AUTHORSHIP
13 July 2026
FTC's Deere settlement marks insufficient victory for right-to-repair
Loopholes in consent decree undermine the FTC’s new right to repair settlement with John Deere
Attribution: Hannah Shedrow (Unsplash)
I. Introduction
ISSUE AREAS
ANTITRUST & COMPETITION
On January 15, 2025, just days before the second inauguration of Donald Trump, outgoing FTC Chair Lina Khan filed suit against John Deere over its restrictions on farmers and technicians' ability to fix farm equipment. Joined by the attorneys general of Minnesota and Illinois, the lawsuit marked a significant escalation for the right-to-repair movement, which has long criticized Deere for its restrictive practices. Just under a year and a half later, on July 8, 2026, the FTC announced a settlement with Deere. Under the terms of the agreement, Deere must make software repair tools available to mechanics and farmers on "fair and reasonable terms" over a ten-year period. FTC chair Andrew Ferguson, who had initially criticized Khan’s decision to sue (he had argued it was tinged with "the stench of partisan motivation”), framed the settlement as a victory for the Trump administration.
The settlement comes amid general bipartisan momentum for right-to-repair, as well as a separate class action settlement with John Deere in Illinois earlier this year. Compared to this meager settlement, which amounted to just $99 million in total and yielded under $400 per farmer, the FTC agreement is a more substantive outcome. This agreement does specify enforcement mechanisms designed to prevent further abusive practices, and does not extinguish private claims against John Deere. Additionally, it attempts to provide a definition of "fair and reasonable" pricing, though the practical enforceability of this standard is unclear. But despite fanfare, the structural limitations of the deal mean that Deere’s monopoly position, and thus the underlying design infrastructure that allows it to extract rents from farmers seeking repairs, will likely remain intact.
1
2
II. Structural Limitations
INTEROPERABILITY ISSUES
The consent decree's value is limited by its failure to address the root cause of Deere's repair monopoly. Because the settlement does not require Deere to make its equipment interoperable with third-party software or tools, the company remains free to continue designing future products around proprietary systems that remain entirely under its control. The decree also contains an apparent ‘future repair resources’ loophole: Deere is not required to make new repair software available to independent mechanics until it has been distributed to more than half of its authorized dealer network, a threshold Deere controls entirely by managing the pace of its own rollouts.
As noted by attorney Daniel Hanley, while the settlement would require Deere to give notice if it acquires an independent repair service provider, said acquisitions wouldn’t actually be banned under the decree; this leaves open a straightforward path for the company to recement its monopoly position.
3
DISCRIMINATORY PRICING AND GATEKEEPER STATUS
Writer and antitrust advocate Matt Stoller is among the critics of the settlement’s language that ostensibly requires Deere provide independent dealers with repair software on a “fair and reasonable” basis. As he notes, the language does not appear to limit Deere’s ability to charge independent dealers higher prices for repair software than its own dealers, meaning that the company can continue to engage in discriminatory pricing. The decree also permits Deere to continue conditioning independent repairs on the issuance of access codes, provided the terms imposed are not "unreasonable", a standard the decree does not define. As antitrust attorney Bilal Musharbash has argued, this leaves Deere's gatekeeper role in the repair market substantially intact.
The decree does contain genuine improvements over the Illinois class action settlement: It preserves farmers' private claims against the company and extends enforcement authority to the FTC and five state attorneys general for ten years. Though the settlement’s requirement that Deere file annual compliance reports is welcome, it is limited as a meaningful oversight tool given that the nature of Deere’s repair restrictions have never been a mystery: the problem has been insufficient regulatory will to address them structurally, not a lack of visibility into what the company is doing. For the same reason, the decree's requirements that Deere publicize available repair resources and instruct its dealers to inform customers of their availability do not meaningfully challenge the company's structural dominance.
