[ad_1]
Lobbyists and commercial groups of large technology companies and equipment manufacturers have long argued that giving consumers greater access to the tools needed to repair products, be it a phone or a car, poses safety and security risks. The debate has been particularly sparked as more products connect to the Internet, adding a software element to repairs that required the exchange of parts in the past.
Links to news items on the White House newsletter claim that backed claims claiming reduced competition specifically address cell phone repair issues, but the language of the order itself calls on the FTC to extend the right to repair “technology and other” companies to prevent DIY DIY. that it will be much larger than your device.
Responding to the executive order via email, John Deere spokesman said the company “is our industry leader in providing repair tools, spare parts, information guides, training videos and manuals needed to work on our machines.” A spokesman also said that although less than two percent of tractor repairs require software upgrades, the company still does not support the right to change the embedded software “because of the risks associated with the safe operation of the equipment.”
Turn the screw
Proctor of the U.S. PIRG warned that the FTC could be there even before the new repair laws go into effect, and said the process of making the rules “is not always quick.” He cites the fact that an FTC rule has ended on “Made in the USA” labels that are falsely applied to products that are not manufactured in the US. (Congress first enacted “Made in the USA” legislation in 1994, but over the years there has been a consensus in the party that this type of fraud should not be severely punished. Last week, The FTC codified the rules as offenders would be punished.)
“The right to redress is even more complex than this case, and if it’s just a directive to make rules, it can start another lengthy process,” Proctor says. “However, I’m hopeful that this is a mechanism that takes us to where we need to go a little faster.”
IFeix’s Sheehan is more optimistic about the FTC’s right to be resolved quickly, partly by the agency recently introduced some changes designed to streamline procedures for making rules – and in part because the order comes directly from the White House. “Obviously, we want to move quickly in that agency, and the pressure from the Biden administration allows for that,” Sheehan says.
An FTC spokesman did not comment directly on the issue instead, citing a White House statement and a report already released by the Commission in May.
In that report, the FTC concluded that the products were, in fact, more difficult to repair and maintain, and that “repair restrictions… Consumers have focused on manufacturers’ repair networks to replace products before they have reached the end of their useful life.” The FTC also noted that the cuts in repairs could “place a greater financial burden on communities of color and low-income Americans.”
But the FTC warned in a May report that the Right to Reparation is a complicated issue, and that expanding consumer redress options, through industry initiatives or legislation, “raises a number of issues that will justify consideration.”
After all, the struggle for the Right to Reparation is likely to continue at the state level, and advocates also plan to continue making changes in Congress.
“I think, within the framework of the FTC rules, maybe that’s not a substitute for what Congress can do and what states can do,” Sheehan says. Just like any other 25 states this year they have looked at the legislation on the Right to Repair, but that, of course, does not mean that the bills in those states will become law. Some states have what Sheehan calls “repair-related laws,” including California, Rhode Island, and Indiana. Right now, Massachusetts is the only state with an official law on the Right to Auto Repair, which won the vote by a landslide in 2012 and 2020 again. despite oral opposition from a coalition of big automakers.
“Regardless of the rule issued by the FTC, enforcement will be in the hands of the FTC,” Sheehan says. “State law can be applied by state attorneys general, and sometimes the FTC has more or more resources to address these things than the FTC has in the context of all other priorities.”
KABEKO Bigger Stories
[ad_2]
Source link
