Upholding the right to repair

Upholding the right to repair

Though the world of consumer technology is bustling with electronic goods, options to get them repaired are getting fewer. Repairing is becoming unreasonably expensive or pretty much impossible because of technology becoming obsolete. Companies avoid the publication of manuals that can help users make repairs easily, manufacturers have proprietary control over spare parts and most firms refuse to make their products compatible with those of other firms. Planned obsolescence results in products breaking down too soon and buying a replacement is often cheaper and easier than repairing them.

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.