[HN Gopher] The Right to Repair Is Law in Washington State
___________________________________________________________________
The Right to Repair Is Law in Washington State
Author : doener
Score : 322 points
Date : 2025-06-04 15:00 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.eff.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.eff.org)
| froggertoaster wrote:
| Companies like John Deere have way overplayed their hand, and I'm
| glad to see the regulatory winds are changing.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| This law does not apply to tractors or game consoles. It's
| neutered as all fuck.
|
| From the article:
|
| Of course, these wins come with carve-outs. HB 1483 exempts:
| Video game consoles Medical devices Motor
| vehicles Agricultural and construction equipment
| Security systems and alarm equipment Internet and TV
| equipment from ISPs Off-road recreational vehicles
| Large-scale energy storage and solar gear Low earth
| orbit broadband gear (until 2044)
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| By 2026 my dishwasher is going to have a forced update to run
| Doom in an effort to be classified as a video game console,
| isn't it?
| 20after4 wrote:
| I don't know if the assholes behind these restrictions are
| clever enough to think of that loophole. Thanks for giving
| them the idea!
| thrance wrote:
| No need for that much effort, just have a horde of lawyers
| convince lawmakers that dishwashers are actually medical
| devices, that help relieve wrist pain from doing the
| dishes. A bit of brib- lobbying might help the lawmakers
| understand if the arguments aren't enough.
| EndsOfnversion wrote:
| I think you'll find "Hurt me plenty" is sufficient for all
| but the toughest baked on food stains.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| If Samsung gets Doom to do LAN multiplayer with the coffee
| machine and the refrigerator, then they all deserve the
| title of video game console.
| ourmandave wrote:
| It will be a patched Doom that doesn't let you upgrade or
| fix your armor.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Anything connected to the internet ought to be a "Security
| system" and should therefore be exempt as well
| peterjmag wrote:
| Not sure if the link was changed by the mods or something,
| but just a heads up that your quote's from the iFixit article
| [1], not the EFF one [2]
|
| [1] https://www.ifixit.com/News/110039/double-trouble-for-
| repair...
|
| [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/right-repair-law-
| washi...
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| ...but those are most of the things I want to repair. Did the
| check from HP not clear?
| Reubachi wrote:
| hilariously, this states right to repair law does not include
| road going or ag vehicles. Ya know, the impotus for this now
| hijacked initiative.
|
| "tell me the state of washington protects failing US auto
| manufacturers and shade tree mechanics without saying it".
|
| But hey, at least now I can rest assured knowing that korean
| smartphones are now going to be a little cheaper to repair in
| wshington.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Road vehicles should already be covered by existing right-
| to-repair rights, are they not? Otherwise, how would
| independent repair shops still exist?
| pavon wrote:
| Purely due to industry norms, no laws that I am aware of.
| For example Tesla makes it much harder for third parties
| to repair vehicles both by not making parts available and
| by using DRM/part-pairing/phoning-home to require
| authorization from them to replace some parts.
| tadfisher wrote:
| It's a traditional benefit of decoupling the sales and
| maintenance of vehicles from the manufacturer. The
| manufacturer should not care who buys their parts, so it
| should be purely an additional revenue stream. ASE
| certification means any shop can carry out warranty
| repairs and the manufacturer doesn't have to have repair
| shops and staff in every city/town.
|
| That said, it's not just Tesla that has broken this
| model; Volkswagen Auto Group in particular are famous for
| requiring proprietary tools and software packages to
| diagnose and repair their vehicles, and refusing to sell
| tools/software to independent shops. I think some
| manufacturers are just more tightly coupled to
| dealerships, so there's a profit motive in forcing all
| repairs to happen through them.
| connicpu wrote:
| "Low earth orbit broadband gear" is incredibly specific lol,
| I believe there's exactly 2 companies with large offices in
| Washington that would apply to.
| alpb wrote:
| Doesn't that include all home Starlink devices?
| connicpu wrote:
| Plus Amazon's Kuiper when it eventually launches
| dylan604 wrote:
| I'm not familiar with BO's rocket offerings other than
| the New Glenn phallic thingy. I chuckled thinking they'd
| just have the passengers open the hatch and push the new
| satellites out and hope they push hard enough to reach
| orbit.
| abnercoimbre wrote:
| Everything you listed is what the typical Washington resident
| will WANT to repair. How is this law even worth celebrating?
| And how did these companies obtain these exemptions?
| sleepybrett wrote:
| .. just like every other carve out exception. Bribes.
| usui wrote:
| Why do right-to-repair bills always have these kinds of
| exclusions? These are pretty important categories.
