Alex Reinauer & Greyson Gee: Should 'Right to Repair' Laws Be Enacted?

Summary

Future of Freedom: Should 'Right to Repair' Laws Be Enacted?

Episode: Alex Reinhauer & Greyson Gee: Should 'Right to Repair' Laws Be Enacted?
Release Date: August 16, 2024
Host: Scott Bertram
Network: America's Talking Network

---

Introduction

In this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scott Bertram delves into the contentious debate surrounding right to repair legislation. Bringing together experts from opposing viewpoints, Scott facilitates a robust discussion with Alex Reinhauer, a Research Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Grayson Gee, a Policy Scholar with the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The conversation explores the implications of right to repair laws on consumers, manufacturers, innovation, and the broader economy.

---

Understanding Right to Repair: Definitions and Perspectives

The episode begins with Scott introducing the concept of right to repair, prompting Alex Reinhauer to dissect its underlying intentions:

"[Right to repair] portrays itself as a property rights law and a consumer protection law. However, the devil is in the details." (01:11)

Reinhauer argues that despite its consumer-friendly façade, right to repair legislation functions fundamentally as antitrust law. He contends that these laws impose unnecessary competition policies by compelling manufacturers to provide parts, tools, and documentation to independent repair shops, thereby treating even minor manufacturers as monopolists. This, he suggests, disrupts the principles of limited government and freedom of contract.

In contrast, Grayson Gee frames right to repair as an extension of fundamental property rights:

"The right to repair is a concept that's deeply rooted in the notion of property rights. So the idea being that when you purchase a product, it's yours, you own it." (18:11)

Gee emphasizes that these laws empower consumers to maintain and repair their own products, challenging the notion that manufacturers should have exclusive control over repairs. He ties this to the historical context of property rights and the detrimental effects of planned obsolescence on both consumers and the economy.

---

Legislative Landscape and Specifics

Scott steers the conversation towards specific legislative efforts, highlighting New York's right to repair law based on the Digital Right to Repair Act. Alex elaborates on this:

"The New York bill is a much more watered-down version than the one maybe we see in California, the one in Oregon. I think there were some small concessions made at the end to make it not as intrusive." (03:25)

Reinhauer critiques the bill for potentially harming smaller manufacturers who lack established repair infrastructures, arguing that it may inadvertently discourage repairs rather than facilitate them. He also points out that the legislation is heavily influenced by organizations like iFixit, which advocate for open repair markets.

Grayson counters by providing real-world examples where restrictive repair policies have adversely affected consumers. He cites Apple’s stringent repair controls and John Deere’s tight grip on agricultural equipment repairs, illustrating how these restrictions lead to significant inconveniences and economic losses for users:

"Farmers in Iowa... had to load their tractor onto a trailer and drive three hours to the nearest authorized John Deere service station, which cost them valuable time in the field and in harvest season." (20:54)

---

Economic Implications and Consumer Impact

A central theme of the discussion revolves around the economic consequences of right to repair laws. Alex presents a skeptical view, referencing a Journal of Management Science article that predicts a "lose, lose, lose situation" for consumers, manufacturers, and the environment due to increased compliance costs being passed on to consumers:

"The law just creates some bad incentives... more often than not, they're passed on to the consumer in higher prices." (06:40)

He further argues that the majority of consumers prefer replacing rather than repairing products, undermining the purported benefits of such legislation. Citing surveys from Consumer Reports and iFixit, Reinhauer emphasizes that a significant portion of consumers do not engage with the repair market, suggesting that the laws may not yield the intended cost savings.

Conversely, Grayson advocates for the economic benefits of right to repair, asserting that it fosters a more competitive and accessible repair market:

"When manufacturers have allowed, on their own accord, parts and repair manuals to be provided to third parties, you see the free market respond accordingly and provide solutions to customers who are seeking more affordable repair services." (24:06)

He believes that ensuring access to authentic parts and repair information would enhance the quality and affordability of repairs, benefiting consumers and sustaining independent repair businesses.

