July 15, 2026 – The digital wrenches necessary to fix computer-run machinery may soon be in the grasp of farmers and their friendly neighbor mechanics after recent antitrust settlements against Deere & Co.

Modern tractors and combines, huge pieces of equipment that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, often can’t be fixed without proprietary technology, which the lawsuits alleged Deere kept from them.

Farmers and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), along with states including Wisconsin, sued Deere in two lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking access to computerized repair tools necessary to fix farm equipment.

Farmers wanted the right to repair their own equipment, as farmers have always done.

A preliminary settlement in a class action lawsuit against Deere & Co. and a settlement last week with the FTC promises to grant access to computer diagnostics and repair tools.

Deere may be the big target, controlling more than half of the tractor and combine markets, according to the antitrust complaint, but “Deere’s main competitors also have similar repair restrictions.”^[1]

A Nation of Tinkerers?

That a nation of tinkerers would one day have to fight for the right to repair may have astonished George Washington or John Deere himself.

Perhaps more surprising may be that an issue that has at least 15 years of history has hardly yielded legislation.

Automobile repair created an early challenge. Engine electronics require diagnostic code readers and knowledge of what the codes mean.

After Massachusetts passed a state law in 2012, it took only two years for automotive manufacturers to agree to release their “diagnostic codes and repair data” across the country.^[2]

All state legislatures have seen right-to-repair bills – last year, Wisconsin was the 50th state to see one introduced – although many proposals wouldn’t have helped farmers wanting to fix their equipment.^[3]

Only six states have enacted a basic right to repair, but five of them limit the legislation to consumer electronics – specifically excluding farm equipment.^[4]

Colorado, which enacted its law in 2022, is the exception.

In Colorado, “an original equipment manufacturer shall, with fair and reasonable terms and costs … make available to an independent repair provider or owner of the manufacturer’s … agricultural equipment ... any documentation, parts, … embedded software for agricultural equipment, firmware, or tools, … including updates.”^[5]

The failure of so many state proposals should encourage advocates to look to Congress, wrote Nicholas A. Mirr in the Iowa Law Review.

“[T]he lobbying by corporations against [right-to-repair bills] has been very effective,” Mirr said. A national law would address the lobbyists’ argument for a consistent standard.^[6]

Starting in 2022, right-to-repair bills appeared in Congress^[7] – and went no further.

Corporate Liability?

“The notion that consumers should have the ability to repair products themselves, or to select a repair technician of their choice, seems laudable,” wrote Sheila A. Millar and Mike Gentine of Keller and Heckman LLP, in Washington D.C. for In-House Defense Weekly.

“However, there are countervailing considerations, like protecting product safety, intellectual property (IP), and maintaining security of software-enabled and connected products, to name a few.”^[8]

Modern technological components are thin and adjacent to power sources. “Even ‘basic’ electronic repairs … may not always be so basic, and unskilled repair attempts could create risks to those who attempt the repair and to those around them,” the lawyers explained.^[9]

Access to software or firmware also “might allow consumers or others to turn off or disable safety features” or “undermine device security,” they warned.^[10]

We aren’t talking about a small John Deere Model A that one may see in a community parade or parked on the family farm, mere mechanical equipment that provided basic power.

Modern tractors, combines, and similar equipment operate with satellite link, Global Positioning Systems, and “computer sensors that gather a variety of information,” using data to determine seed distribution and pesticide application in addition to a laser-straight furrow.^[11]

This technology, known as “precision agriculture,” offers efficiency – less expense to produce more, a future that Deere “is leaning very heavily into.”^[12]

The onboard computers also control exhaust emissions consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA).^[13]

Even a manufacturer exception to a right-to-repair statute will require the corporation “to assert and prove that defense in court, leaving the door open to potential nuisance suits.”^[14]

Any tampering with emissions software, one could fear, may result in an Environmental Protection Agency enforcement action, but the EPA has said, most recently last February, that the CAA doesn’t restrict who may repair equipment.^[15]

