue appropriate law enforcement and regulatory options, as well as consumer education, consistent with our statutory authority. The Commission also stands ready to work with legislators, either at the state or federal level, in order to ensure that consumers have choices when they need to repair products that they purchase and own.
I've seen how this goes. The offenders get a slap on the wrist that is little more than a cost of doing business. Without heavy-handed and damaging penalties then nothing will change. If you aren't wiping out their profits then you are just telling them they can continue this practice.
Re: (Score:3)
Without heavy-handed and damaging penalties levied on decision makers & managers all the way to the top then nothing will change.
Fixed it for you
Re: (Score:3)
Without heavy-handed and damaging penalties affecting the shareholders then nothing will change.
Fixed the fixed it for you.
And through it all (Score:3)
Companies like Apple have claimed that designing products with limited repairability was the byproduct of making those devices more reliable and/or durable, even though the base warranty they offer hasn't increased from what it was 10-15 years ago.
Re:And through it all (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of getting better warranties, the products have instead gotten smaller and lighter, usually with better battery life and many more features. It's a trade space. Yes, gluing a small widget shut makes repairs or even battery replacement ridiculously hard -- but it also protects or against water ingress, which has been a bane of electronics since forever. Companies may be making socially sub-optimal choices here, but I think only because they are listening to customers who want those socially sub-optimal products.
Re:And through it all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The cheapest way to make a phone is to use old components and glue the corners so that repair is hard and water can get in. Phone companies spend a lot more time and effort figuring out what will appeal than you give them credit for. And sometimes they're wrong -- think of Samsung and the headphone jack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They take their phone to the beach or pool, and want to take pictures with it while they're in the water. They keep their phone in their pocket, and it falls into the toilet when they sit down. They work in a job that involves getting splashed, and don't want to carry their phone inside a sandwich bag.
There are lots of reasons that people want water-resistant phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Point is, let the aftermarket figure out waterproofing. Design a non-disposable phone. A rubber gasket can do wonders for
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung did both (waterproof and replaceable battery). Now I don't know how well it has sold however...
https://www.samsung.com/us/business/products/mobile/phones/galaxy-xcover-pro/ [samsung.com]
Re: (Score:2)
because they are listening to customers who want those socially sub-optimal products
Careful, don't confuse 'want' with 'are forced to buy'.
I would much rather purchase a phone with repairable parts and fewer "features"... but the market is artificially limited pandering to these (supposed) users who want those features. And isn't it funny how the users the companies listen to are coincidentally the ones whose "wants" will help maximise the companies' profits?
And I find it rather curious that my Galaxy S5 with a removable battery, SD card slot, and headphone jack has exactly the same water
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of getting better warranties, the products have instead gotten smaller and lighter, usually with better battery life and many more features. It's a trade space. Yes, gluing a small widget shut makes repairs or even battery replacement ridiculously hard -- but it also protects or against water ingress, which has been a bane of electronics since forever. Companies may be making socially sub-optimal choices here, but I think only because they are listening to customers who want those socially sub-optimal products.
If we can put a removable battery in a diving watch, I'm thinking we can put a removable battery in a smartphone, and make it at least waterproof to swimming pool depth.
This is hardly about trade-offs. It's about manufacturing overpriced disposable shit electronics filled with pointless features no one actually asked for that addicts are forced to replace every other year.
Local Politics is important (Score:4, Informative)
For those wondering what's to be done, much of this is on the state level in the US, so write your local state reps.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgqk38/the-right-to-repair-movement-is-poised-to-explode-in-2021 [vice.com]
https://uspirg.org/blogs/blog/usp/half-us-states-looking-give-americans-right-repair [uspirg.org]
Also some Federal Legislation has been done in the past, with the current makeup in the Senate today I don't see more getting passed soon there though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlocking_Consumer_Choice_and_Wireless_Competition_Act [wikipedia.org]
An attempt from Ron Wyden and Yvette Clark to alleviate this for medical devices during the pandemic did not receive a vote.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7956 [congress.gov]
John Deere (Score:2)
Finally - can we talk about John Deere...
Re: (Score:3)
John Deere is a prime example.
Another darling with a problem: Tesla.
Have an accident? Tesla will reach out over the air and either disable your car or at the least disable Supercharging (a prime feature of the car) until you have repairs "certified" by a Tesla-approved repair station.
Can you see what would happen if GM tried to pull that shit? "Our sensors detected an impact of greater than 2 g's, so we're remotely disabling your ability to refuel your car until you have it repaired, and the repairs inspe
Re: (Score:2)
Montana did have a bill to address the issues with John Deere but it died in the state house/senate (surprise...) just this past week.
You're right about Tesla, it seems like they are getting away with things because they make up still a small segment of the car market but their non-dealer model will present complications in the near future. I feel like there will be a forced issue very soon that will have to be legislated.
Like i applaud their fight against the state laws for dealer networks, but at the sam
maybe this will encourage (Score:2)
You know the problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Because the loving selfless Democrats would never take money to pass a law favored by the donor...
Seriously, this "bullshit" is legal — and ought to remain legal. The consumers' only meaningful protection is competition.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a Republican or Democrat issue.
It's a " Screw everyone over to maximize profits " issue. ( Aka: Endgame Capitalism at its finest )
The Full Excerpt (Score:2)
The report said:
“We found the following issues:
Product designs that complicate or prevent repair;
Unavailability of parts and repair information;
Designs that make independent repairs less safe;
Policies or statements that steer consumers to manufacturer repair networks;
Application of patent rights and enforcement of trademarks;
Disparagement of non-OEM parts and independent repair;
Software locks and firmware updates; or
End User License Agreements
But enough about Apple, “ the report continued,
Louis Rossmann's Right to Repair (Score:1)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futur... [reddit.com]
https://www.gofundme.com/f/let... [gofundme.com]
Facepalm (Score:2)
The FTC just had to play the race / racism card didn't they.
They couldn't just say " It's bad for consumers " and leave it at that, no they had to go down the rabbit hole of Woke and make sure we all know that it's extra bad for those of " color ". ( I suppose the transparent types have it easier when it comes to repairing parts or something . . . . :| )
Don't You See What This Is Really About? (Score:2)
This is less about the right to repair, and more about private property rights. Or rather, the abolition thereof.
With the proliferation of "licenses" ... which hardware is useless without ... companies sell you the hardware, and maintain control. You pay for it, it stays theirs to keep generating money for them. They pay you no consideration for this benefit, and thus it's not actually contractible, but, eh, meatbags. What do they know?
You, in effect, no longer own any personal property. You buy it, but c
It's Good to Be Translucent (Score:2)
Frankly, I'm kind of glad it only effects people of color. As a translucent myself, it means that I don't have to worry about any of this.