“If You Can’t Fix It, You Don’t Own It”
- Kyle Wiens
(In iFixit Self-Repair Manifesto)
Introduction
In today’s throwaway world, anti-repair practices by manufacturers show little sign of abating, because of the growing global repair and maintenance industry. This underscores the growing importance of the “Right to Repair”— a legal right that allows end users, consumers as well as businesses access to repair of various appliances and other devices by original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) or third-party repairers. The aim is to offer a cheaper alternative to expensive replacements to the consumers, instead of buying new products altogether. The movement has gained significant global traction, led by activists such as Louis Rossmann and Joe Grand, and supported by prominent organisations like The Repair Association (Repair.org). It has evolved into a widespread consumer rights campaign across jurisdictions, even receiving endorsement from Steve Wozniak, one of the co-founders of Apple. The rationale behind the movement also stems from the philosophy of ‘RRR’ that is reduce, reuse and re-cycle which in turn is concerned with the aspect of protection of environment and avoidance of products ending up in massive landfills as a method of disposal.
India also has a long history of practicing repair as frugality, particularly practised mainly in rural and sub-urban areas. These repair networks which are part of the informal sector, are not controlled by corporations but on the contrary, they thrive on them. Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (“MSMEs”) socially and economically empower a large section of society by providing employment in the informal repair economy. This expertise is typically passed down through mentorship, observation and repetition; not through formal certification, making it difficult to be replicated by structured digital systems, like AI.
Thus, this piece first analyses the need for the right to repair and the reasons underlying corporate resistance to it; secondly, it undertakes a comparative examination of legal frameworks adopted across different jurisdictions; thirdly, it suggests some measures for implementation in India; and finally, it offers a concise conclusion to synthesise the arguments advanced.
The Need of Right to Repair & Why Big Brands Hate it?
The need for a robust framework for repair becomes evident when examined against the persistent resistance of large technology, automotive and agricultural corporations due to a combination of economic, legal and strategic considerations. A key factor is intense market competition, which compels companies to launch products at highly competitive prices, often with reduced upfront profit margins.
To offset these constraints, firms increasingly rely on post-sale revenue streams such as expensive repairs, proprietary spare parts and exclusive servicing ecosystems coupled with complete denial of spare parts or providing inferior quality spare parts to third party service providers. These companies have strong incentives to “lock in” consumers within their service networks, thereby monetising repairs over the product lifecycle. Manufacturers sometimes intentionally design the products in such a manner to artificially induce unworkability in the said products to increase the sales of new products (known as ‘planned obsolescence’). A common example of the planned obsolescence is practiced in the mobile phone industry wherein subsequent software updates slow the device and exert pressure on the existing hardware thereby inducing it to fail.
Similarly, corporations in support of their actions, frequently argue that repair restrictions are necessary to protect their intellectual property (“IP”) in the form of proprietary software, diagnostic tools and design architectures from misuse or duplication. However, this concern has also translated into competition law issues, where restricting access to spare parts and technical information may amount to monopolisation, abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 and may also result in formation of anti-competitive agreements thus violating Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 too.
Environmental considerations further strengthen the case for the right to repair. The current planned obsolescence model contributes significantly to electronic waste. According to the Global E-waste Monitor report by the United Nations, in 2022 only, a record 62 billion kg of e-waste was generated globally (equivalent to an average of 7.8 kg per capita per year) which is an alarming rise in discarded electronics worldwide. By making repairs difficult or uneconomical, manufacturers indirectly exacerbate environmental degradation.
At the same time, companies justify their opposition on grounds of electronic privacy, safety, and security. They argue that unauthorized repairs may compromise sensitive user data or lead to malfunctioning devices, especially in sectors like automobiles or medical equipment. Concerns over counterfeit parts and substandard repairs are also frequently cited, with firms warning of increased risks to consumer safety. Additionally, liability remains a contested issue, manufacturers fear being held responsible if a product fails or causes injury after being repaired by an independent third party technician. Despite these concerns, many of these justifications are overstated or capable of regulatory balancing. There is limited empirical evidence to support several manufacturer claims, while the harm to consumers and competition remains substantial.
- Legislation in Other Jurisdictions: Analysing US & EU framework
- United States: Competition-Centric Regulation
Although all 50 U.S. states have considered such legislation, only about 6–8 states have actually enacted right-to-repair laws. In the United States, the right to repair has evolved primarily through a competition and consumer protection lens, as highlighted in a Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) report “Nixing the Fix”. Rather than framing repair as an absolute consumer right, the U.S. approach emphasises market correction: ensuring independent repairers can compete on equal footing. Importantly, the U.S. model avoids overregulation at the design stage and instead focuses on removing artificial barriers to competition post-sale. The penalties for violation are fragmented and indirect, arising through FTC action, state laws or antitrust claims, with limited deterrent effect due to the absence of a unified statutory framework.