Without access to authorized repair tools, Gabriel Dominic Gomez suggested in the Journal of Legislation, farmers may seek unlicensed firmware made in a foreign country, allowing back doors for bad actors.^[16]

Farmers have another way to avoid the problem, Gomez reported. They buy pre-computerized machinery – older equipment that likely releases dirtier emissions.^[17]

Litigation Harvest

Nine farmers in nine states, owning 28,275 acres – more than 44 square miles of farmland – started a class action lawsuit against Deere in 2022.^[18]

The FTC, joined by Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Arizona, followed in 2025.^[19]

The lawsuits assert Sherman Antitrust Act violations of monopolistic “combination … or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.” The FTC also alleged “unfair methods of competition.” The state attorneys general point to violations of state antitrust laws.^[20]

“The Governments and the [class-action] plaintiffs allege substantively identical anticompetitive conduct,” the federal district judge summarized.^[21]

A Chicago landscaping service in May sought to create a class action with comparable antitrust claims in Deere’s construction and forestry market.^[22]

The farmers and the FTC describe a new rural America.^[23]

Farmers use expensive machinery, run by computers that they can’t get fixed outside of an authorized dealer, which after rural business consolidation may be a long way from their field.

Errors appear as codes, but farmers and independent mechanics don’t have access to what those codes mean.

Even if the solution is mechanical, the code needs to be cleared for the equipment to operate, and that can be done only by an authorized dealer.

The purchasers didn’t expect these costs and limited repair options when they bought the equipment. They couldn’t complete an accurate analysis of life-cycle costs.

Deere promised a solution, but the parties allege the software is overpriced and doesn’t solve most problems, which require software available only at authorized dealerships.

The farmers feel trapped.

Proposed Settlements

The proposed antitrust settlement, preliminarily approved May 18,^[24] includes $99 million to the class and offers several technical repair tools, previously available only to authorized dealers, for ten years to owners, lessors, and independent repair shops.

These repair resources, current and released sufficiently in the future, Deere may provide “on a license or subscription base on Fair and Reasonable Terms.”^[25]

The fairness hearing on the proposed settlement is scheduled for Oct. 29. One plaintiff has already raised objections to the size of the settlement and loopholes in the promised repair tools that it argues preserve Deere’s monopoly.^[26]

The preliminary settlement stopped the FTC lawsuit, but that case settled July 8, with a detailed list of technical repair tools to be made available by subscription to equipment owners and independent repair shops by Dec. 31.^[27]

The settlement requires Deere to notify customers and its authorized dealers about the requirements.

If Deere fails to follow through, the FTC and the attorneys general may pursue further enforcement actions.

Endnotes

[1] Consol. Class Action Compl., In re Deere & Co. Repair Servs. Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:22-cv-50188 ¶¶ 28, 68 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2022) (alleging that the company controls “approximately 55% and 63% of the large tractor and combine market, respectively”); see also Max R. Beal, Reigning in John Deere: Time for the Nebraska Unicameral to Enact Agricultural Right to Repair Legislation, 102 Neb. L. Rev. 245, 268 (2023) (citing comparable percentages). ^

[2] Beal, supra note 1, at 251-52; Nicholas A. Mirr, Defending the Right to Repair: An Argument for Federal Legislation Guaranteeing the Right to Repair, 105 Iowa L. Rev. 2393, 2399-2400 (2020); see Sheila A. Millar & Mike Gentine, Product Liability: The Right to Repair: Implications for Consumer Product Safety and Data Security, 16 No. 4 In-House Def. Q. 30, 31 (Fall 2021) (noting also “that consumers already have a right to repair under the anti-tying provision of the [Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act that] prohibits manufacturers or sellers of consumer products from refusing to honor warranties unless a consumer uses a particular article or service,” with exceptions). ^

[3] Elizabeth Chamberlain, Right to Repair Laws Have Now Been Introduced in All 50 US States, Ifixit, Feb. 24, 2025, https://www.ifixit.com/News/108371/right-to-repair-laws-have-now-been-introduced-in-all-50-us-states (last visited July 6, 2026) (referencing 2025 Assembly Bill 147 and 2025 Senate Bill 148); Gabriel Dominic Gomez, Have Some Heart for the Heartland: A Call for a Federal Right to Repair Law, 50 J. Legis. 149, 154-55 (2024) (stating 12 of the 27 states that considered right-to-repair legislation “were aimed specifically at farm equipment”). ^