| tomwheeler wrote:
| Lobbyists
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| So it carves out most of the stuff I could reasonably expect
| to be covered under this? The only thing I can see covered
| would be cell phones and DVD players
| walterbell wrote:
| https://www.ifixit.com/News/110039/double-trouble-for-repair...
| Come January 1, 2026, manufacturers must also stop using parts
| pairing to block repairs for these devices. That means no more
| pop-ups that say "unknown part" when you swap in a working
| screen. No more downgrading your camera or fingerprint sensor
| just because you repaired your own phone. SB 5680
| goes even further for wheelchair users. It covers power
| wheelchairs, manual wheelchairs, power-assist devices, and
| mobility scooters. Manufacturers will have to provide not only
| parts and tools, but also firmware and embedded software, the
| stuff that's often used to digitally lock out independent fixes.
| msgodel wrote:
| Nice! That had gotten extremely ridiculous to the point where
| I've been actively avoiding new consumer products just because
| maintaining them is such a hassle.
| dmonitor wrote:
| Hopefully this doesn't mean the system can't report a non-OEM
| part being installed at all. Buying a used product that's been
| hacked apart would be frustrating.
| onli wrote:
| There is no such restriction in the law. The relevant section
| reads like this, section 3:
|
| > _an original manufacturer may not use parts pairing to: ...
| Cause a digital electronic product to display misleading
| alerts or warnings about unidentified parts, which the owner
| cannot immediately dismiss._
|
| So of course there can still be a notice, it just has to be
| dismissable. But Apple (the main company using part pairing
| against customers right now) has to stop making their
| products unusable when non-OEM parts are used for a repair.
|
| Side note: Be aware that baseless concerns like this echo
| propaganda against Right to Repair. You might have been
| infected by some Apple follower talking points there.
| guywithahat wrote:
| The phone part sounds great, the wheel chair portion sounds
| like it will just make wheel chairs more expensive. Wheelchairs
| are generally already highly repairable, and this will just
| reduce the options to consumers
| amazingamazing wrote:
| > That means no more pop-ups that say "unknown part" when you
| swap in a working screen. No more downgrading your camera or
| fingerprint sensor just because you repaired your own phone.
|
| I'm curious if that means that it's now illegal for the company
| to tell you if you have a device with fake parts.
|
| I also don't quite understand the security implications. If you
| need some attested part, like a TPM, and this and some other
| thing like a fingerprint sensor fail and you replace them both,
| you cannot disable the fingerprint sensor since now technically
| it cannot attest itself?
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| > a soldier struggling with a broken generator
|
| Are there generators you can't fix right now? I assumed most of
| them are pretty basic designs, an ICE with either an inverter or
| non-inverter generator. You can look up how to tear them down and
| repair them step by step on YouTube (including commercial units)
| octoberfranklin wrote:
| Large generators are fuel-injected, which requires a
| microcontroller with software.
|
| In the 1990s that software was write-once, non-upgradeable, and
| bug-free because it was trivial. But it hasn't been that way
| for a long time. "Fuel injection requires software" turned into
| an exploit vector for feature creep.
| technothrasher wrote:
| To be needlessly pedantic, fuel injection does _require_ a
| micro. I only say this because I deal with classic Bosch
| K-Jet systems often.
| paddy_m wrote:
| Detroit diesel two strokes were entirely mechanical. As
| were cummins engines like b5.9 with a bosch p-pump. In fact
| all diesel engines have fuel injection, and they were all
| mechanical up to the 80s/90s.
| mikestew wrote:
| I assume you meant to say _does not_ require a
| microcontroller, given that Bosch K is a mechanical FI
| system.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Yeah but you can just get a Megasquirt DIY kit and make your
| own ECU for most EFI engines (from 1 to 16 cylinders). To the
| other person's comment about the generator circuitry: most
| generators are pretty simple mechanically, you can make a new
| circuit to control the output.
|
| I'm guessing the rationale of the law is to prevent needing a
| repair company to exist & reinvent the electrical components
| of every single product in existence.
| zootboy wrote:
| Commercial Tier 4F diesels of the John Deere variety have
| latching fault codes when they relate to the aftertreatment
| system. It requires the manufacturer's proprietary scan tool
| (which they will not sell to you) to clear the code, even if
| the actual issue was something as simple as a connector left
| unplugged for too long.
| balls187 wrote:
| Requiring proprietary dongles/software to clear fault codes
| are not uncommon, but I'm surprised there hasn't been enough
| interest for there to be a 3rd party tool.
|
| Like McDonald's Shake Machines had a 3rd party tool to help
| diagnose issues.
