Navigating the ‘Right to Repair’ Landscape in 2026: A Refresher on Basics and Best Practices

With state “right to repair” laws continuing to gain traction in 2026, companies face increasing complexity within an already sophisticated framework of antitrust, consumer protection, and warranty laws, statutes, and regulations. This evolving landscape makes now an opportune time for manufacturers and retailers to proactively evaluate their warranty and repair policies for compliance.

The “right to repair” encompasses a range of interpretations depending on the regulatory context. Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the principal federal law governing consumer product warranties) and corollary state warranty laws, the concept most often refers to a consumer’s freedom to select repair providers without voiding or forfeiting warranty coverage unless the warrantor provides repair or maintenance services without charge. [1]

In the context of emerging state right to repair laws, the term generally refers to a consumer’s ability—either directly or through an independent repair provider—to access tools, documentation, and replacement parts necessary for product repair. And for manufacturers and retailers operating in certain industries (e.g., automotive, electronics, agricultural equipment), the right to repair could mean additional obligations under sector-specific laws.

Beyond consumer protection and warranty laws, repair-related practices may also be subject to scrutiny under the antitrust laws. Although restrictions on repair often serve legitimate purposes—such as protecting product integrity or safeguarding data—practices that may limit competition, increase consumer costs, or create artificial monopolies in “aftermarkets” [2] can give rise to antitrust exposure. [3]

This convergence of regulatory frameworks warrants a comprehensive compliance approach that requires manufacturers and retailers to navigate a fragmented landscape of overlapping state and federal antitrust, consumer protection, and warranty laws.

THE ‘RIGHT TO REPAIR’ LANDSCAPE

The concept of right to repair has deep roots in federal warranty law. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prohibits manufacturers from conditioning warranty coverage on the use of authorized parts or services unless those parts are provided free of charge. [4]

These obligations can also extend to non-US manufacturers whose conduct involves material activity in the United States or causes reasonably foreseeable injury to US consumers. [5] In 2021, “right to repair” made headlines when former US President Joseph Biden issued an executive order directing the Federal Trade Commission to address unfair restrictions on third-party repair and aftermarket competition. [6]

The FTC subsequently published “Nixing the Fix: An FTC Report to Congress on Repair,” a report examining both consumer protection and antitrust issues surrounding repair—and has since pursued several high-profile enforcement actions involving alleged repair restrictions. [7]

At the state level, state consumer protection and warranty laws often parallel (and at times augment) federal protections. California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for example, mirrors and often exceeds federal protections under Magnuson-Moss, providing consumers with enhanced remedies including civil penalties and attorney fees. Similar state warranty laws exist across numerous jurisdictions, creating parallel compliance obligations that manufacturers must navigate alongside federal requirements.

The latest wave of state right to repair laws adds complexity to this existing framework. At their core, these laws generally require manufacturers to provide consumers and independent repair shops with expanded access to parts, tools, diagnostic software, and documentation necessary for product repairs.

The scope and specifics of these laws vary significantly by state. Some states focus on particular product categories, while others establish comprehensive frameworks applicable across multiple industries, creating a complex compliance landscape for multistate manufacturers.

For example, Massachusetts and Maine both have right to repair laws specific to the automotive industry [8] that require vehicle manufacturers to provide consumers and independent repair facilities with access to telematics and diagnostic data, while other states have enacted legislation specific to wheelchair repairs. [9]

California, Minnesota, and New York [10] have led the charge in enacting so-called “digital” right to repair laws focused on consumer electronics and certain digital products, with Colorado and Oregon [11] passing similar laws that explicitly prohibit parts pairing. [12] Washington enacted a comparable law that took effect on January 1. Connecticut and Texas have also followed suit, with similar laws scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026 and September 1, 2026, respectively. [13]

Despite variances in scope, coverage, exemptions, and enforcement mechanisms, state right to repair laws collectively reflect a growing trend and transition from policy debate to explicit regulation. As of the date of this publication, some form of right to repair legislation has been introduced in all 50 states.

In early 2026, we saw increased legislative activity in this area at the federal level as well. On February 6, lawmakers introduced the Fair Repair Act for digital electronics, and on February 10 the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee advanced the REPAIR Act for motor vehicles to the full committee.

