Today, the US Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against farming equipment manufacturer Deere & Company—makers of the iconic green John Deere tractors, harvesters, and mowers—citing its longtime reluctance to keep its customers from fixing their own machines.
“Farmers rely on their agricultural equipment to earn a living and feed their families,” FTC chair Lina Khan wrote in a statement alongside the full complaint. “Unfair repair restrictions can mean farmers face unnecessary delays during tight planting and harvest windows.”
The FTC’s main complaint here centers around a software problem. Deere places limitations on its operational software, meaning certain features and calibrations on its tractors can only be unlocked by mechanics who have the right digital key. Deere only licenses those keys to its authorized dealers, meaning farmers often can’t take their tractors to more convenient third-party mechanics or just fix a problem themselves. The suit would require John Deere to stop the practice of limiting what repair features its customers can use and make them available to those outside official dealerships.
Kyle Wiens is the CEO of the repair advocacy retailer iFixit and an occasional WIRED contributor who first wrote about John Deere’s repair-averse tactics in 2015. In an interview today, he noted how frustrated farmers get when they try to fix something that has gone wrong, only to run into Deere’s policy.
“When you have a thing that doesn’t work, if you’re 10 minutes from the store, it’s not a big deal,” Wiens says. “If the store is three hours away, which it is for farmers in most of the country, it’s a huge problem.”
The other difficulty is that US copyright protections prevent anyone but John Deere from making software that counteracts the restrictions the company has put on its platform. Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 makes it so people can’t legally counteract technological measures that fall under its protections. John Deere’s equipment falls under that copyright policy.
“Not only are they being anti-competitive, it’s literally illegal to compete with them,” Wiens says.
Deere in the Headlights
Wiens says that even though there has been a decade of pushback against John Deere from farmers and repairability advocates, the customers using the company’s machines have not seen much benefit from all that discourse.
“Things really have not gotten better for farmers,” Wiens says. “Even with all of the noise around a right to repair over the years, nothing has materially changed for farmers on the ground yet.”
This suit against Deere, he thinks, will be different.
“This has to be the thing that does it,” Wiens says. “The FTC is not going to settle until John Deere makes the software available. This is a step in the right direction.”
Deere’s reluctance to make its products more accessible has angered many of its customers, and even garnered generally bipartisan congressional support for reparability in the agricultural space. The FTC alleges John Deere also violated legislation passed by the Colorado state government in 2023 that requires farm equipment sold in the state to make operational software accessible to users.
“Deere’s unlawful business practices have inflated farmers’ repair costs and degraded farmers’ ability to obtain timely repairs,” the suit reads.
Deere & Company did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Nathan Proctor, senior director for the Campaign for the Right to Repair at the advocacy group US PIRG, wrote a statement lauding the FTC’s decision. He thinks this case, no matter how it turns out, will be a positive step for the right to repair movement more broadly.
“I think this discovery process will paint a picture that will make it very clear that their equipment is programmed to monopolize certain repair functions,” Proctor tells WIRED. “And I expect that Deere will either fix the problem or pay the price. I don’t know how long that is going to take. But this is such an important milestone, because once the genie’s out of the bottle, there’s no getting it back in.”
