The right-to-repair movement reflects a growing response to increasing restrictions on consumer access to product repair tools, parts, and technical information. As modern products integrate more sophisticated digital technology, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have tightened control over repairs, often restricting service options to authorized providers. This approach has raised concerns related to cost, environmental sustainability, and market competition. In response, legislatures across the United States, including Michigan, are considering measures that would require manufacturers to make repair resources more readily available to consumers and independent repair providers. Michigan’s proposed right-to-repair legislation could reshape several industries, making it important for businesses, manufacturers, and legal advisors to understand the current proposals, the existing legal environment, and the potential implications of regulatory changes.
Please note this blog post should be used for learning and illustrative purposes. It is not a substitute for consultation with an attorney with expertise in this area. If you have questions about a specific legal issue, we always recommend that you consult an attorney to discuss the particulars of your case.
Legislative Overview
Michigan’s legislative efforts around the right to repair have advanced in several distinct but related proposals. These include House Bill 4673, which focuses on agricultural equipment; Senate Bill 686, which targets digital electronic equipment; House Bill 4562, which proposes a broader right covering all electronic equipment; and several bills within the Tenant Empowerment Packages, which extend right-to-repair concepts into residential tenancy law. Each bill addresses specific concerns within its sector but shares a common objective: expanding access to the materials necessary for effective, independent repair. Understanding the goals and mechanisms of these bills is critical for stakeholders preparing for the impact of new regulations.
House Bill 4673: Agricultural Equipment
House Bill 4673, titled the Agricultural Equipment Repair Act, directly addresses the unique challenges faced by farmers and independent repair providers working with modern agricultural machinery. These machines increasingly depend on proprietary digital systems, making it difficult or impossible for owners to perform repairs without relying on authorized dealerships. This dependency has resulted in costly service fees and downtime during essential planting and harvesting periods. HB 4673 seeks to mitigate these burdens by requiring OEMs and authorized repair providers to offer diagnostic, maintenance, and repair parts, tools, and documentation to equipment owners and independent mechanics.
The bill stipulates that such resources must be offered on fair and reasonable terms, though the precise definition of “fair and reasonable” remains subject to interpretation and likely future litigation. Importantly, HB 4673 protects manufacturers’ trade secrets unless disclosure is strictly necessary to provide effective repair resources. Furthermore, the legislation establishes a private cause of action, enabling individuals and businesses to sue manufacturers or authorized providers for noncompliance. As of the latest developments, HB 4673 has advanced through the House Agriculture Committee and awaits further action, though it remains subject to amendment or opposition during the legislative process.
Senate Bill 686: Digital Electronic Equipment
Senate Bill 686, known as the Digital Electronic Equipment Repair Act, extends the right to repair to a wide array of digital electronic products commonly used in both personal and business contexts. Similar to HB 4673, this bill would require manufacturers to provide independent repair providers and equipment owners with access to diagnostic tools, service manuals, parts, and software necessary for repair and maintenance. Like its agricultural counterpart, SB 686 also mandates that these resources be made available on fair and reasonable terms.
The bill also introduces several important exemptions. Certain types of equipment are excluded from the repair requirements due to concerns about safety, cybersecurity, and industry-specific regulatory standards. Exempt products include alarm systems, video game consoles, medical devices (excluding powered wheelchairs), motor vehicles, marine vessels, and certain categories of construction equipment. The legislation has been referred to the Senate Committee on Regulatory Affairs and remains in the early stages of consideration. The broad scope of SB 686, coupled with its exemptions, suggests that extensive debate and revision are likely before any final version is enacted.
House Bill 4562 and Tenant Empowerment Initiatives
House Bill 4562 takes a broader approach to the right to repair, proposing that all electronic equipment, including agricultural machinery, be covered under right-to-repair obligations. The bill mirrors many of the requirements seen in HB 4673 and SB 686, particularly the mandates for fair access to parts, tools, and technical documentation. By proposing a comprehensive framework, HB 4562 reflects an effort to streamline the patchwork of sector-specific repair rights into a single, cohesive regulatory regime.
Separately, Michigan’s Tenant Empowerment Packages (Senate Bills 19–22 and 900–903) introduce right-to-repair principles into landlord-tenant law. These bills propose giving tenants the right to independently arrange for critical repairs and deduct the associated costs from their rent if landlords fail to act within a reasonable timeframe. This extension of right-to-repair concepts into housing policy reflects a broader legislative trend toward empowering consumers and reducing dependency on single-source service providers, whether they are manufacturers or landlords.
Existing Legal Framework in Michigan
While Michigan currently lacks a comprehensive right-to-repair statute, several existing laws touch on related consumer rights and business practices. These statutes will provide the foundational legal environment into which any new right-to-repair rules will be integrated.
The Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) prohibits unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in trade and commerce. Though not directly addressing repair access, the MCPA could be applied where manufacturers mislead consumers about the availability or terms of repairs. For example, falsely claiming that only authorized service providers can repair a device, or concealing the existence of feasible independent repair options, could constitute actionable misrepresentation under the Act. Remedies under the MCPA include injunctive relief, actual damages, and the possibility of recovering attorney fees and costs.
