Manufacturers will have to provide spare parts and tools at a reasonable price and will be prohibited from using contractual clauses, hardware or software techniques that obstruct repairs. In particular, they cannot impede the use of second-hand or 3D-printed spare parts by independent repairers, nor can they refuse to repair a product solely for economic reasons or because it was previously repaired by someone else.
nor can they refuse to repair a product solely for economic reasons
I do wonder how that's going to work out in practice. Especially with today's highly integrated electronics, there's a lot of stuff which is technically not impossible to repair, but in practice not viable due to the level of skills required and the hours it'd take to do.
Will companies be forced to spend $10.000 to repair a $25 gadget? Is a full refund or a replacement product still an option? If there's a lab anywhere on Earth which is able to do it, does refusing to hire them count as "economic reasons"?
or because it was previously repaired by someone else
Similarly, I wonder how this works out. What if the previous repair was a complete bodge job which did more harm than good? Are they expected to clean up someone else's mess?
These rules probably make sense if you only repair by replacing off-the-shelf sub-assemblies, but that's not the kind of repair which matters these days. If it's possible to skirt the rules by refusing board-level repairs, what's stopping companies from intentionally creating completely monolithic designs?
solely [...] because it was previously repaired by someone else
If the previous techician repaired your monitor with chainsaws and seawater then they can refuse to repair it as it is not solely because you went to a third party techician.
Comments
That's wonderful !
I do wonder how that's going to work out in practice. Especially with today's highly integrated electronics, there's a lot of stuff which is technically not impossible to repair, but in practice not viable due to the level of skills required and the hours it'd take to do.
Will companies be forced to spend $10.000 to repair a $25 gadget? Is a full refund or a replacement product still an option? If there's a lab anywhere on Earth which is able to do it, does refusing to hire them count as "economic reasons"?
Similarly, I wonder how this works out. What if the previous repair was a complete bodge job which did more harm than good? Are they expected to clean up someone else's mess?
These rules probably make sense if you only repair by replacing off-the-shelf sub-assemblies, but that's not the kind of repair which matters these days. If it's possible to skirt the rules by refusing board-level repairs, what's stopping companies from intentionally creating completely monolithic designs?
If the previous techician repaired your monitor with chainsaws and seawater then they can refuse to repair it as it is not solely because you went to a third party techician.
It might force companies to take repairability into account.
So, someone can use bogus parts to effect a repair and the manufacturer is still on the hook to fix the thing?