---

Innovation and Product Durability

Alex raises concerns about the impact of right to repair laws on product innovation and durability. He explains that manufacturers often prioritize durability over repairability, a balance that could be disrupted by mandatory repair access:

"When a product becomes more repairable, it often becomes less durable and more breakable." (08:41)

Using the Fairphone as an example of a highly repairable device with lower ingress protection ratings compared to the iPhone, Reinhauer illustrates the potential trade-offs between repairability and product robustness. He warns that such legislation could lead to more fragile products, ultimately disadvantaging consumers.

Grayson, however, maintains that the benefits of repairability outweigh these concerns, highlighting that products like those from Apple have begun supporting right to repair efforts and recognizing the importance of consumer autonomy in maintenance and longevity.

---

Warranties and Manufacturer Accountability

The discussion also touches upon the relationship between third-party repairs and product warranties. Alex argues that most repairs are not covered under warranty, making the issue less critical:

"Only about 11% of the repairs that they surveyed were covered by warranty." (12:57)

He references the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975, which already protects consumers from warranty voidance due to third-party repairs, suggesting that additional legislation may be redundant.

Grayson counters by emphasizing the consumer trust and reliability that right to repair laws would enforce, ensuring that repairs are conducted with genuine parts and authorized procedures, thereby maintaining product integrity and safety.

---

Legal and Safety Concerns

Alex highlights the potential safety risks associated with forced access to repair tools and parts, particularly in industries like agriculture where equipment safety is paramount:

"John Deere may know that a particular independent repair shop is doing really bad, is messing with the settings for horsepower... but under these laws, they're going to be forced to continue to do business with them." (14:50)

He underscores the challenge manufacturers face in ensuring the quality and safety of repairs when they are legally compelled to supply repair resources to all independent shops, regardless of their performance history.

Grayson acknowledges these concerns but believes that farmers and consumers possess the necessary expertise to handle repairs responsibly. He also points out that companies like John Deere have shown willingness to compromise, allowing certain repairs to be conducted independently while maintaining safety standards.

---

Regulatory Approach: State vs. Federal

The debate extends to the appropriate level of governance for regulating right to repair. Alex advocates for traditional antitrust processes, handled on a case-by-case basis, rather than sweeping legislation:

"Antitrust laws handle this... on a case by case basis." (16:39)

Grayson, representing the Texas Public Policy Foundation, supports a state-driven approach, arguing that state legislatures are better positioned to address the specific needs and circumstances of their constituents:

"The authority should come from the states... this is definitely a state based issue." (28:45)

---

Environmental Considerations

While both guests acknowledge environmental aspects, their perspectives differ. Alex focuses on the practical implications for product durability and consumer costs, whereas Grayson highlights the environmental benefits of extending product lifespans:

"There is a degree of quote, unquote sustainability... you don't have to throw away your smartphone every year." (31:51)

Grayson asserts that right to repair laws contribute to sustainability by reducing electronic waste and encouraging the responsible use of resources.

---

Conclusion: Balancing Interests

The episode concludes with both experts reinforcing their positions. Alex Reinhauer remains critical of right to repair laws, emphasizing potential economic drawbacks and challenges to innovation. In contrast, Grayson Gee champions these laws as essential for property rights, consumer empowerment, and environmental sustainability.

The discussion underscores the complexity of right to repair legislation, highlighting the need to balance consumer rights, manufacturer interests, economic implications, and safety concerns. As the debate continues, stakeholders on both sides must navigate these multifaceted issues to shape policies that best serve the public interest.