[4] Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 42488-42488.3 (West 2024); Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-1-1501 to -1505; Minn. Stat. § 325E.72; N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 399-nn (McKinney 2026); Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646A.850-.859; Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.415.005-.900. ^

[5] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1503(1)(a)(I). ^

[6] Mirr, supra note 2, at 2416-17. ^

[7] Gomez, supra note 3, at 154-55 (stating that right-to-repair bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate in 2022 and in the U.S. House in 2023). ^

[8] Millar, supra note 2, at 31. ^

[9] Id. at 31-32. ^

[10] Id. at 32. ^

[11] Gomez, supra note 3, at 152. ^

[12] Id. ^

[13] Id. at 151-52. ^

[14] Millar, supra note 2, at 32. ^

[15] Lindsey Barrington, Manufacturers Beware of Right to Repair: An Analysis of the Resurgence of Right to Repair & the Legal Consequences of Third-Party Access to Embedded Software in the ‘Internet of Things’ Era, 20 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol’y 24, 27-29 (Spring 2020) (elaborating on CAA liability); Gomez, supra note 3, at 154, 167 (noting Deere’s opposition to “modifying software that has undergone rigorous testing, and letting modifications be done could risk violations of the [CAA] and consumer expectations regarding safety” but explaining “that EPA has actually addressed this argument, noting that the right to repair is compatible with the [CAA]”), EPA Advances Farmers’ Right to Repair Their Own Equipment, Saving Repair Costs and Productivity, EPA, Feb. 2, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-advances-farmers-right-repair-their-own-equipment-saving-repair-costs-and (last visited July 6, 2026). ^

[16] Gomez, supra note 3, at 150, 165, 168 (“A farmer in the heartland is granted access to an online, invite only, paid discussion forum where they acquire ‘cracked’ firmware that was created somewhere in Eastern Europe, which they will use to hack their farming equipment.”) ^

[17] Id. at 150, 165, 168-69, 174-75 (stating that in “November 2021, a Deere tractor built in 1998 sold for $170,000 – more than $32,000 more than that model has ever been recorded selling for” and referencing studies while concluding “it is reasonable to assert that continued use of older equipment could have some impact on the emissions released into the environment”). ^

[18] Consol. Consol. Class Action Compl., Antitrust Litigation ¶¶ 42-50. ^

[19] Am. Compl., FTC v. Deere & Co., No. 3:25-cv-50017 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2025). ^

[20] 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2 (Sherman Antitrust Act); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act of 1915); see Class Action Compl., Antitrust Litigation ¶¶ 214-266 (pleading specific claims); Am. Compl. FTC ¶¶ 119-53 (pleading specific claims). ^

[21] FTC, 2025 WL 1638474, at *6 (N.D. Ill., June 9, 2025) (Iain D. Johnston, U.S. Dist. J.). ^

[22] Class Action Compl., Christy Webber & Co. v. Deere & Co., No. 1:26-cv-05637 (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2026). ^

[23] FTC, 2025 WL 1638474, at *1-*2 (summarizing from pleadings); Am. Compl., FTC ¶¶ 1-20, 33-117; Consol. Class Action Compl., Antitrust Litigation ¶¶ 1-36, 71-189. ^

[24] Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2026). ^

[25] Jt. Decl. in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. For Prelim. Approval of Settlement, Antitrust Litigation ¶¶ 22-24 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 6, 2026). ^

[26] Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Antitrust Litigation ¶ 39; Decl. of Jared Wilson in Support of Objection to Final Approval of Proposed Settlement by Named Pl. Wilson Farms Land & Cattle Co., & Ex. D., Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ill., June 29, 2026). ^

[27] Stipulated Order For Permanent Inj. & Other Relief, FTC (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2026). ^