These bills would require manufacturers to make available to product owners and independent repair providers the parts, tools, diagnostic software, and documentation necessary to diagnose, maintain, and repair covered products on fair and reasonable terms. Of note, they also aim to prohibit practices that may limit or restrict independent repair, such as parts pairing and software locking. [14]

KEY COMMON LEGAL RISKS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Companies should evaluate the following recurring risk areas across product lines and channels:

• Warranty tying: Provisions or practices that condition warranty coverage on authorized parts or services or that automatically void warranties after independent repair risk noncompliance.
• Insufficient disclosures: Failure to clearly and conspicuously disclose repair-related limitations prior to sale, or reliance on ambiguous terms, can trigger warranty and consumer protection exposure.
• Deceptive or misleading statements: “Warranty void if removed” stickers, customer service scripts implying automatic voiding, or website FAQs that overstate restrictions could, depending on the circumstances, be construed as deceptive.
• Unsupported warranty denials: Denials not tied to demonstrable damage caused by an unauthorized part or improper repair can create potential Magnuson-Moss and state law exposure.
• Aftermarket constraints: Strategies that foreclose independent repair—such as restrictive access to parts, diagnostic software, security keys, or technical documentation—can create potential aftermarket monopolization or unfair competition issues.
• Nonuniform compliance efforts: Nonuniform approaches to access, pricing, and documentation across jurisdictions may conflict with the patchwork of state right to repair and consumer protection laws.
• Cybersecurity or safety justifications: Security and safety rationales must be legitimate, documented, and narrowly tailored, otherwise they may be viewed as pretexts for exclusionary practices.
• Limiting data and telematics access: For connected products, limitations on access to diagnostics and data may pose heightened legal and operational risk, especially where laws mandate availability.
• Supply chain and intellectual property constraints: Contract terms with suppliers or authorized networks that restrict resale of parts, tools, or documentation can create downstream compliance conflicts; IP assertions should be revised for alignment with statutory access requirements.
• Training and governance gaps: Inconsistent handling of warranty claims, returns, and repair requests—especially by customer service and authorized repair centers—can create systemic liability.
• Unreasonable pricing or supply: Disproportionate pricing of tools, products, or parts, as well as delays or artificial scarcity of supplies, may be scrutinized as de facto restrictions.

BEST PRACTICES

To reduce legal, enforcement, and litigation risk, companies should consider the following actions:

• Refresh warranty programs:
  • Remove or revise any tying or automatic-void provisions.
  • Add clear, conspicuous presale disclosures on repair-related limitations.
  • Implement a causation-based standard with documented proof before denying coverage.
• Review antitrust risk in repair strategies:
  • Assess whether restrictions are narrowly tailored and proportionate to legitimate objectives; restrictions should be procompetitive or competitively neutral.
  • Avoid practices that effectively exclude independent repair without substantiated safety, IP, or security rationale.
  • Strengthen documentation and recordkeeping by maintaining contemporaneous evidence supporting denial decisions and security/safety justifications.
• Align customer-facing communications:
  • Update labeling, packaging, FAQs, websites, marketing, and call center scripts to avoid misleading statements.
  • Eliminate “warranty void if removed” messaging unless legally and factually supportable.
• Establish access protocols consistent with state laws:
  • Define processes to provide parts, tools, diagnostic software, firmware, and documentation to consumers and independent repair providers where required.
  • Set reasonable, nondiscriminatory pricing and timelines for access.
• Conduct a cross-functional repair compliance audit:
  • Map product categories, jurisdictions, warranty language, customer communications, repair policies, parts/tools/software access, and authorized network agreements.
  • Identify compliance gaps against federal rules and state laws.
• Enhance training and oversight:
  • Train customer service, warranty teams, and authorized repair partners on Magnuson-Moss, Song-Beverly, and relevant state laws.
  • Implement quality assurance reviews of warranty denials and repairs.
• Update contracts with suppliers and authorized networks (e.g., authorized repair networks, authorized dealers):
  • Ensure agreements permit compliance with applicable right to repair laws.
  • Avoid downstream restraints that conflict with statutory access requirements.
• Monitor legislative and enforcement trends:
  • Establish a governance cadence to review evolving laws, statutes, and regulations at the state and federal levels.
  • Plan for rapid policy updates and stakeholder communications.

Companies that proactively modernize warranty and repair programs—grounded in clear disclosures, causation-based decision-making, secure but accessible technical frameworks, and jurisdiction-specific compliance—will be better positioned to mitigate regulatory scrutiny, reduce litigation exposure, and maintain consumer trust while adapting business models to fit the evolving right to repair landscape.