---

Notable Quotes

1. Alex Reinhauer:
   "Right to repair has a lot of law to offer, but really no order." (01:11)
   "Right to repair laws will likely create a lose, lose, lose situation in which consumers, manufacturers, and the environment are all worse off." (06:40)
   "If you believe, like in limited government, freedom of contract, it's really hard to find reasons to support this bill." (03:00)

2. Grayson Gee:
   "The right to repair is a concept that's deeply rooted in the notion of property rights." (18:11)
   "Right to repair would do away with that issue and ensure that the parts that your device is being repaired with are authentic." (26:19)
   "This is definitely a state based issue and we advocate for a state based solution." (28:45)

---

Further Information

For more insights and detailed discussions on right to repair legislation, visit Texas Public Policy Foundation or Competitive Enterprise Institute. Explore additional episodes of Future of Freedom and other engaging podcasts at americastalking.com.

Transcript

[Scott Bertram]

Welcome to Future of Freedom. I'm your host, Scott Bertram. Future of Freedom is a production of America's Talking Network. You can check out all of our great [e-mail] to support great podcasts like this one, please donate by clicking the link in the show description. We bring you interviews today from different sides of the debate over right to repair legislation. In a little bit, we'll be joined by Grayson Gee, Policy Scholar with the Texas Public Policy foundation. Find [e-mail] first we talk with Alex Rinher, research Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. You can find [e-mail] Alex thanks so much for joining us.

[Alex Reinhauer]

Yeah, well, thank you for having me.

[Scott Bertram]

Talking today about the right to repair and right to repair laws and pending legislation in some particular areas. Let's begin with talking about the issue. What is at issue here when we talk about this right to repair?

[Alex Reinhauer]

Yeah, well, I mean, right to repair, I think portrays itself as a property rights law and a consumer protection law. However, the devil is in the details. You know, when you read the actual text of the legislation, it's abundantly clear that this is an antitrust law. Like this is competition policy. And we know this because the threshold issue as to whether these laws apply to a particular manufacturer is whether that manufacturer offers repair services. Right. A manufacturer can completely avoid having to comply with these laws, whether it be New York's, Oregon's, or Minnesota's, by just not offering repair. Now, I think that, you know, discourages repair more than it encourages it. But it's important to think of these proposals in terms of like, law and order, because right to repair has a lot of law to offer, but really no order. And antitrust has been historically driven by this very fact, intensive economic analysis. And businesses are typically entitled to their day in court on those issues. But the right to repair laws and the proposals we've seen in state legislatures skip that fact intensive economic analysis, they just skip it. Then they presume that every manufacturer that offers repair for their products is an illegal monopolist. And then the laws go straight to the remedy phase and impose compulsory contracts, forcing manufacturers to sell parts, tools, and documentation. And this duty applies equally to both small and large manufacturers. Right. A manufacturer with less than 1% market share in a particular industry is treated as a monopolist for simply selling or repairing to the offering repair for the products they sell. So I mean, if you believe, like in limited government, freedom of contract, it's really hard to find reasons to support this bill.

[Scott Bertram]

The bill, at least the one that you reference most specifically in the [e-mail] is the one that's in New York, that's passed in New York, the right to repair law there, which is based on a model state right to repair law called Digital Right to Repair Act. That in particular, since it is what you spend a lot of time on in the piece that you wrote [e-mail] what does that say? What does that lay out?

[Alex Reinhauer]

Yeah, well, the New York bill is a, is a much more watered down version than the one maybe we see in California, the one in Oregon. Right. I think there were, there were some small concessions made at the end to make it not as intrusive. So I think it's really going to really affect the smaller manufacturers in New York. Right. Who want to sell there, who may not have like the established repair infrastructure that more, you know, incumbent firms already have in that market. And what it does is, is that as I, as I mentioned, if a manufacturer decides to sell repair products, then they have to sell those repair products or if they have like an authorized repair network, they have to sell all those products, the same products to independent repair shops on the same terms. Right. And this is really, it's, it's a real benefit to independent repair shops. And the model legislation you mentioned. Right. Is in part drafted by iFixit, which is a founding member of the repair association and they lobby for this stuff a lot. So I don't think it's going to actually lead to any more repairs for consumers, but it might increase the market share for independent providers.

[Scott Bertram]

The bill deals with digital right to repair access, but right to repair laws, as you reference there, go much farther than that in some areas. AG equipment, John Deere, Tesla, although that also being an EV is there's some digital issues there. What other sectors largely are covered by some of these right to repair laws?

