Multiple Workshop panelists argued that allowing or providing for repair only through authorized repair networks or through the manufacturer can lead to repair taking too long to actually be a feasible option for consumers. Vermont State Senator Pearson, for example, stated that when his iPhone’s camera broke, “according to Apple, nobody in Vermont could fix it. They wanted me to send it to them.”[1] However, because he also runs a consulting business from his phone, mailing it away for repair would have had the effect of closing his business for a week and so “[i]t was a non-starter.”[2]
The Commission also received comments and empirical research lamenting protracted repairs for military equipment[3] and tractors.[4] For example, a comment submitted by Major Lucas Kunce and Captain Elle Ekman, two active duty Marine Officers commenting in their personal capacity, stated that, “Marines are less capable of repairing equipment in extreme circumstances because [the contracts between the manufacturer and military do not allow them] to repair the equipment during regular operations and do not have the tooling, diagnostic equipment or diagrams, or hands-on experience.”[5] Using Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacements as an example, Major Kunce and Captain Eckman stated that, “the restrictions [on who can repair the vehicles] mean limiting the capability, flexibility, and experience of Marines who will be needed to conduct these repairs if they are ever in a hostile, kinetic arms, or D-Day-like situation.”[6] They explained that “[t]his warranty and repair contract was similar in many ways to those in the civilian or commercial world.”[7] In addition, during the 2016 right to repair hearing held by the Nebraska legislature’s Committee on Judiciary, Kenny Roelofsen, a representative of an agricultural replacement company, testified that “if [a tractor is] down for one or two days during planting season or during harvest season, they’re wasting money… if the only person who can repair that equipment is the OEM, then if they have a tech that’s already out. They don’t have another tech to get out there and essentially plug in a USB port and fix their tractor, then they’re out. So they’re essentially tying up all the market into a monopoly to themselves, not allowing competition which drives prices up.”[8]
The record contains scant rebuttal from manufacturers to the argument that a more open repair ecosystem would allow consumers to have their goods repaired more quickly or repair them in a timely manner themselves.
- ↑ Transcript, at 154.
- ↑ Id.
- ↑ See Major Lucas Kunce and Captain Elle Ekman comment (“Major Kunce & Captain Ekman comment”).
- ↑ Certain models of tractors would be subject to the MMWA’s anti-tying provision in those instances when they are normally used for personal, family, or household purposes. 15 U.S.C. 2301(1).
- ↑ Major Kunce & Captain Ekman comment, at 6.
- ↑ Id. at 7.
- ↑ Id.
- ↑ Nebraska Transcript, at 18–19.
39
