For years, right to repair was a niche cause championed by small repair shops and environmental advocates. In 2026, it’s become legislation in the EU, multiple US states, and — slowly — in Australia. The progress is real, though the implementation is messier than the headlines suggest.

What’s Actually Changed

The European Union’s right to repair directive, which took effect in 2025, requires manufacturers to make spare parts, repair manuals, and diagnostic tools available for specific product categories. Initially covering washing machines, dishwashers, fridges, displays, and welding equipment, the directive has expanded to include smartphones and tablets.

In the US, over 30 states have introduced right to repair legislation. California, New York, Minnesota, and Colorado have passed bills with varying scope. The California law is the broadest, covering consumer electronics and appliances and requiring manufacturers to provide parts and documentation for up to seven years after the last unit is manufactured.

Australia has been slower. The Productivity Commission recommended exploring right to repair legislation back in 2021, but federal legislation hasn’t materialized. What has happened is a strengthening of consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law, with the ACCC taking a more aggressive position on manufacturers who design products to be unrepairable.

What It Means in Practice

If you own a smartphone manufactured after July 2025 and sold in the EU, the manufacturer must make replacement batteries, screens, and charging ports available at “reasonable prices” for at least five years after the model is discontinued.

That sounds great. The reality is more complicated. “Reasonable prices” hasn’t been precisely defined, so manufacturers can technically comply while pricing parts high enough to make repair uneconomical compared to replacement.

Apple’s self-service repair program, launched partly in response to regulatory pressure, offers genuine parts and tools for iPhone repairs. But iFixit’s analysis shows that the parts are expensive — often close to what Apple charges for the repair — and the process still requires returning the old parts or paying a deposit.

Samsung has partnered with iFixit to sell genuine parts and provide repair guides, which is a more consumer-friendly approach. The parts are reasonably priced, and there’s no requirement to return old components.

The Design Problem

Legislation can force manufacturers to sell parts. It can’t easily force them to design products that are repairable in the first place.

Modern smartphones are assembled with adhesive rather than screws, use proprietary connectors, and serialize components so that replacement parts only work after manufacturer authorization. Even if you can buy the screen, installing it might require a software pairing process that only the manufacturer can perform.

This is where the EU’s eco-design regulations add another layer. New rules require that certain products be designed with repairability in mind, including standardized fasteners and reduced use of adhesives. But these rules are product-category specific and don’t cover everything.

Laptops are a mixed bag. Framework’s repairable laptop has proven there’s a market for modular, user-repairable design. But mainstream manufacturers like Dell, HP, and Lenovo still produce many models where RAM and storage are soldered to the motherboard, making upgrades impossible.

What About Farm Equipment and Medical Devices?

The loudest right to repair battles have been in agricultural equipment and medical devices.

John Deere’s tractors became a symbol of the problem: farmers own multi-hundred-thousand-dollar equipment but can’t repair it themselves because the onboard software locks them out. Deere signed a memorandum of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation in 2023 promising repair access, but compliance has been disputed.

Medical device repair is governed by different regulations with patient safety implications. Hospitals have argued for the right to perform routine maintenance on medical equipment without voiding warranties, while manufacturers argue that unauthorized repairs could compromise patient safety. The FDA has generally supported hospitals’ right to maintain their own equipment, but the practical situation varies enormously by device type.

Environmental Impact

The environmental case for right to repair is strong in theory but hard to quantify precisely. The longer a product stays in use, the fewer resources are consumed manufacturing replacements and the less e-waste ends up in landfill.

A European Commission study estimated that extending the lifespan of smartphones by one year would save 2.1 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually across the EU. For washing machines, the figure was 1.1 million tonnes.

The counterargument — that newer products are more energy efficient, so replacement can sometimes be better for the environment — has some validity for appliances but is mostly irrelevant for electronics where energy consumption in use is minimal.

Independent Repair Shops

For independent repair businesses, right to repair legislation is potentially transformative. Without access to parts and documentation, many repairs required either using third-party parts of uncertain quality or sending devices back to the manufacturer.

Third-party parts remain a complicated area. Aftermarket screens, batteries, and other components are cheaper than OEM parts but vary wildly in quality. Some are genuinely comparable to original parts. Others are significantly worse, particularly for batteries where low-quality cells can be unsafe.

Right to repair laws that require OEM parts availability at reasonable prices shift this dynamic. Repair shops can offer OEM quality at competitive prices, and consumers can have more confidence in the repair quality.

Software Locks and Pairing

The most contentious issue going forward is software serialization. Even when parts are physically available, some manufacturers require software authorization to activate replacement components. Apple’s parts pairing system, for example, links specific serial numbers to specific devices.

Without manufacturer authorization, replacing a screen might result in reduced brightness, disabled True Tone, or warning messages in settings. This creates a practical barrier to independent repair even when parts are technically available.

Legislation addressing software locks specifically is emerging but not yet widespread. The EU’s rules prohibit “unjustified” software barriers to repair, but defining what’s unjustified versus what’s a legitimate security measure is an ongoing debate.

What Consumers Should Do

If right to repair matters to you, there are practical steps beyond waiting for legislation:

Check repairability scores before buying. France requires a repairability index on electronics. iFixit publishes repairability scores for major products worldwide.

Choose products designed for repair when alternatives exist. Framework laptops, Fairphone smartphones, and various commercial appliance brands prioritise repairability.

Support independent repair shops. Using them keeps repair skills and infrastructure in local communities.

Advocate for stronger consumer protections. In Australia, the ACCC handles complaints about products that fail prematurely or can’t be repaired. Reporting problems contributes to enforcement data.

Right to repair isn’t a solved problem, but it’s no longer a fringe issue. The direction is clear, even if the pace varies by country. Products will gradually become more repairable, parts will be more available, and the throwaway culture of consumer electronics will slowly — very slowly — start to shift.