European Union: Sustainability-Driven Model
The European Union adopts a structurally different approach, integrating the right to repair within its circular economy and sustainability agenda. Under the EU framework, manufacturers are subject to ex-ante obligations—including ensuring product durability, availability of spare parts for specified periods and access to repair information. Unlike the U.S., the EU directly regulates product design and lifecycle, requiring that goods be inherently repairable and economically viable to fix. Institutional mechanisms such as repair platforms, extended guarantees, and standardised repair conditions further operationalise these rights. This model demonstrates that effective repair regimes require system-level integration, not merely access mandates. It also provides clear, enforceable obligations backed by strong penalties, including administrative fines, turnover-linked sanctions and even market restrictions for non-compliance.
Lessons for India
India should adopt a hybrid model that combines the U.S. emphasis on competition and easy access with the EU’s sustainability-oriented design obligations, rather than replicating either framework in isolation and making use of Indian ingenuity to adopt a comprehensive legislation / regime to address the issues in an Indian context. The regime must incorporate clear and deterrent penalties, including turnover-based fines and product-level sanctions, within a centralised and uniform legal framework instead of relying on fragmented enforcement mechanisms which are existing notwithstanding one another and are seldom aligned to act as a single unit.
From Portal to A Separate Act: Need for a Clearer Framework in India
India, the world’s third-largest producer of e-waste, generated about 1.75 million metric tons in FY 2024, with nearly 60% remaining unrecycled. The scale of both domestic generation and imports highlights a serious environmental challenge alongside economic potential in repair and recycling sectors.
In May 2025, the government accepted a proposal for a Repairability Index for mobile phones and appliances, ranking products based on ease of repair, spare part availability, and software support. The Index is intended to be displayed at points of sale, on e-commerce platforms, and via QR codes to enable informed consumer choice.
In 2022 itself, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs (“MCA”) had set up a committee chaired by Smt. Nidhi Khare, Additional Secretary (at that point of time), Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India to come up with a Right to Repair framework for India. This framework would mandate manufacturers to provide access to repair information, enabling both self and third-party repairs. Thus, reducing e-waste, lowering consumer costs, and supporting local repair ecosystems while advancing circular economy objectives. However, no major improvements took place and they just launched the Right to Repair Portal in collaboration with certain vehicle and device manufacturing companies.
Indian right-to-repair discourse draws implicitly on competition and IP jurisprudence that curbs post-sale control. In Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd., the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) held that denial of spare parts, diagnostic tools, and technical information to independent repairers amounted to abuse of dominance; it also establishes that OEM control over aftermarket services cannot foreclose competition, directly supporting repair access. In Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court affirmed the doctrine of international exhaustion, holding that IP rights are exhausted after first sale, limiting the right holder’s ability to control downstream use; this supports consumers’ autonomy over purchased goods, including repair.
A significant development arose from a decision of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Ernakulam in Samsung India (Ernakulam, 2023), wherein the commission held that failure to provide essential spare parts during a product’s normal lifespan constitutes deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Withholding spare parts forces premature replacement, undermining consumer choice and distorting market fairness.
Under the Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, there are six rights for the Consumers. Adapting to the global jurisdictions and for the protection of the interests of individuals, it is important to include “Right to Repair” as the seventh core guaranteed consumer right. It further enhances the vision for the promotion of sustainable consumption through the LiFE (Lifestyle for the Environment) movement. The E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2022 must also include repair as a key Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) instead of just a passing mention as a preventive strategy and certain repair targets must be set for repaired/refurbished products.
India’s right-to-repair framework must be anchored in a coordinated enforcement architecture and market-corrective obligations. A joint mechanism between the Central Consumer Protection Authority (“CCPA”) and the CCI should be instituted, supported by a fast-track process to address repair restrictions as both consumer harm and abuse of dominance by OEMs and their restrictive malpractices. At the structural level, OEMs must be placed under a statutory duty to ensure interoperability of parts and software, with clear prohibitions on technical, contractual practices that create ecosystem lock-ins and where warranties or functionality are tied to authorised servicing only. The Repairability Index should evolve into a binding regulatory standard, with low scores triggering penalties and potential market access restrictions. Further, repair-related data, diagnostics and software access should be recognised as an essential facility, requiring FRAND access for independent repairers to sustain competitive aftermarket ecosystems. Introduction of certification and training programmes for MSMEs and local repair technicians to integrate them into the formal economy like PM Skill India mission and aligning with the goal of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ or ‘Self-Reliant India’ and vision of Viksit Bharat 2047.
(This Post has been authored by Yash Patel – a practicing advocate before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court; Yash Pandey – a practicing advocate before the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nanital and Madhvendra Jha – a second year law student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.)
CITE AS: Yash Patel, Yash Pandey and Madhvendra Jha ‘Repair, Reuse, Regulate: Framework For The Right To Repair In India’ (The Contemporary Law Forum, 8 April 2026) <https://tclf.in/2026/04/08/repair-reuse-regulate-framework-for-the-right-to-repair-in-india/> date of access.