| bfdm wrote:
| There is interest, but thanks to DMCA 1201 they put a thin
| veneer of encryption on it and suddenly it's a felony to
| make/use that third party tool.
| ronsor wrote:
| We could, of course, repeal DMCA section 1201, but no one
| in government wants to do that.
| crooked-v wrote:
| The McDonald's stuff in particular is a red herring. Their
| requirements are _contract_ requirements, put in place
| after too many franchisees tarnished their name with
| listeria outbreaks.
| const_cast wrote:
| Right, but the solution shouldn't have been a
| racketeering scheme.
|
| This is the risk of franchising in general. You lose a
| certain amount of control over quality and you put your
| brand at much greater risk. In exchange, you get to
| expand your brand much faster than if you did it under
| centralized control and investment.
| kyleblarson wrote:
| I just had a new 48kw generator installed on my property and it
| was a nightmare with Generac. It's apparently a new model and
| it took them 4 tries to get the right controller sent to the
| tech to get it up and running.
| kyleblarson wrote:
| Coincidentally I am in Washington State.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| Idk about the commercial units, but my portable inverter
| generator has a bunch of schmoo (highly technical industry
| term) that covers the entire electronics board. If a component
| on that board fried, I'm not able to repair it without
| replacing the whole board.
|
| The rest is fairly simple ICE like you say.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Conformal coating? That used to be the norm way back in the
| day for all kinds of electronics. Kind of a dick move, now,
| unless there is an environmental reason.
| tadfisher wrote:
| Typically a generator is used outdoors, so it makes sense
| to protect the PCB and other electronics from conditions
| experienced there. I wouldn't know what those conditions
| are, being on Hacker News and all.
| alnwlsn wrote:
| Normal on anything that has to work outside. Also, hardly
| an impediment to repair. I've done it myself on a car ECU:
| open case, scrape off conformal coating, desolder blown
| IGBT, replace with IGBT salvaged from junkyard unit, spray
| on new conformal coating, done - been working like that now
| for 5 years.
|
| Parts pairing is also a/the reason you can't just swap in
| the junkyard unit even though it came from a car with the
| same engine. We tried it - did not work.
|
| Potting within a brick of epoxy is the real dick move, but
| also not impossible to repair either.
| bluGill wrote:
| That pairing is for theft reasons - chop shops will steal
| a car, take the parts off and sell them. However the
| expensive computers are paired and so they won't work
| when sold this way thus making the value of a car to a
| shop shop much less and so helping prevent that theft
| mode.
|
| Though I think there should be a process to get the parts
| paired after verifying the car isn't stolen. I'm not sure
| what that would be though.
| 83 wrote:
| Probably epoxy potted, an order of magnitude more difficult
| to repair. Either way a coating is probably called for in
| the places a generator will be used so you probably
| wouldn't want to skip it just for repairability.
| net01 wrote:
| isn't this a copied and pasted version of the one in Texas that
| Louis Rossmann talked about in his video (
| https://youtu.be/C_ohgeWKcOY ) ?
|
| With the same loophole, i.e., selling assembly parts meaning
| screen with hinge and camera etc(expensive). instead of just the
| display(cheap).
|
| Apparently, there is one slight variation >
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44182235
| CrimsonCape wrote:
| It appears that the Washington bill excluded power tools whereas
| the Texas bill did not, which means that in Texas I should be
| able to swap dead lithium cells out of my expensive power tool
| batteries.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| We've been using these at work and they are great!
|
| https://ceenr.com/
| dylan604 wrote:
| Just took a look here, and I didn't see anything over 20V
| offered. I'm in the market for 40V versions for some of my
| gear.
|
| I also have Gold mount and V-mount type batteries that I'd
| love to have the cells replaced. If you think power tool
| batteries are expensive, take a look at film/video batteries!
| bityard wrote:
| Very interesting. Maybe I can afford Milwaukee tools now!
| Their tools are good, and sold bare, for semi-reasonable
| prices but their batteries are eye-wateringly expensive.
|
| (I should probably pick one of these up before Torque Test
| Channel does a video on them and they end up getting sold out
| for a year.)
|
| Edit: I'm referring to the PDNation universal battery +
| brand-specific adapter in particular.
| bityard wrote:
| I fully support right-to-repair but do you need a law to repair
| batteries?
|
| You can buy a battery build kit for M18 tools (for example) on
| AliExpress that comes with everything but the cells.
|
| I'm a bit of a tool nerd and I'm not aware of any power tools
| that are doing DRM in their tools to prevent usage of third-
| party batteries but I don't mind being wrong so I know which
| brands to avoid.