[Alex Reinhauer]

There's been a lot of changes to the definition of digitally connected equipment. Right. And so the kind of broad definitions that are proposed by the repair association have not been implemented into law. And I think that's a good thing. So the more broad definitions. Right. Can affect small digital appliances like a hair straightener. And hair straighteners are a common cause of like house fires and other problems. So this may influence, you know, if a broad, a broader law is ended up being implemented, may discourage manufacturers who make these kind of household appliances to not create digitally enhanced safety features. But it's mostly affecting personal electronics, AG equipment, and then Minnesota is unique because it includes appliances as well. And we can talk about some of the details of the appliance market as well as the agricultural market. Typically, those advocating for these laws focus on really anecdotal examples of just one industry and make it seem like it's representative of the entire industry.

[Scott Bertram]

I want to talk about some of the consequences, I guess, of right to repair laws. For some, perhaps it follows that if the repair market is opened up, if there are more choices, if more people can do this work, that that will lead to lower prices for repairs, saving consumers money in the long run. Does that savings really mean something to the consumer? Does it work out that way?

[Alex Reinhauer]

No. And there's a number of different ways to tackle this. I mean, first of all, the law just creates some bad incentives. And there's a journal article in a really serious economic paper in the Journal of Management Science that found that right to repair laws will likely create a lose, lose, lose situation in which consumers, manufacturers, and the environment are all worse off. These, these laws are regulatory, right? They regulate behavior and regulation comes with compliance costs. And where those compliance costs come from, oftentimes, more often than not, they're. They're passed on to the consumer in higher prices. So I don't think that there's a high chance that this is actually going to lead to lower prices in the repair market. It may if, you know, some more strenuous price controls are put into place, but you're ultimately going to see a higher price for the actual cost of the product in the, in the primary market instead of the aftermarket. And so I don't think that's good for consumers, particularly when it comes to something like cell phones and where the vast majority of consumers prefer to replace their smartphone rather than repair. Right. Consumer Reports is a, it's a pro Right to repair organization, did a 2021 nationally representative survey where they found that, you know, 56% of people replace their smartphone without ever trying to repair it. And that coincides with another report that you break. IFix, another independent repair provider also did found that was it was 59% of consumers prefer to replace their phone than repair it. And so, you know, for these smaller group of people that actually like to repair their products, those who don't like to repair are going to end up footing the bill.

[Scott Bertram]

You mentioned regulations come with compliance costs. Some of those are passed down to consumer, of course, but if there is higher costs for the manufacturers, how might that affect future innovation in those particular industries?

[Alex Reinhauer]

No, absolutely. This is particularly true with handheld electronics or portable electronics like laptops and cell phones. And manufacturers have Been emphasizing durability over repairability. And there's a trade off between those two. There's a number of engineering journals, particularly ieee, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering that discuss these trade offs between repairability and durability. When a product becomes more repairable, it often becomes less durable and more breakable. You can look at the ingress protection ratings, right? They're issued by the International Electrotechnical Commission. And you look at the most repairable phone, right, Is the fair phone. It's based by, it's a Dutch based manufacturer. It's the only phone from iFixit's repairability score that has a perfect score. It's like the most repairable phone and it has an ingress protection rating of 5. 5. Compare that to the iPhone, which is, you know, treated as the boogeyman in this whole, this whole discussion. IPhones have an ingress protection rating of 6,8 meaning they have it's completely dustproof, meaning. Right. The 6 represents the highest level of dust protection and then the 8 represents the highest level of water resistance shorter than 9, which is completely waterproof. So you know, these right to repair laws and proposals create an interesting dynamic. If we have devices that are more expensive and more breakable, you know, that might be great for independent repair shops and who are advocating for these laws. But more expensive and less durable phones, you know, mean more business for them. But it's ultimately going to be a detriment to consumers. So you know, I think there's been a lot of complaints about the use of adhesives by keeping phones together. But those adhesives add to water protection, water protection against water ingress. So we might actually have any having more, more broken phones because of this legislation.

