Landmark Oregon right-to-repair law bans Apple-style parts pairing (software locks)

DragonSlayer101

Posts: 361   +2
Staff
What just happened? Oregon governor Tina Kotek has signed into law a landmark right-to-repair bill that outlaws the controversial practice of "parts pairing" in electronic devices. The law is similar in nature to existing legislation in New York, California, and Minnesota, but goes further by banning the use of software locks that prevent users and third-party repair shops from swapping out faulty parts with new ones.

Following the signing of SB 1596, Oregon became the fourth US state to have a comprehensive right-to-repair law that applies to a number of consumer devices, such as phones, laptops, and smartwatches. However, it doesn't include many other types of digital equipment, like video game consoles, medical devices, HVAC systems, motor vehicles, etc. In addition, the law only applies to devices sold in and after 2025, meaning gadgets that are currently available in the market are not covered under the new regulations.

Parts pairing or serialization is a contentious practice that has long been in the crosshairs of right-to-repair advocates, as it makes it impossible for DIY enthusiasts and third-party repair shops to replace faulty hardware. Apple is especially notorious for parts pairing, and the company is known to make it intentionally difficult for users to repair their own devices.

Just last month, a popular YouTube channel discovered that Apple's Vision Pro mixed reality headset is even less repairable than other Apple products, thanks to every single part in the device being serialized. That means the headset will not work if you replace any of the parts even with original Apple hardware, and you will have to pay out of your nose to get it fixed at an Apple-certified repair shop, should something go wrong.

With first-party repairs being a massive business for Apple, it was no surprise that the company strongly objected to the new bill and lobbied hard to prevent it from becoming law. In a hearing at Oregon's state legislature last month, Apple's principal secure repair artist, John Perry, insisted that "forcing device manufacturers to allow the use of parts of unknown origin in consumer devices" is a bad idea. According to him, using non-serialized parts for repairs could undermine the security, safety, and privacy of its customers.

While Apple may be crying foul, Consumer Reports and iFixit have expressed satisfaction with the new law. In a statement, the former said it hoped the new law would make it easier and less expensive for consumers to fix their broken devices while reducing the amount of e-waste going into landfills. On its part, iFixit claimed that independent repair shops will be the biggest winners now because "they will (finally) be able to fight back against the increasing speed bumps and roadblocks that manufacturers including Apple have put in their way."

Permalink to story.

 
The law needs to go farther and require the manufacturer's to do as they used to do, showing an exploded view of the products, parts lists, prices, and repair manuals (sold separately) so consumers are not in any way dependent on the Mfg. for materials or assistance. Competition is always a good thing!
 
The law needs to go farther and require the manufacturer's to do as they used to do, showing an exploded view of the products, parts lists, prices, and repair manuals (sold separately) so consumers are not in any way dependent on the Mfg. for materials or assistance. Competition is always a good thing!
Absolutely agree! The way manufacturers treat consumers in the last 12 years is pathetic, foul and wrong. Oregon gets it right.
 
And take it even further. Convince people to not dump their phones as soon as soon as a new model comes out. That too wastes money, contributes to E-waste, and loses jobs.
 
And take it even further. Convince people to not dump their phones as soon as soon as a new model comes out. That too wastes money, contributes to E-waste, and loses jobs.
That's going to require phones that can be repaired and, more importantly, updated for long term use. Doing 8 years of security updates aint cheap.

Better off encouraging a much stronger used phone market, much like cars there is no reason for older models to be scrapped.
 
That's going to require phones that can be repaired and, more importantly, updated for long term use. Doing 8 years of security updates aint cheap.

Better off encouraging a much stronger used phone market, much like cars there is no reason for older models to be scrapped.
Refurbished phone market is good as never before. If we are talking strictly about used phone market, it is less desirable. Burned in screens, dying batteries, almost every second cracked screen, and damaged case make them less desirable for a second user. Oh and that is a good indicator, I mean burned in screens, that these phones served a hard life giving their owners plenty of hours of operation.
These days, phones have to work much harder than laptops, desktops, cameras or tablets because they replace most of these devices for many people.
 
The law needs to go farther and require the manufacturer's to do as they used to do, showing an exploded view of the products, parts lists, prices, and repair manuals (sold separately) so consumers are not in any way dependent on the Mfg. for materials or assistance. Competition is always a good thing!
Yea, I don't agree. The government has no right to tell me how to design my products or how to repair my products. While I do think that making products easy to repair is a good thing, it should be up to the individual company to decide to what extent they want to make their product repairable. As always, someone else will come along and make an easy to repair product to compete.

