The right to repair battle in the United States (U.S) has heated up a little more with two new lawsuits being filed against John Deere alleging that the company is establishing a monopoly in the repair of its equipment.
These actions are in addition to the continuing attempts to safeguard the right of repair through legislation aimed at consumer products, rather than industrial machinery, with New York State leading the way.
Two 'right to repair' cases
The first lawsuit was filed by Forest River Farms of North Dakota on January 12, 2022 under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
In the opening document, it is alleged that by ensuring that software exclusive to John Deere and its agents is required to complete repairs to a tractor, the company is, in effect, creating a monopoly on the repair and servicing of John Deere equipment.
It goes on to allege that the company "exploits its relationship with customers" and in doing so it "unlawfully stifles competition".
The party taking the case notes that such restrictions prevent repair prices being "determined by a competitive market" and therefore they should should cease and customers be reimbursed for the excess amounts they have been obliged to pay.
Small farmer to take on green giant
The second action was filed on January 19, 2022 by Trinity Dale Wells from Alabama who runs a 150ac cattle farm and has always bought John Deere.
His affection for the marque took something of knock when he was presented with a $600 (£447) bill for what he claims was a three-minute job by the local John Deere dealer.
His usual mechanic had advised him that his only option was to call out the JD technician, who, when he arrived, did no more than dry out out a sensor, a fix that required no spare parts or other items.
Lawsuits to lead to class action
In his action, Trinity Dale Wells requests that the court declare it a class action suit with his lawyers hoping to gather together other aggrieved farmers in Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi to help carry the case forward.
A breakdown of the invoice issued by the JD dealership concerned is not available, however, in the suit being brought by Forest River Farms it is claimed that dealers are charging up to $180 (£134) per hour, plus parts and travel.
Dealerships in the firing line
The Forest River Farms case also drags the Equipment Dealers' Association (EDA) into the argument declaring that it "often acts as a mouthpiece for John Deere".
It goes on to note in a statement of principles issued in 2018, the organisation committed itself to ensuring the availability of the manuals and software necessary for the repair of tractors and setting of its software by 2021.
This has simply not happened according to Forest River Farms , certainly not with Deere and Co., although no mention is made of other manufacturers.
EDA regrets conflation
The EDA, on its part, notes that it is aware of the litigation. It said:
"The plaintiffs appear to conflate independent equipment dealers and their association with original equipment manufacturers, like John Deere.
Given that the EDA is funded by the manufacturers and was acting on their behalf when it promised to have the manuals and software released by this time last year, such conflation is hardly surprising.
The organisation goes on to say:
"Our equipment dealers have an important story to tell, and this collective story is separate and apart from any one equipment manufacturer. Let's use this litigation as a reminder to keep telling our unique story."
Quite what this story is, becomes difficult to determine from its website, yet it does state that its aim is to "provide essential value to our members by enhancing the dealer-manufacturer relationship and advocating for a positive legislative and regulatory environment".
A regulatory environment that permits farmers to avoid having to call upon appointed dealers to fix tractors at a significant premium over non accredited repair workshops, would not be a situation it would be advocating for.
Farmers lose out
The potential loser in this is the customer who will be faced with dealer networks which are, to all practical purposes, indistinguishable from the manufacturer despite them being separate corporate entities.
In the past manufactures have claimed that withholding the ability of farmers to tamper with a machine's software is a safety issue.
With the increase in autonomy that argument could well appear more robust moving forward.
Choice is one answer
Yet it would carry more weight if farmers were given the choice as to whether to opt out of the digitalisation of tractors and purchase machines that did not involve such safety critical systems.
This would preserve the right to repair as it would be made clear at the time of purchase just what was entailed in tying the tractors fate irrevocably to the manufacturer.
The farmer could then accept or reject the deal, but it is unlikely that manufacturers will be happy to accede to what they will view as a threat to increasing their bottom line.