[Scott Bertram]

You've mentioned iFixit a couple of times now in the conversation. How does the presence of that, that company and what they do speak to the argument that these companies have a monopoly on aftermarket repairs? When you do see these startups and new businesses like iFixit in areas that do serve to fix glass breakages or replace batteries or any of those types of repairs.

[Alex Reinhauer]

Yeah, this is a great question because iFixit produces great products, great products, but unfortunately they produce bad policy. And like I have a, you know, my, my iPhone is over two years old. You know, the battery is kind of, is not as what it used to be. I'm thinking about possibly getting a new battery and I can go to iFixit for, for my iPhone. I think it's an iPhone 12 and I can buy a replacement kit and A replacement battery for $50. Right. And I, and I can, I can get it delivered in anything. And there's independent repair shops near me that I can go to. And so there's already free market solutions to these issue. Right. It's, it's sometimes advocates for right to repair describe the market as if there's zero people repairing their products outside of the manufacturer's network. And that's not true. IFixit is a tremendous, tremendously successful company. When they sell parts, they just invested like a $20 million investment in Chattanooga, Tennessee for a new hub for repair. So they're making millions and millions of dollars selling these repair products. And these are good products. But it's concerned as why is this legislation really necessary when it seems like we already have a very robust repair network? Even yesterday on a, on a podcast, Kyle Wiens, one of the co founders of iFixit, said that the cell phone repair network is, is thriving. It's thriving. So yeah, it begs the question is whether or not this is really necessary.

[Scott Bertram]

Is part of the question here about how the manufacturers and the companies deal with consumers who decide to go to the independent outlets for fixing when it comes to warranties or the ability for the consumer to come back and say, you know, you've got to fix this, it's a problem to go back to the manufacturer if they decide to go to a third party route for those repairs?

[Alex Reinhauer]

Yeah, this is a common discussion, but I think in a way it's a bit of a red herring because very few times are repairs, repairs covered under warranty. Right. Oftentimes, products last far above their war, far beyond their warranty. Right. Consumer Reports again, in their survey, they found that only about 11% of the repairs that they surveyed were covered by warranty. Right. So it's a small percentage. It's not as if there's just widespread instances of people having their warranty voided because they visited a third party repair shop. But also notably, this is already covered under federal law. Like, right, we have the Magnuson Moss Warranty act of 1975 that already makes it illegal to premise the guarantee of a warranty off of using a third party repair or third party shops. Now I think that goes a little too far even. Right. I think if Apple or John Deere gives you a warranty with a product and you take it to a third party and they may have done a faulty repair and that leads to the ultimate problem with the product. Like, I'm not sure that they should have to guarantee the warranty if, if it's not their problem, it's not their fault. So, yeah, I think there's, there's a lot of discussion about warranty, but I ultimately think it's, it's really not at the heart of the issue and is really kind of, kind of negligible.

[Scott Bertram]

What about the right to repair laws and their ability to impose action on the manufacturers, you referenced this earlier, in which they have to sell, they are forced to sell repair products or, you know, the specific tools needed to make repairs to any independent repair shop that requests them, whether or not they have a poor service record or a good service record, there's now an imposition on the manufacturer to make sure that those businesses get the tools they need, right?

[Alex Reinhauer]