| divbzero wrote:
| Will companies be forced to design products that can be repaired
| in any state? Or are there ways they can still restrict repairs
| for states without right-to-repair laws?
| connicpu wrote:
| I imagine they will simply only provide the required
| parts/software/documentation to customers/repair shops who
| prove residency in a state that has these laws.
| edoceo wrote:
| What if I buy in WA, from a WA store and a WA manufacturer but
| live in ID?
| vkou wrote:
| It'll follow WA laws. You could live on the moon for all
| anyone would care, if the sale is in WA, it's covered by WA
| laws.
| scottyah wrote:
| They will do a cost-benefit analysis, I'm sure, but most likely
| it'll just turn into small businesses not selling in the
| restrictive states, and large companies making different
| versions. One of the versions will probably be better in almost
| every way except lack of right-to-repair compliance.
| zkmon wrote:
| I might need an ELI5 here. "Right to repair" as in "right to
| choose someone who repairs"? Don't think anyone stops you from
| repairing your own stuff yourself.
| throawayonthe wrote:
| Many manufacturers take active measures to prevent or
| discourage you from repairing your own stuff yourself
| jrajav wrote:
| It's almost never been a question of how to execute the repair
| - rather, it's a matter of repercussions for repairing
| 'yourself' (or authorizing a third party to on your behalf).
| Actors like John Deere and Apple have taken steps that are
| actively hostile to self-repairs, from voiding service
| agreements that have nothing to do with the repaired parts, up
| to bricking your device.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| > Don't think anyone stops you from repairing your own stuff
| yourself.
|
| They do. By making the parts needed for repairs unavailable to
| you. And by making it really hard for other manufacturers to
| make compatible parts.
| _kidlike wrote:
| easiest example: most components of a macbook laptop have their
| serial number baked in the OS (or some hardware controller,
| idr). So even if you can find a legit macbook part from another
| laptop, and you can even replace it yourself (which is also
| impossible but that's another story), the laptop won't boot. In
| order for it to boot, you need a special device which "official
| apple repair" people have, which can bake-in the new part's
| serial number.
| scottyah wrote:
| Great from a security perspective, as far as mass stealing
| and swapping/scrapping parts for resale is concerned. I
| wonder how they'll prevent it now.
| dgb23 wrote:
| What's the purpose of that other than making it harder to
| repair? Is there any good faith argument to made made here?
| onesociety2022 wrote:
| Security measure - otherwise someone can intercept your
| MacBook during delivery, replace the original component
| with a fake one that has a backdoor and ship it to you and
| you start using it completely oblivious to the fact it has
| been hacked.
| josephcsible wrote:
| That might be an argument to reject non-genuine
| components, but it's not an argument to reject genuine
| components just because they've previously been installed
| in a different device. (And even if it's possible to
| modify a genuine component to add backdoors, this still
| doesn't help, since they could just modify the one that
| came out of your MacBook too.)
| skeaker wrote:
| In theory people will steal Apple devices, then when they
| learn that digital locks make them impossible to use they
| will gut them for parts and sell those. Serial locking
| would defeat that. In practice, yes, it pretty much just
| exists to make them millions off of forced overpriced in-
| house repairs.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| They will say "security", and unfortunately half of HN will
| gobble it up no-questions-asked.
|
| The security argument can be achieved just as well by
| giving the _user_ the master key (on a Yubikey-style HSM if
| needed) to unlock the protection.
|
| The fact it's not done that way clearly shows the primary
| security they care about is that of Apple's bank account.
| trailbits wrote:
| It does remove any incentive for a thief to steal a
| Macbook. They can't strip it for parts and sell those parts
| if they won't work.
| charcircuit wrote:
| It's purpose is to legally force other companies to serve the
| interests repair shops over consumers. Instead of letting the
| free market, consumers, dictate what aspects of a device are
| important repair shops want to be able to profit off of every
| device and stay relevant even if it results in worse products
| for the consumer.
| junon wrote:
| The free market arguably hasn't worked like that in ages.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Thats because there isn't one and there hasn't been for a
| long time, and I'm not talking about libertarian fever
| dreams. Regulatory capture and legislated protection for
| big corporations at the expense of smaller ones are
| rampant. They don't want real competition and they don't
| want real regulation, only regulation that will make it
| hard for others to enter the market without significant
| cost.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| The entire point is that companies are vertically integrating
| the repairs market into their product business. This
| _directly removes_ competition from the market. The
| regulation here is to _preserve_ the free market you are
| advocating for here.