How long does a company have to provide replacement parts? That can be a big expense for a company, depending on the parts they choose to use in a product. And what happens when those parts are no longer available because the small third party manufacturer who made them went out of business?

I support the right to repair concept, but let companies decide how to implement that, or not. I can think of lots of potential issues with this. I guess we will see how it plays out.
 
The government has no right to tell me how to design my products or how to repair my products.
Wrong. The government has EVERY right AND authority to instruct manufacturers as to how they design and make their products in relation to safety and consumer rights. You are not allowed to make things that are unsafe nor are you allowed to make things that infringe on the rights of the individual citizen. Oregon and other states are simply re-enforcing those ideals with more clarity since manufacturers seem to enjoy breaching the boundaries of civilized ideals and breaking the statutes of law at their whim.

A lot more needs to be done. Companies need to be put in their place something fierce. Apple is not the only one. Tesla, Microsoft, John Deere, Ford, GM, Nintendo and that list just keeps going..
 
Wrong. The government has EVERY right AND authority to instruct manufacturers as to how they design and make their products in relation to safety and consumer rights. You are not allowed to make things that are unsafe nor are you allowed to make things that infringe on the rights of the individual citizen. Oregon and other states are simply re-enforcing those ideals with more clarity since manufacturers seem to enjoy breaching the boundaries of civilized ideals and breaking the statutes of law at their whim.

A lot more needs to be done. Companies need to be put in their place something fierce. Apple is not the only one. Tesla, Microsoft, John Deere, Ford, GM, Nintendo and that list just keeps going..
Safety, yes, but I do not think an unrepairable product infringes on your rights. I think it raises questions, like to what extent does a product have to be repairable? Down to the component level? Should CPUs/SOCs be required to be socketed? Memory can't be soldered in? What about non-tech products? Should clothing manufacturers be forced to supply buttons and zippers in the event they break?

I do support third-party repair and third-party replacement parts, and we already have that legislation in the form of Magnuson-Moss. But if I want to make a product that has no user serviceable parts, why can't I?
 
Safety, yes, but I do not think an unrepairable product infringes on your rights. I think it raises questions, like to what extent does a product have to be repairable? Down to the component level? Should CPUs/SOCs be required to be socketed? Memory can't be soldered in? What about non-tech products? Should clothing manufacturers be forced to supply buttons and zippers in the event they break?

I do support third-party repair and third-party replacement parts, and we already have that legislation in the form of Magnuson-Moss. But if I want to make a product that has no user serviceable parts, why can't I?
"But if I want to make a product that has no user serviceable parts, why can't I?"

Common sense ... and not being an @sshole
A company never do good for the ppl, only for the shareholders and this is what they always do... it's up to the government to protect the ppl against those abusive companies, at least that's what some of our gov' are trying to do in the EU, and since what your companies on the other side of the pond affect ppl mondialy (e-waste ), I'm glad this state did that.
 
The easier you make it to repair, the easier you make it for the bad guys.

For instance, let's take the iPhone parts ring in China. If you have your iPhone stolen, odds are that your phone will end up in China by the end of the week and you'll be getting constant messages from someone in China demanding you to remove your iPhone from Apple Find My. Why? Because they want to slice and dice your stolen phone up and sell off the pieces and parts.

Anything that prevents that from happening and helps to dismantle that parts ring in China, I'm all for.
 
"But if I want to make a product that has no user serviceable parts, why can't I?"

Common sense ... and not being an @sshole
A company never do good for the ppl, only for the shareholders and this is what they always do... it's up to the government to protect the ppl against those abusive companies, at least that's what some of our gov' are trying to do in the EU, and since what your companies on the other side of the pond affect ppl mondialy (e-waste ), I'm glad this state did that.
The government's job is not to decide if I'm being an ******* or not. If a company wants to make products that can't be repaired, then you can choose not to buy them and if enough people choose not to buy then they will change or go out of business.

It's not "abusive" to build a product that is difficult if not impossible to repair. There are reasons to design a product in a particular manner, such as not having user accessible batteries. Since most government hacks have little to no background in product design, much less electronic, consumer, product design, they should stay out of it. Other than safety legislation which should only call out specific design parameters if they are dangerous.