Yeah, absolutely. And it's odd that, you know, in these states that have passed this, we now have official legal definitions for authorized repair providers versus independent repair providers. Right. I mean, that's a. I never thought we'd actually have that in law, but we do. But, you know, independent repair provider definition is just anyone who's not contracted with the manufacturer who offers repair services could be anyone. So manufacturers particularly, you know, looking at like Apple or even the John Deere, like, they keep really good track of what happens to their products post sale because they want to know, is it working well, is it not working well? And oftentimes those products come back to the manufacturer and they can determine who fixed it and what was the problem. And so even if they know a particular independent repair shop has done a bad job, has produced really bad services, they're under these laws, they're going to be forced to sell to them. This is particularly interesting with tractors, right? With John Deere, even Caterpillar, because the number one cause of agricultural workers death is tractor rollovers. So John Deere may know that a particular independent repair shop is doing really bad, is messing with the settings for horsepower by making it bypass the factory safety settings and make it go faster. But that also leads to more wear and tear on the product and more broken tractors. But that could lead to serious safety concerns. And Don Deere may say, we don't want to contract with this independent repair shop that's putting our customers safety at risk. But under these laws, they would be forced to continue to do, to do business with them.

[Scott Bertram]

Where should the line be drawn here when considering legislation like this between what's best for the consumer, what's best for the person who has purchased a product, and what's best for the business, or what's best for the innovator?

[Alex Reinhauer]

I don't think the current proposals and the model legislation or any of the bills that are based off the model are good. I think they are. They're based off of a kind of a de facto de jure antitrust determination. We have antitrust laws that handle this. It's handled by a case by case basis. There's a case in Illinois against John Deere, a civil antitrust action. It's been going on for two years. I think they just got past the pleading stage, are now in discovery, and we'll see how that works out. Right. Like that is that is the way you're able to determine case by case issue, industry by industry, applying this this sweeping legislation that applies to just totally different products and totally different industries and applying the same antitrust standard, I think is really just not prudent policymaking.

[Scott Bertram]

Alex Reinhauer is research fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. You can find more [e-mail] Alex, thanks so much for joining us here on Future of freedom.

[Alex Reinhauer]

Yeah, thanks so much for having me.

[Scott Bertram]

Now to hear another side of the argument about right to repair legislation, we talk with Grayson Gee, policy scholar with the Texas Public Policy foundation. More@texas policy.com he's on X @graysont. Gee Grayson, thanks so much for joining us.

[Grayson Gee]

Scott, great to be with you. Thank you for having me.

[Scott Bertram]

Appreciate the time. Talking today about the right to repair. And I want to start here. What makes it a right? Why is it a right to repair?

[Grayson Gee]

Well, the right to repair is a concept that's deeply rooted in the notion of property rights. So the idea being that when you purchase a product, it's yours, you own it. This is a foundational notion in the annals of Western civilization and common law in the Anglo American legal system, the notion of complete ownership when you purchase a good. So it's not a right like some on the left might try to invent to suit their new social mores or particular fancies. It's a right that's deeply rooted in the common law tradition, and it's a right that we're trying to preserve here in the state of Texas.

[Scott Bertram]

How long has this been a real live problem or an issue? And, you know, why are we only seeing sort of legislative answers popping up now?

[Grayson Gee]

Well, I mean, it's been an issue for quite some time. The concept of the right to repair, like I've said, is deeply rooted in the property rights tradition. But the problem really came up in recent time at the advent of the Industrial Revolution, products were produced at a rapid speed, a clip that had not been previously and consumers and producers began to realize that if we don't reduce the quality of our goods that we sell, consumers will never have to purchase a good that we sell again. And this is the notion of planned obsolescence, which was a concept that was coined by two economists who in the 1930s, in the context of the Great Depression, were trying to come up with ways to artificially stimulate the economy. And so they decided that what they would do instead is promote this concept of planned obsolescence, wherein the products that manufacturers produce are designed to wear out over a given time. And that was done in order to, like I said, spur on production. But that concept has carried over into the modern day. And everything from refrigerators to light bulbs to vehicles to John Deere tractors are affected by this concept.

[Scott Bertram]

Some examples, please, you have them listed in this report, which people can [e-mail] but examples of restrictions, examples of why perhaps advocates say we need to have this right to repair legislation law in place.