| charcircuit wrote:
| It's possible consumers prefer the vertically integrated
| model of repair. Increasing competition doesn't necessarily
| make things better for consumers.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| The overwhelming majority of consumers are also
| employees.
|
| What's better, low prices and low wages, or high prices
| and high wages? The "Chicago school of macroeconomics"
| holds the first position. I'm highly critical of that
| position.
|
| Even if you do agree with the Chicago school, there is a
| problem: by vertically integrating the repairs market,
| you take away the consumer's ability to repair their own
| products. The consumer is forced to pay the business to
| do the repairs, instead of doing it themselves for free.
| That's objectively more expensive for the consumer.
|
| By allowing companies to vertically integrate repairs
| into their product business, we have allowed them to
| create an entirely new market of rent-seeking. This both
| monopolizes a service (preventing competition) _and_ adds
| extra cost to consumers. It doesn 't matter what your
| ideological stance is on economics: this is objectively
| bad for consumers.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Consumers can still by products they can repair
| themselves if they value such an aspect of a product. I'd
| it is an extra cost than that gives a competitive
| advantage to other products who aren't vertical
| integrated like that.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| That's only true of there aren't market implications to
| this newly-introduced rent-seeking model.
|
| If your position is that market competition is what will
| overcome the negative implications of anticompetitive
| behavior, your position is logically incoherent.
|
| The reality is that the only way to be competitive on
| price (and thereby survive as a business) is to do your
| own rent-seeking. We can all plainly see that this is how
| it has played out in reality. No business can actually
| rely on the promise of right-to-repair obsessed consumers
| to keep them afloat.
| const_cast wrote:
| 1. Consumers have no choice, so they better prefer it.
|
| 2. These anti-repair practices are anti-consumer, because
| they're specifically designed to make the process more
| difficult and expensive for consumers.
|
| 3. This is sort of along the lines of planned
| obsolescence. The reality is that making your product
| shittier on purpose is actually a viable business
| strategy when you have decent market share. It shouldn't
| be.
| charcircuit wrote:
| 1. They do have a choice. No one is forcing them to buy a
| specific product.
|
| 2. A product who is more complicated and expensive to
| repair is not necessarily a worse product. This could be
| a trade off in favor of something consumers value more.
|
| 3. It's normal to target a lifespan for a product. For
| mature products ignoring it is a sign of amateurs. This
| is not the same thing as making a product bad on purpose.
| Zak wrote:
| There's some significant information asymmetry involved
| such that it's a lot of effort to know how repairable a
| new product is. The consumer may not even be the one to
| perform the repair; there are a lot of independent repair
| shops replacing things like smartphone displays. It would
| be a nasty surprise for someone who got their screen
| replaced for $80 on their last phone to learn it's first-
| party-only and $300 on their new one a couple years into
| ownership.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| The full bill is here:
|
| https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Ho...
|
| It's only 12 pages and is easy to understand.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| Honestly, given the current administration and Congress, I could
| see this being the focus of a federal lobbying effort to "reduce
| burdensome state regulations that limit consumer choice, kill
| jobs, and increase prices".
| andelink wrote:
| Not that I'm dissatisfied by this being on the front page, but
| why is this article news right now? The bills were delivered to
| the governor in April and then signed in May. Regardless, this is
| great news!
| rkagerer wrote:
| Axis locks out certain useful features in their IP cameras unless
| you install an Axis-branded SD card.
|
| Since Axis doesn't actually manufacture SD cards, they are
| obviously rebranded high-endurance cards from one of the major
| fabs (possibly with some minor firmware parameter tweaks).
| Except, they cost twice as much and aren't as generally
| available.
|
| Would this law have any bearing on that business practice?
| pnw wrote:
| While this is overall good progress, this bill was watered down
| by WA politicians after meeting with their corporate donors.
| Someone already mentioned the video game console exemption, there
| were a number of other changes, detailed here:
| https://ethicalhour.com/ethicalbusiness/microsofts-bold-move...
| Yhippa wrote:
| Does this mean I can go to Washington to tune my Audi S5 that
| protects the TCU with encryption?
| buildsjets wrote:
| 034 Motorsport can't help you with that?
| drdaeman wrote:
| I wonder if the scope of "diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of
| digital electronic products" is extensive enough to be usable for
| requesting protocol documentation for purposes of integrating
| products with systems from different vendors (such as DIY).
| Plenty of IoT stuff has proprietary "hubs" or "cloud services"
| (that frequently pose reliability, privacy and security
| problems), and I'm really curious if this law could be used to
| repair this design defect.
| avodonosov wrote:
| Does it include the right to decompile and modify any software?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-04 23:01 UTC)