Upholding the right to repair

However, this trend is changing in several parts of the world. Apple recently announced that consumers will have the right to purchase spare components of their products, following an order of the Federal Trade Commission of the United States, which directs manufacturers to remedy unfair anti-competitive practice and asks them to make sure that consumers can make repairs, either themselves or by a third-party agency. The momentum is, however, not so strong in India.

The rationale behind the “right to repair” is that the individual who purchases a product must own it completely. This implies that apart from being able to use the product, consumers must be able to repair and modify the product the way they want to. The absence of repair manuals means that manufacturers hold near-monopoly over repair workshops that charge consumers exorbitant prices. Tech giants contend that security and privacy concerns may crop up if products based on a technology patented by them are opened up by third parties. However, many countries have taken initiatives, adopted policies and even tried to enact legislation that recognise the “right to repair” to reduce electronic waste.

Monopoly on repair processes infringes the customer’s’ “right to choose” recognised by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consumer disputes jurisprudence in the country has also partially acknowledged the right to repair. In Shamsher Kataria v Honda Siel Cars India Ltd (2017), for instance, the Competition Commission of India ruled that restricting the access of independent automobile repair units to spare parts by way of an end-user license agreement was anti-competitive. The CCI observed that the practice was detrimental to consumer welfare.

Some jurisdictions offer limited scope for exercising the right to repair. For instance, under the Australian Consumer Law consumers have a right to request that certain goods be repaired if they break too easily or do not work properly. Manufacturers must provide spare parts and repair facilities for a “reasonable” time after an item is purchased. These repair facilities and spare parts are, however, not available after the specified time. There is also no obligation to provide information or diagnostic tools that allow people to repair things independently of manufacturers.

Repair cafés are a remarkable feature of the Australian system. These are free meeting places where volunteer fixers gather to share their repairing skills with people who bring in items such as bikes, clothing, appliances, and household goods that need mending. The sessions are usually held on a regular (often monthly) basis in cafés, community centres, and at various other venues.

The Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act, 2012 requires automobile manufacturers to provide spare parts and diagnostics to buyers and even independent third-party mechanics. The UK also introduced the path-breaking “right to repair” in 2021 that makes it legally binding on manufacturers to provide spare parts.

Big companies often deploy mechanisms that practically forbid other enterprises to repair their products. Digital warranty cards, for instance, ensure that by getting a product from a “non-recognised” outfit, a customer loses the right to claim a warranty.

If people want to fix things in a timely, safe and cost-effective way, whether by doing it themselves or taking it
to a service centre of their choice, providing access to spare parts and information is imperative. A well-drafted legislation will not only uphold the right to repair but may aid in striking a much-needed balance between intellectual property and competitive laws in the country.

G S Bajpai is the Vice-Chancellor of Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, where Vershika Sharma is Research Associate. Mehak Bajpai is a Research Scholar at National Law University, Delhi