III. Further Causes for Concern
DEERE’S BAD FAITH ENGAGEMENT ON RIGHT-TO-REPAIR
Alongside the settlement’s structural weaknesses, John Deere’s long established record of engagement on right-to-repair gives reason to doubt the company’s willingness to comply with the spirit of the consent decree, even where its letter is technically satisfied. In spite of the company’s longstanding efforts to restrict farmers’ and independent mechanics’ access to repairing its machines, the company has maintained its support for right-to-repair on principle. Denver Caldwell, the company’s vice president of aftermarket and customer support, peculiarly claimed that ‘We want farmers to be able to fix their equipment. In fact, our industry depends on it.” This claim is undermined by the company’s limitation of its diagnostic software to company-affiliated dealers, which forces farmers to rely on its ecosystem for repairs.
This behavior aligns with Deere’s entry into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) on the issue in 2023; the deal contained no enforcement mechanisms to keep Deere accountable, allowed the company to unilaterally decide what qualifies as protectable intellectual property, and also required that the AFBF abandon support for proposed right-to-repair legislation.
DEERE’S PATTERN OF HOLLOW CONCESSIONS
Ostensible efforts by the company to open its ecosystem up, such as the launch of the Operations Center Pro Service in 2025, have turned out to be additional instances of Deere making commitments that fall short of its promises. The service was immediately met with criticism from farmers and consumer advocates, noting it amounts to an effectively paywalled service with a $195 annual license per each machine whose features are limited even for those who pay.
Organizations including the Software Freedom Conservancy have argued that the company has failed to meet its legal obligation to release source code that is shared under open-source licenses, giving further reason to doubt that Deere will faithfully comply with the terms of the settlement. More recently, Deere’s consistent pattern of engaging in bad faith to undermine right-to-repair can be seen in it seeking EPA guidance in June 2025 on whether the Clean Air Act could be used to justify blocking access to repair software. Though the EPA would reject the argument in February 2026, the company’s brazen effort to use air pollution laws as a shield against right-to-repair shows the extent to which it is willing to maintain its monopoly.
IV. Conclusion
The right-to-repair movement has more momentum than ever, with strong support among both the general public and, increasingly, many lawmakers and businesses. A Consumer Reports survey found that 84% of Americans support laws requiring manufacturers to make repair parts and information available to consumers and independent shops. Support for the legislation is evidently strong among small businesses, with 89% of the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) favoring right-to-repair legislation. Public frustration with arduous limits that prevent consumers from repairing their own possessions, especially cars and electronics, is finally being translated into legislative action in both state houses. As of April 2026, right-to-repair supporters have chronicled 57 proposed right-to-repair bills across 22 different states. In Washington, legislation such as the auto industry-focused REPAIR Act has seen bipartisan momentum, which is reflected in polling that found 85% support for the proposal among voters.
The FTC’s settlement with Deere signals that right-to-repair remains on the commission’s radar, and it contains terms more substantively favorable to farmers than the Illinois settlement. With that said, the deal does not truly challenge Deere’s gatekeeper status, and the lack of structural remedies means that the company is likely to continue abusing its dominance. Unfortunately, the settlement aligns with the Ferguson-led FTC’s established pattern of entering into settlements with abusive corporations that, beneath favorable headlines, do not meaningfully stand to prevent further harmful practices.
V. Additional Citations
The suit would later also encompass AGs of three other states: Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin. See: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/07/ftc-states-secure-settlement-deere-company-advancing-farmers-right-repair
1
The Illinois class action settlement has not yet received final judicial approval, and a Fairness Hearing is scheduled for October 29, 2026. See: Paul Goeringer, "Preliminary settlement announced in right-to-repair litigation against John Deere," July 9, 2026, AgProud, https://www.agproud.com/articles/63746-preliminary-settlement-announced-in-right-to-repair-litigation-against-john-deere
2
“The Moline, Illinois-based company will also have to make any future repair resources given to more than 50% of its authorized dealers available to farmers and independent repair providers.” See: Jeff Kinney, "Deere settles right to repair dispute with FTC," July 13, 2026, Construction Dive, https://www.constructiondive.com/news/deere-settles-right-to-repair-dispute-ftc/825044/
3
Aidan Smith
Founder, Labyrinth Insights
