Importance Score: 75 / 100 🔴
For Missouri farmer Jared Wilson, spring signifies the critical planting season. This period represents his sole chance annually to sow and treat his corn and soybean crops. Precision during this window is paramount to ensure optimal yield. However, each year, Wilson encounters challenges with his John Deere machinery, hindering his efforts. Repeated breakdowns of combines, tractors, and harvesters have imposed significant repair expenses, costing him hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Financial Toll of Equipment Downtime on Farms
“Time is undeniably money in this industry,” Wilson stated. “When machinery malfunctions during these crucial times of the year — when there’s only one opportunity to execute tasks correctly — it can severely impact profitability.”
A 2023 report by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group estimated that American farmers incur losses of $3 billion due to tractor downtime. Furthermore, they spend an additional $1.2 billion annually in inflated repair expenses because of mandated reliance on authorized dealerships for maintenance and servicing.
Wilson is among numerous farmers involved in class-action litigation advocating for the “right to repair.” This movement champions the principle that consumers should possess the autonomy to repair their purchased products themselves or engage independent technicians for repairs.
Farmers Initiate Legal Action Over Repair Restrictions
According to the lawsuit, Wilson and fellow plaintiffs accuse John Deere of preventing farmers and independent mechanics from conducting repairs on equipment without utilizing John Deere dealerships. While the company doesn’t explicitly forbid self-repair, the lawsuit contends that it effectively obstructs repairs by restricting access to essential software exclusively available to dealerships. This limitation, the lawsuit argues, renders most repairs virtually impossible. Similar to modern automobiles, advanced farming equipment integrates sensors and complex systems. John Deere tractors, for example, rely on firmware vital for fundamental operations. When equipment malfunctions, error codes appear on an in-cab display monitor. The legal action asserts that interpreting these error codes on tractors necessitates specialized software that “Deere refuses to make available to farmers.”
vCard.red is a free platform for creating a mobile-friendly digital business cards. You can easily create a vCard and generate a QR code for it, allowing others to scan and save your contact details instantly.
The platform allows you to display contact information, social media links, services, and products all in one shareable link. Optional features include appointment scheduling, WhatsApp-based storefronts, media galleries, and custom design options.
Right-to-repair proponents emphasize that the digitization of agricultural machinery — with its integrated computers and sensors — has rendered self-repair nearly unattainable. This development compels farmers to depend on manufacturers for even routine maintenance. Wilson illustrates this predicament, noting his reliance on the local John Deere dealership, which, he reports, results in prolonged turnaround times and escalated costs compared to independent repair options.
Extended Repair Delays Impact Harvests
In one instance in 2019, Wilson recounted that a John Deere dealership retained his fertilizer spreader for 28 days for repairs, severely delaying crucial field operations. The dealership did not provide comments regarding this specific case.
Legal Battles and Legislative Efforts for Right to Repair
Wilson’s class-action lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that John Deere’s restrictions on software access for repairs force farmers into dependence on its authorized dealerships. The court rejected John Deere’s motion to dismiss the case, and the litigation is currently ongoing.
In 2024, twenty state legislatures introduced bills aimed at extending right-to-repair protections to encompass agricultural equipment. However, similar bills previously failed to pass in Virginia and South Dakota, highlighting the challenges faced by the movement.
Willie Cade, a long-time advocate for farmers’ rights, has been a vocal presence in statehouses across the nation since 2016. His grandfather, Theo Brown, served as chief engineer for John Deere in 1925, well before the advent of computerized farm equipment.
“Frequently, these bills stall in committee because manufacturers maintain influential connections with key individuals who can sway the entire committee’s decisions,” Cade explained, underscoring the lobbying power of equipment manufacturers.
Industry Pushback and Partial Agreements
Current right-to-repair laws in five of the six states that have enacted them, including Minnesota, California, and Massachusetts, provide exemptions for farming equipment. This exclusion is partly attributed to a Memorandum of Understanding signed between John Deere and the American Farm Bureau in 2023. This agreement pledges “timely availability” of “tools, software and documentation” for equipment repairs.
However, a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on January 15 challenges the adequacy of John Deere’s commitment. The FTC complaint alleges unlawful business practices that have “inflated farmers’ repair costs and degraded farmers’ ability to obtain timely repairs,” asserting that the promises made are not being fully realized in practice.
“I have witnessed farmers on the verge of tears, recounting instances where they lost entire harvests because they were unable to repair their own tractors and lacked access to local, independent repair services,” stated former FTC Chair Lina Khan, who played a key role in initiating the lawsuit. Her statement emphasizes the severe real-world consequences of repair restrictions.
John Deere Defends Repair Software Policy
John Deere has refuted almost every accusation in the ongoing legal proceedings. Company lawyers argue that while specialized repair software is reserved for its dealerships, a separate, customer-accessible version exists, albeit at a substantial annual cost exceeding $3,000. According to John Deere, this customer software enables users to “conduct repairs while ensuring machine reliability, safety, and regulatory compliance.”
Brad Sage, an independent repair technician based in Montana, contends that the customer software version is functionally limited. He points out, for example, that it does not permit users to repair the air conditioning systems on tractors, a common and essential repair.
“You’re forced to find illicit methods to bypass these restrictions and circumvent the legal channels,” Sage explained regarding the limitations of the customer software, highlighting the existing workaround solutions in the repair market.
Sage, who previously worked at a John Deere dealership for five years before establishing his independent repair business, claims he offers farmers repair services at half the cost and in half the time compared to dealership service centers, presenting a viable alternative for farmers seeking more affordable and quicker repairs.
John Deere informed NBC News of its plans to enhance the customer repair software by early fall. This update will purportedly allow farmers to perform “limited calibrations” on their equipment. However, the company remained silent on whether it intends to grant customers access to the comprehensive software version utilized by its authorized dealerships, suggesting continued restrictions on advanced repair capabilities.
The FTC maintains its stance that the customer-accessible software is fundamentally inadequate, describing it as an “inferior tool” that is “not capable of enabling all repairs on Deere agricultural equipment,” reinforcing the core issue at the heart of the “right to repair” debate in agriculture.
Uncertainty Remains for Farmers Seeking Repair Freedom
Cade projects that it could take up to five years before farmers gain the ability to repair their own equipment, even if they prevail in the FTC lawsuit. This long timeframe underscores the protracted nature of legal and legislative change.
Wilson, who has operated tractors since the age of four, expressed unwavering resolve. He stated his willingness to cease farming his family’s century-old land rather than concede to manufacturer control over equipment repair decisions. This highlights the deep-seated frustration and principle involved in the farmers’ fight.
“I have to maintain profitability to continue producing food, or I will be forced to discontinue farming,” Wilson asserted. “This issue extends beyond my individual farm; it affects every person in this nation,” emphasizing the broader societal implications of the right-to-repair movement in agriculture and food production.