[Grayson Gee]

Yeah, well, there's two that I think will probably touch the broad swath of your audience. One being consumer electronics. Apple, for example, is well known for high quality products, but they're also well known for the tight restrictions that they replace on repair services and the ways in which they penalize consumers if they either repair the device on their own or go through a third party of some kind that was able to find black market parts off the market. But that, that idea of being able to repair your consumer electronic device the way you see fit is, is the, the objective of right to repair legislation. Now an additional example would be John Deere tractors, agricultural equipment. John Deere is notorious for very, very strict controls on repairs. So much so that we've interviewed farmers in Iowa who, when dealing with some kind of malfunction in their tractor, although they knew exactly what the problem was, they knew it was a software issue and they actually had the means to fix it. But because of artificial barriers that the manufacturer puts in place, they were unable to repair their tractor. It mechanically worked, it was a software. And instead they had to load their tractor onto a trailer and drive it three hours to the nearest authorized John Deere service station, which cost them valuable time in the field and in harvest season. That's, that's critical. So these types of restrictions are at or they're inconveniences and they cost consumers a lot more money than they would need to spend otherwise.

[Scott Bertram]

You mentioned there that, that in the Apple example that, that they penalize customers. You know, there's these restrictions on Repairs and if they don't follow that, they are penalized. What do those penalties look like and how do they get enforced?

[Grayson Gee]

Yeah, well, it's there, there are penalties that when you sign your terms and conditions with the product, when you purchase it from them, Apple has the, they void your warranty. So if you were to repair your device with a, with a part that was not from an authorized service retailer, your warranty would be violated or voided ra and you would be unable to get Apple to help you with any malfunction from then on with your product, even if it was caused, if it was a manufacturer defect. So that's, that's the primary penalty outside of the fact that they charge you four times as much as it would if you were to go to a third party that could do it for, for much less.

[Scott Bertram]

If the repair industry is opened up under right to repair legislation, I think we'd hope that either there are better repairs taking place or better and cheaper repairs taking place than under say the old system. Is there evidence that that is what happens?

[Grayson Gee]

There is. When manufacturers have allowed, on their own accord, parts and repair manuals to be provided to third parties. You see the free market respond accordingly and provide solutions to customers who are seeking more affordable repair services. There's, there's several videos detailing this, this concept and it would be very reasonable to expect that the market of repair services would flourish and people would, American families would save, would save countless dollars having to replace products that they could otherwise repair.

[Scott Bertram]

Is there any kind of conflict intellectually in your mind between touting the benefits of the free market? But also under right to repair legislation, as you, as you point out, there would be mechanisms to force the manufacturers to provide parts, to force them to provide manuals, to force them to provide tools. Does that all line up in a free market society?

[Grayson Gee]

It does, it does. The research that we've done intends to demonstrate that there is not a tension between the intellectual property rights of manufacturers and the property rights of consumers. Instead, the objective of this type of legislation would be to more completely and more thoroughly protect the fundamental property rights of consumers. And so the tension is, is often demonstrated as a means or a purpose or a reason to oppose right to repair. But our research has demonstrated that that's not the case.

[Scott Bertram]

There are companies that do third party repairs place called Ifixit. If you do a search online, you can find other places that will do similar work. Is that penalty of a voided warranty enough to convince consumers not to use outlets like that? Aren't third party Services in a way still thriving despite right to repair legislation.

[Grayson Gee]

I think that they are thriving might not be the exact word, but they, despite, in spite of the circumstances. There are third party repair platforms, but that's service. Those services that they provide are not, they're not with the permission or the authority, if you will, of manufacturers. And they often use parts that are either defective or are sourced from places that do not guarantee the longevity of the device that you seek to repair. So because places like iFixit for example, they are actually good at providing quality parts. But if, if you go to some random shop somewhere or if you try to order a part online, you don't know if it's a counterfeit, you don't know if it's just a complete fake. And so right to repair would do away with that issue and ensure that the parts that your device is being repaired with are authentic.

[Scott Bertram]

Are you concerned that under a right to repair, in a right to repair society that manufacturers simply would remove themselves from the repair process entirely? Say there is no authorized repair at all. You want something new, buy it new, or take your chances with someone trying to figure it out by themselves. Would companies simply say, all right, I don't want to do any of this manual tool stuff, we're just not going to fix anything, period?

