John Deere and the U.S. Right-to-Repair Court Case: A Clear, Neutral Overview
The ongoing court case involving John Deere and the right-to-repair movement has become one of the most closely watched legal battles in modern agriculture. As farm machinery has grown more sophisticated, with advanced sensors, electronic control units, and proprietary software, many repairs now require access to diagnostic programs traditionally controlled by manufacturers. This shift has sparked debate about who should have the authority to repair equipment that farmers have purchased outright.
Farmers across several U.S. states filed class-action lawsuits claiming that John Deere has unlawfully restricted access to essential repair software and tools. They argue that while mechanical repairs are still possible, many modern issues—particularly those involving software, emissions systems, or calibration—can only be fixed using Deere’s proprietary Service ADVISOR system. According to the plaintiffs, Deere’s refusal to make these tools fully available to owners or independent mechanics forces farmers into authorised dealerships, raising repair costs and contributing to unnecessary delays during crucial periods such as planting or harvest.
These lawsuits contend that John Deere’s practices violate U.S. antitrust laws by creating a monopoly over repair services for its own equipment. The farmers’ position is not that Deere shouldn’t profit from repair work, but that it shouldn’t be the only option when alternatives could safely and legally exist.
John Deere firmly rejects the allegations. The company maintains that it supports customer repair by providing parts, manuals, schematics, and a limited version of diagnostic software called Customer Service ADVISOR. Deere argues that unrestricted access to full diagnostic and programming tools could allow unauthorised modifications that compromise machine safety, engine emissions compliance, and reliability. The company says its approach reflects responsible product stewardship, not anti-competitive behaviour.
The debate escalated in early 2025 when the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, along with several individual states, filed their own antitrust lawsuit against John Deere. This significantly raised the stakes, turning what had been a farmer-led legal challenge into a major federal case involving broader questions about consumer rights, digital ownership, and competition in software-dependent industries.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching effects. If the courts rule against Deere, manufacturers may be required to open access to full repair tools, potentially lowering repair costs and expanding independent repair markets. If Deere prevails, manufacturers may retain greater control over software-enabled repair ecosystems.
Regardless of the result, the case highlights the changing landscape of machinery ownership in an increasingly digital world—where the question of who truly “owns” equipment goes far beyond the hardware itself.