And by the way, why would you want an abusive government trying to rein in abusive companies? It's like having dishonest mechanics deciding how to regulate the car repair business.
 
Safety, yes, but I do not think an unrepairable product infringes on your rights.
Right-To-Repair. There are MANY others. You need to do research if you felt the need to genuinely ask that question.

such as not having user accessible batteries.
This is simply wrong and foul on every level. Batteries need to be user replaceable, full stop. Batteries are things that wear out frequently and most often well before the device it's powering has runs out of useful life. I rarely by crap that has no way to easily replace the battery. ANYONE making devices without user replaceable batteries is predatory to the consumer, wildly environmentally irresponsible and, IMPO, has no right to be in business.
 
Last edited:
The government's job is not to decide if I'm being an ******* or not. If a company wants to make products that can't be repaired, then you can choose not to buy them and if enough people choose not to buy then they will change or go out of business.

It's not "abusive" to build a product that is difficult if not impossible to repair. There are reasons to design a product in a particular manner, such as not having user accessible batteries. Since most government hacks have little to no background in product design, much less electronic, consumer, product design, they should stay out of it. Other than safety legislation which should only call out specific design parameters if they are dangerous.

And by the way, why would you want an abusive government trying to rein in abusive companies? It's like having dishonest mechanics deciding how to regulate the car repair business.
PPL are stupid r*tards, proof, they still buy overpriced MACs when the vaste majority of them don't even need them but the apple logo on the product for social self esteem, they'll only follow what their youtuber/streamer tell them to do without even using the thing they have behind their eyes and it's the whole planet who'll suffer because of it... governments, a lot of them have made sure a lot of ppl stay stupid... if one of them is only remotely do something not completely fcktarded, I'll support it... I'm in a special situation, because of a long illness I didn't had any contact with the outside world for a decade... started getting out a little less than 2years ago, the little changes in society you lived without noticing, I took them all in the face in one go ... I hate your world, stupidy and weakness are now examples to follow ( and this come from an officially disabled in my country dude like me ), if someone saw my Delorean , I need it...
 
Right-To-Repair. There are MANY others. You need to do research if you felt the need to genuinely ask that question.


This is simply wrong and foul on every level. Batteries need to be user replaceable, full stop. Batteries are things that wear out frequently and most often well before the device it's powering has runs out of useful life. I rarely by crap that has no way to easily replace the battery. ANYONE making devices without user replaceable batteries is predatory to the consumer, wildly environmentally irresponsible and, IMPO, has no right to be in business.
That's your choice and I would not take that away from you. But there are many devices, especially small electronics gadgets that come without replaceable batteries. Will they all have to redesign to make batteries user accessible?

While I agree about replaceable batteries, to some extent, I don't want political organizations making those kind of business decisions. It's not their job. Consumers can make that call by not buying the products.
 
Right-To-Repair. There are MANY others. You need to do research if you felt the need to genuinely ask that question.


This is simply wrong and foul on every level. Batteries need to be user replaceable, full stop. Batteries are things that wear out frequently and most often well before the device it's powering has runs out of useful life. I rarely by crap that has no way to easily replace the battery. ANYONE making devices without user replaceable batteries is predatory to the consumer, wildly environmentally irresponsible and, IMPO, has no right to be in business.
I forgot to reply to the Right to Repair. That is the name of the legislation and if you have to pass a law to grant a "right" it's not much of a right is it?

I do support your choice to pull your products apart and attempt to repair them. I also support third party parts replacements, but I do not support forcing design decisions that are not directly related to consumer safety. And I am all for companies making good design decisions.
 
I don't want political organizations making those kind of business decisions. It's not their job.
Oh yes it is! When companies fail to do what is correct and right, it is the duty of government to force them to behave properly on behalf of the people.

That is the name of the legislation and if you have to pass a law to grant a "right" it's not much of a right is it?
Seems you don't live stateside so I'm not going to debate your local law or social standards & ideals, whatever they are. Here in the states, there is a clause in our constitution that specifically protects our rights where our personal property is concerned. The "Right-To-Repair" ideal is a natural extension of that law and rights set. Companies are tramping all over those rights and "we the people" are fricken sick and tired of it. Companies need to be reminded of their place and station, swiftly, and if needed, harshly.
 
Back