The Tech Policy Debate With Immediate Consumer Consequences
The right to repair debate — whether consumers and independent repair shops should have the legal right and practical ability to repair their own electronics, appliances, and vehicles — has moved from a niche advocacy issue to mainstream policy conversation between 2021 and 2026. Laws have passed at the state level in the US and at the EU level. Major manufacturers have responded with their own repair programs under pressure. And the practical ability to repair common consumer electronics has shifted meaningfully, though incompletely, from where it was five years ago.
This matters practically and not just philosophically: a world where you can repair your $800 phone for $80 in parts and labor rather than buying a $1,200 replacement is a world where consumer electronics are significantly more affordable, generate less waste, and stay in use longer. The policy and market changes of the past five years have moved the needle on all of these outcomes, and understanding where things stand helps both as a consumer making purchasing decisions and as a citizen evaluating ongoing policy debates.
What Changed in Policy
The EU’s Right to Repair Directive, finalized in 2024 and taking effect across EU member states through 2026, requires manufacturers of consumer electronics (smartphones, tablets, laptops), home appliances, and other covered categories to make spare parts available to consumers and independent repairers at non-prohibitive prices, to provide access to repair information and diagnostic tools, and to extend product support lifetimes. Manufacturers can no longer design products to be physically unrepairable or use software locks to prevent non-manufacturer repair from functioning.
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission issued repair guidance in 2021 and has taken enforcement actions against companies that use warranty language to discourage non-manufacturer repair. Several states (Colorado, New York for farm equipment, Minnesota, and others) have passed specific right to repair legislation. Federal legislation has been proposed but not passed as of this writing. The US situation remains more fragmented than the EU’s comprehensive directive.
What Changed in Practice
Apple launched its Self Service Repair program in 2022, which allows consumers in the US and expanding countries to purchase genuine Apple parts, tools, and repair guides to fix their own devices. The program covers iPhones, Macs, and some accessories. Whether it’s genuinely accessible or performatively so is debated — the parts prices and tool rental costs make it competitive with, but not dramatically cheaper than, Apple’s own repair service for most common repairs.
iFixit’s repair score assessments, which rate device repairability, have seen slight improvements in average scores for new devices — manufacturers under pressure have moved somewhat toward more repairable designs. The phone that requires full adhesive removal to replace a battery, making a common repair potentially damaging, has become less universal. Framework’s fully modular laptop and Fairphone’s modular smartphone remain the most pro-repair consumer products available, but mainstream manufacturers have made incremental improvements.
The Software Lock Problem That Remains
The most significant remaining barrier to practical repair isn’t parts availability — it’s software locks. When a manufacturer ties genuine parts to their cloud authentication system (as Apple has done with certain camera and battery components), using a third-party replacement part triggers software warnings or functionality limitations even when the hardware repair is technically sound. This ‘parts pairing’ problem means that the ability to get a part doesn’t mean the device works normally after installation.
EU regulations are beginning to address parts pairing, requiring manufacturers to allow authorized repair procedures to re-pair parts without requiring the original manufacturer’s involvement. This is an ongoing regulatory battle where the technical implementation of parts pairing continues to evolve as manufacturers respond to regulatory pressure with compliance that meets the letter of regulations while limiting the practical effect.
What This Means for Consumer Decisions
Repairability should be a factor in major electronics purchases for consumers who value long device lifetimes and repair options. iFixit’s repairability scores provide a reasonable proxy — their teardown reviews assess how difficult it is to replace the components most commonly needing repair (batteries, screens, charging ports). Devices scoring 7/10 or higher are significantly more practical to repair than devices scoring 3–4/10.
The broader consumer implication: devices from manufacturers who are meaningfully pro-repair (Framework for laptops, Fairphone for phones where available, and manufacturers that score consistently well on iFixit assessments) are better long-term value propositions for consumers who plan to own a device for 4–6 years rather than replacing it on a 2-year cycle. The upfront cost may be similar; the total cost of ownership over the device’s extended service life is lower when repair is practical.
