John Deere is the FTC’s latest corporate boogeyman

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been investigating John Deere’s repair offerings for over three years now, as revealed in a filing made public in October 2024. The agency served data analytics company Hargrove & Associates with a demand for information in connection with an investigation to “determine whether Deere & Company, or any other person, has engaged in or is engaging in unfair, deceptive, anticompetitive, collusive, coercive, predatory, exploitative, or exclusionary acts or practices in or affecting commerce related to the repair of agricultural equipment in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.”

John Deere is also facing a class action antitrust lawsuit in federal court for its maintenance and repair policies. In addition to Hargrove & Associates, the FTC has served Civil Investigative Demands to both the plaintiffs and defendants in that lawsuit. One can assume that it doesn’t stop there. The FTC has likely served demands to a number of trade associations and third parties in what appears to be a fishing expedition.

FTC Chair Lina Khan has presented herself as a supporter of the right-to-repair movement, which isn’t surprising. The movement is deeply rooted in the neo-Brandeisian worldview, one that views big business as inherently bad and small business as inherently good. Former Commissioner Christine Wilson has drawn parallels between the neo-Brandeisian movement and Marxism. Similarly, the so-called right-to-repair movement, at its core, is an attack on those with the means of production. Despite its name, it’s an antitrust movement, not a property rights movement.     

Right-to-repair advocates have targeted John Deere for its repair ecosystem and its growing reliance on digitally enhanced equipment. But they pay little attention to the increased productivity that has resulted. Farm yields in the US have nearly tripled since the 1950s, even as labor and land inputs have declined over the same time period. This growth is attributable to innovations in the agricultural industry, including new fertilizers and crop genetics. But agricultural equipment is also partially responsible.

The rise of precision agriculture has revolutionized farming by utilizing global positioning systems (GPS) and other technologies. This has led to the more efficient use of chemicals, energy, and water use, which also has environmental benefits. The agricultural industry is also embracing artificial intelligence (AI). Companies are experimenting with machine learning to teach computers how to distinguish between crops and weeds. High-heat lasers are then used to pinpoint weeds and kill them, without any use of herbicides. Innovation has led to more complexity, and more complex machines are harder to repair. But we can’t ignore the productivity gains.

The larger right-to-repair movement views every manufacturer as a monopolist, as they advocate for legislation that forces companies to sell parts, tools, and repair information to independent repair shops that compete against authorized repair outlets. I wrote about Colorado’s agricultural right-to-repair law last year, arguing that the move was not only unnecessary but would also lead to a slew of unintended consequences.

Those same advocates speak as if zero repairs are occurring outside of manufacturers’ authorized repair networks. But that’s not true. The North American Equipment Dealers Association conducted a survey of its members in 2022 and found that 56 percent of parts are sold “out the door,” meaning they were installed either by the owner of the equipment or an independent repair shop. Further, the average dealership sells parts to nine independent repair shops.

There are smaller subsets of repairs that manufacturers like John Deere are concerned about, and they often involve safety settings and environmental standards. Even so, a 2019 survey of 770 equipment dealers found that a third of dealers had observed illegally modified equipment, with some dealers reporting that about half of the equipment brought in for service was modified. And the two most common modifications involve safety settings and emission controls.  

John Deere, as well as other equipment manufacturers, have a legitimate interest in ensuring user safety. While right-to-repair arguments against Apple and Samsung aren’t any more persuasive, Deere’s chief technology officer Jahmy Hindman makes the point that smartphones aren’t “driving down the road at 20 miles an hour with oncoming traffic coming at it.” Indeed, transportation incidents like tractor rollovers are a significant cause of death for agricultural workers. Manufacturers may face litigation or harmed reputation from these incidents caused by digitally modified equipment.

Also, modifications that increase a tractor’s horsepower beyond factory settings lead to more wear and tear, which in turn leads to more broken tractors. There are persuasive arguments that farmers should be permitted to make modifications like these, unfettered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). But manufacturers shouldn’t be forced to assist them, and many of these concerns regarding the right to modify are overblown. I haven’t come across a single instance of a farmer being charged under Section 1201 of the DMCA for repairing, modifying, or hacking their tractor.

The environmental standards are also complicated. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who has traveled around the country with Khan discussing right-to-repair, sent a letter to John Deere in October 2024 alleging that company might be violating the Clean Air Act by “provid[ing] impaired tools and inadequate disclosures.” The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also published a letter sent to the National Farmer Union expressing support for independent repair “provided such efforts continue to clearly prohibit illegal tampering of emissions control systems.” This stance is tough to reconcile with the data on existing emissions control tampering. And this puts manufacturers like John Deere between a rock and a hard place as they attempt to navigate the regulatory jungle gym of multiple federal agencies.

Farmers are right to be annoyed by the complications caused by EPA emission standards. These regulations have increased costs and added further complications to maintenance, according to Will Nelson, president of Nelson Tractor Company. Nelson provides service and parts for farming equipment in North Georgia. According to Nelson,

From our point of view, and from our customers’, compliance with these regulations hasn’t been easy. The new engines, built far far more stringent standards imposed by the EPA, emit far less pollution, but the new technology has also raised the price of new engines by up to 10%. We know the extra cost and added maintenance is a problem.  

My fellow CEI colleagues have plenty to say when it comes to EPA emission standards and the negative effects they have on consumers. And more regulation is not the solution to too much regulation.

Agricultural equipment manufacturers have long provided tools, parts, and manuals to service and repair their products. Some farmers have come out to say that the mainstream narrative on right-to-repair isn’t true. Others point to John Deere’s Customer Service ADVISOR software, which allows farmers to read codes, clear codes, and calibrate equipment: “The amount of misinformation going around on right to repair is unbelievable. . . . John Deere actually does provide you the ability to get this software. It costs you a little bit of money. But compared to the prices on repairs, it’s probably worth it.”

Instead of expanding the scope of antitrust over secondary repair markets, federal and state governments should be looking for ways to remove regulation that makes repair and maintenance more cumbersome.