The Michigan Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), particularly its provisions on implied warranties, also has implications for repair rights. A product that unreasonably restricts repairs, thereby impairing its ordinary usability, could violate the implied warranty of merchantability. Moreover, if a manufacturer issues a warranty but simultaneously imposes barriers to obtaining warranted repairs, this conduct might amount to a breach of warranty. Although the UCC does not explicitly mandate repair access, it sets standards for product performance and business conduct that align with right-to-repair principles.
In specific industries, such as automotive repair, Michigan enforces additional regulations through the Michigan Vehicle Code. These rules govern service estimate disclosures, mechanic licensing, and repair shop practices. Similar regulatory structures exist for other trades, such as home appliance repair, at the state or municipal level. However, these sector-specific rules generally focus on service quality and consumer safety rather than guaranteeing access to repair resources.
Business Impact of Right-to-Repair Legislation
If enacted, Michigan’s right-to-repair laws will create significant changes for manufacturers, independent service providers, and other businesses. For manufacturers, the legislation presents several direct challenges and opportunities. Expanding access to repair resources will likely increase competition in after-market services. Independent repair shops will be better positioned to compete against manufacturers’ authorized service centers, potentially leading to downward pressure on repair prices and reduced service revenue streams.
Manufacturers could, however, find opportunities to develop new revenue models by selling parts, tools, and software to a broader customer base. Success in this area will depend on setting transparent and competitive prices that comply with legislative requirements. At the same time, manufacturers will need to manage the risks associated with disclosing proprietary information. Although proposed laws typically include trade secret protections, enforcing these provisions could prove complex, and litigation over alleged misuse of proprietary materials remains a possibility.
Independent repair businesses stand to benefit significantly from right-to-repair laws. Greater access to critical repair materials will enable them to offer services for a wider range of products and brands. Independent shops may also gain pricing advantages over authorized providers, attracting more customers seeking affordable alternatives. Some businesses might choose to specialize in certain categories of repairs, leveraging their new access to detailed technical information and genuine parts.
Other industries will also experience secondary effects from right-to-repair legislation. Construction firms relying on specialized equipment may find that independent mechanics can offer faster or cheaper service options, potentially reducing downtime and maintenance expenses. However, exemptions written into the legislation for certain construction equipment may limit these benefits. In real estate, particularly within rental housing, right-to-repair provisions for tenants could alter standard lease agreements and shift maintenance responsibilities, creating new points of negotiation and possible legal disputes between landlords and tenants.
The employment landscape will also shift. Independent repair businesses may see increased demand for skilled technicians and customer service staff. Meanwhile, OEMs could experience a contraction in their authorized service divisions as independent competition intensifies.
Legal Considerations for Businesses
Businesses operating in Michigan must begin preparing for possible right-to-repair obligations. First, it is critical to monitor the ongoing legislative process to anticipate when new rules will take effect and to understand any amendments that may modify compliance obligations. Early planning will be essential for manufacturers that must develop systems for providing parts, documentation, and tools in accordance with the law.
Assessing the operational impact of right-to-repair rules will involve reviewing service models, pricing structures, intellectual property protection strategies, and warranty programs. Manufacturers will need clear internal protocols for distinguishing between information that must be shared under the law and information that qualifies as protected trade secrets.
Contractual arrangements will also need careful revision. Warranty agreements, service contracts, and dealer agreements must be updated to ensure compliance with new repair access requirements. Businesses should evaluate their exposure to potential claims, particularly those alleging failure to provide repair resources on “fair and reasonable” terms, and develop litigation readiness strategies.
Engagement with policymakers and industry associations could also prove beneficial. Participating in public comments or lobbying efforts may allow businesses to influence final legislative language and ensure that key industry concerns are addressed.
Conclusion
The right-to-repair movement in Michigan signals a broader regulatory trend toward expanding consumer and independent access to product repair materials. With House Bill 4673 and Senate Bill 686 advancing through the legislative process, businesses across multiple sectors must prepare for a new operational landscape. Understanding the scope of proposed legislation, the interaction with existing Michigan law, and the potential risks and opportunities is essential for manufacturers, service providers, and legal advisors alike. By proactively adapting to these developments, businesses will be better positioned to comply with new regulatory requirements, manage legal risks, and remain competitive in a changing market environment.
Contact Tishkoff
Tishkoff PLC specializes in business law and litigation. For inquiries, contact us at www.tish.law/contact/. & check out Tishkoff PLC’s Website (www.Tish.Law/), eBooks (www.Tish.Law/e-books), Blogs (www.Tish.Law/blog) and References (www.Tish.Law/resources).
Further Reading
- Michigan – Right to Repair, https://states.repair.org/states/michigan/
- Fix it yourself: New bills would enable Michigan renters to repair homes on landlords’ dime, https://gandernewsroom.com/2025/01/27/fix-it-yourself-new-bills-would-enable-michigan-renters-to-repair-homes-on-landlords-dime/
- Right to Repair bills still being debated in Michigan House – Spartan Newsroom, https://news.jrn.msu.edu/2024/03/right-to-repair-bills-still-being-debated-in-michigan-house/
- A bill to require certain manufacturers of certain digital electronic equipment to make diagnostic, maintenance, and repair parts, tools, and documentation available to independent repair providers and owners of that equipment – Michigan Legislature, http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2024-SIB-0686.htm
- Michigan joins four other states, FTC in Deere & Co. right-to-repair lawsuit, https://www.michiganfarmnews.com/michigan-joins-four-other-states-ftc-in-right-to-repair-lawsuit-against-deere-co-