[Grayson Gee]

Well, I think it's in the economic interest of companies to repair their products actually. And I think that we've seen recent indication from Apple and, and John Deere even has, has come out in support of, well, John Deere, in the case of John Deere, they came to a certain compromise with farmers that allowed them to do certain repairs on their own. But in the context of Apple in the consumer electronics world, they have actually come out in support of the right to repair in the state of California and they also support a federal action on this issue. But we at the foundation definitely view this as more of a state based issue.

[Scott Bertram]

I was, Let me follow with that. So is, is this a state based issue through the Texas Public Policy Foundation? Should there be more of a federal push to make this across the country? Where should the authority come from?

[Grayson Gee]

The authority should come from the states. This is something that, I mean, the federal constitution does not necessarily touch the particular issue of repair. It does obviously touch the ideas of copyright and intellectual property. But this is definitely a state based issue and we advocate for a state based solution. Like many of the other states in the nation who have proceeded with either broad bills which cover all products sold in the state, or specific industries like medical devices or consumer Electronics or farm equipment.

[Scott Bertram]

On the issue of say, farm equipment, I'm sure there are other examples here. Farm equipment can be dangerous. Where are the rights or are there rights afforded to, again as an example, John Deere, to say, look, we can't have someone go in and fix this incorrectly and add either liability or perhaps just bad publicity when bad things happen because of a bad repair. Where is there potentially the rights of the company to say something like that?

[Grayson Gee]

Well, those, that type of question is something that lawmakers will have to sort out the notions of liability and where those things lie. But I'm pretty confident that, that farmers in this country know how to use their products and are more likely to be able to repair them more quickly and more efficiently than if they would otherwise having to take it to a service retailer.

[Scott Bertram]

If there is that inherent tension, and I think there is, between the best interest of manufacturers, the best interests of Apple and the best interests of consumers who end up purchasing those products, who should win? How should we look at that conflict when it comes to legislation like in right to repair?

[Grayson Gee]

I think ultimately this is a consumer oriented idea. The concept like I started at, started out with is rooted in the notion of property rights. This is a, it's a fundamental question and to be able to bolster those protects both the rights of the citizens of this country and then also promotes their economic well being. And so I definitely think that it's in favor of the consumers, but it's not a win lose. This is a, this is a middle of the road rebalancing in our, in our perspective of the tension which we have all rightly acknowledged between intellectual property and property rights. But they can exist in harmony and we don't think that they conflict.

[Scott Bertram]

And is there a ancillary benefit, a secondary benefit perhaps to right to repair when it comes to making it easier to extend the lifetime of these digital units that do take, you know, there are resources involved, I guess almost from an environmental angle, making it easier for consumers to extend the lifetime of something that they have purchased. What's the benefit there?

[Grayson Gee]

Well, I mean, I think you've, in your question, you've sort of stated the benefit. There is a degree of quote, unquote sustainability, if you will, wrapped into the notion of right to repair because you don't have to throw away your smartphone every year. You can replace the condenser in your refrigerator and keep a refrigerator for 20 years like we used to be able to issue in this country. So yeah, there definitely is an environmental impact and benefit here, but it's definitely not the main focus of this type of legislation.

[Scott Bertram]

Grayson Gee is Policy Scholar with the Texas Public Policy Foundation. You can find [e-mail] and Grayson on X Raysont Gee Grayson, thanks so much for joining us here on Future of Freedom.

[Grayson Gee]

Thank you, Scott. Great to be with you.

[Scott Bertram]

We thank both of our guests for joining us. Alex Reinhauer, research Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, [e-mail] and Grayson Gee, Policy Scholar with the Texas Public Policy foundation@texas policy.com for additional episodes of the Future of Freedom podcast and other fine podcasts from America's Talking Network, check out americastalking.com or anywhere you find your audio. Thank you for listening to Future of Freedom, presented by America's Talking Network.