The right to repair movement has, in the legislative sense, won. The laws have passed in enough US states, in the EU, in the UK, and in Australia that the manufacturers have stopped fighting the laws and started fighting the implementation. The legislative fight is over. The implementation fight runs as the one that matters for the next ten years, and the implementation fight becomes the one the movement is not as well equipped to win.
What the laws require, broadly, is parts, manuals, and tools. What the manufacturers are shipping, in many categories, are parts, manuals, and tools that technically comply and practically obstruct. The result is a regulatory landscape that looks like a win on paper and feels like a loss in the workshop.
What compliance theatre looks like
The pattern sits as the same across the product categories where the manufacturers are hostile to independent work.
The manufacturer publishes a parts catalogue that includes the parts they are required to include, which is most of the parts, but the catalogue is hosted on a website that is hard to find and harder to navigate. The shop that needs a part for a one year old device cannot find the part in the catalogue, calls the manufacturer, is told the part is on back order, and ends up buying the part from a third party at three times the price.
The manufacturer publishes the manuals, which the law requires, but the manuals are written for the manufacturer’s own technicians rather than for the independent shop. The diagrams use internal part numbers. The procedures assume the technician has the factory diagnostic tools. The “manual” is, in practice, a compliance artefact that satisfies the law without enabling the fix.
The manufacturer publishes the software tools needed to pair the new part to the device, and the tools require an online activation that requires an account that requires a credit card that requires the user to agree to terms that prohibit commercial service, which counts as the use case the legislation was meant to enable.
Where this is happening
Phones. The proprietary screw patterns, the glued batteries, the paired components that fail when the wrong screen is installed. Apple’s self service programme is technically available and practically a mess. The parts cost more than the device is worth after a couple of years, the manuals are thin, and the rental tooling is expensive. The programme exists to satisfy the law rather than to enable the fix.
Laptops. Apple silicon devices are increasingly difficult to upgrade. SSDs are soldered. RAM is part of the SoC. The battery is glued. The service manual exists, but the work the manual describes is beyond the reach of most independent shops. The Framework laptop runs as the counterexample, and the Framework amounts to the proof that the difficulty is a design choice.
Cars. The telematics, the paired ECUs, the OEM only diagnostic tools. John Deere’s fight with farmers over tractor software counts as the most public example. Tesla’s settlement with the California AG in 2024 was a real concession, and the implementation of the concession is still being argued over.
Appliances. The connected fridge that requires a manufacturer account to diagnose the error code. The washing machine that bricks itself when a non OEM part is installed. The kitchen equipment that calls home on every cycle and reports the user behaviour back to the manufacturer.
What is actually changing
Two forces are pushing back, slowly.
The first is enforcement. The EU rules have teeth. The US state laws are getting teeth. The 2023 executive order on competition in the US economy put federal agencies on notice. The enforcement is uneven, and the enforcement is slow, but the enforcement is happening, and the manufacturers are starting to take it seriously.
The second sits as the market. The Framework laptop sells. The Pinecil soldering iron sells. The iFixit Pro Tech Toolkit sells. The movement is a market position, and the market position is selling to a generation of consumers who want devices they can fix, modify, and keep for a decade.
The two forces are slow. The legislative win is real, but the implementation win becomes the one that determines whether the right to fix is a right in practice or a right on paper.
What to do about it as a consumer
Buy the device you can fix. Read the iFixit teardown before you buy, not after. Pay attention to which manufacturers publish real parts catalogues and which publish compliance artefacts. Vote with your wallet, because the wallet sits as the lever the manufacturers respond to fastest.
For businesses that depend on devices they can service in house, the calculus stands as the same but the stakes are higher. The IT fleet that can be fixed in house sits as the fleet that does not pay the OEM’s premium. The fleet that cannot amounts to the fleet that has the OEM as a single point of failure.
The movement has won. The implementation amounts to the next fight, and the implementation is where the manufacturers are hoping the energy runs out. The energy is going to have to last another decade.
The bottom line
The patterns the post covers have been showing up in production for long enough that the patterns have names, the failures, the mitigations, the gaps. The work the security team and the engineering team and the operations team are quietly doing today sits as the work that decides whether the practice the post names sits as a tool the team uses or a liability the team is paying for.
Sources & Further Reading
All claims in this article are sourced from primary documentation, vendor advisories, and reputable security researchers.
Spotted an error? Email the editor. Corrections are issued with a visible correction note.
Editorial standards. Every article on humanrequired.org is reviewed by a human editor before publication. AI may assist with drafting or research; final editorial control is human. Read the full standards.
