In today’s digital era, most devices we use — including televisions, cars, tractors, and various household appliances — are powered by software. Remarkably, many of these can now be seamlessly controlled through our mobile phones. While this technology brings us cool new features and makes our lives easier, it also makes fixing things a bit tricky. More and more, people are finding it hard to repair their own gadgets because of rules set by the manufacturers. Even though we own the physical devices, the software is still controlled by the companies that made them. This situation is causing a growing tension between our ability to fix things ourselves and the rights companies have over their creations. At the center of this debate is a growing global movement pushing for the Right to Repair.
The Growing Friction: Software, IP, and Repair Barriers
Manufacturers use intellectual property rights like patents, copyrights, and trademarks to keep a tight grip on their products. While these laws are meant to spark innovation and safeguard creative work, they’re often used to block access to repair information, tools, and parts. This not only harms consumers but also stifles independent repair shops.
A clear example is planned obsolescence, where products are intentionally made to wear out quickly. Apple faced accusations of this, especially in the 2017 lawsuit settlement where it agreed to pay $500 million for slowing down older iPhones through software updates. Additionally, Apple’s labeling of certain products as “vintage” and refusing to repair them pushes consumers towards purchasing new models rather than fixing the old ones.
Key Objectives of the Right to Repair Movement
The Right to Repair campaign aims to reverse these trends and empower consumers by ensuring:
• Access to tools, parts, and repair manuals necessary for independent and third-party repair.
• The right to bypass digital locks that prevent legitimate repairs.
• Protection against voided warranties for using third-party repair services.
• Legislation that mandates manufacturers to make devices more repairable.
• Environmental sustainability, by reducing e-waste and promoting reuse.
In India, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs has recognized these goals under its LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment) initiative, forming a Right to Repair Committee to support eco-friendly repair practices.
Legal Conflicts: Balancing IP Rights and Consumer Freedoms
• Copyright law, especially Section 1201 of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), prohibits bypassing digital locks even for legitimate repairs. By means of limiting access the fair usage is also restricted.
• Software licensing models state that consumers only license the software, and thus cannot legally access or modify it despite owning the hardware. For example, A uniform user agreement format has been adopted by Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and Xiaomi. The agreement states that while the device, along with the hardware, is sold to the customer, the software is merely licensed. This raises the question if an absolute interest has been created in favour of the consumer.
• Companies claim that disclosing the repair manuals would lead to loss of trade secrets, competitive advantage and Intellectual property rights.
• Product safety concerns are often cited by the manufacturers, justifying their exclusive repairs through authorized channels. This is crucial as the manufacturers fear being made accountable to the malfunctions resulting from unauthorised repairs.
• Post-sale restrictions clauses such as those seen in Samsung’s terms that void warranties for unauthorized repairs.
• There is an International inconsistencies with each country having varied approaches to balancing IP and consumer rights.
These legal and contractual boundaries empower manufacturers to monopolize the repair market, even though consumers expect that owning a product gives them the implicit right to repair it.
Article 21 and Environmental Concerns: A Constitutional Lens
In India, this issue is deeply connected to Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to life and personal freedom. The ability to fix our own belongings, select different service providers, and steer clear of being forced to buy new gadgets is all part of the larger idea of freedom under Article 21. Moreover, when companies make it hard to repair items, they contribute to environmental harm, which goes against the right to a clean environment, also covered by Article 21.
Take Apple’s AirPods, for example. They are tough to repair because they use glue and solder instead of screws. To fix them, you need special tools like vibrating knives, the availability of which is strictly controlled by the company. These practices obstruct the repairability and promote disposability, leading to environmental damage.
Reform and the Path Forward
• Companies may offer voluntary licensing of repair resources under agreements that maintain safety and IP integrity.
• Design standardization using common screws and modular components to ease disassembly.
• Legislative exemptions under IP law to permit fair usage and creation of broader exemptions under anti-circumvention laws.
• Reimagining IP law, so it serves not just creators but also the public, promoting sustainable consumption.
• Public repair portals, such as India’s Right to Repair Portal, which offer manuals and support resources to consumers and technicians alike.
Legal Precedents and Global Case Law
1. Shri Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd & Ors (CCI, India)
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) held that restricting access to spare parts and diagnostic tools was anti-competitive. While not a direct recognition of the Right to Repair, it set a precedent for opposing practices that hinder independent repairs and reduce consumer welfare.
2. Apple Inc. v. Henrik Huseby (Norway)
Apple sued a Norwegian repair technician for importing iPhone-compatible screens with the Apple logo. The Norwegian Supreme Court ruled in Apple’s favour, citing trademark infringement, highlighting how IP law can trump repair rights even when parts are not counterfeit.
3. Lexmark v. Impression Products (U.S. Supreme Court, 2017)
This landmark ruling stated that once a patented product is sold, the manufacturer cannot control its use — including repair and resale. It was a major win for consumer rights and limited patent overreach.
4. Nintendo v. Go Cyber Shopping Ltd. (Canada)
The court ruled that circumventing digital locks on gaming consoles, even for repair purposes, was a violation of copyright. This upheld the primacy of digital locks in IP law, raising concerns about future repair accessibility.
Conclusion
The Right to Repair bridges consumer rights, innovation policy, and environmental responsibility. As technology evolves, the gap between ownership and control widens. Reform is needed to uphold IP protections while ensuring product ownership includes maintenance, repair, and life extension.
Policymakers, corporations, and consumers must collaborate to create a future where technology serves users responsibly, sustainably, and fairly.
© 2025 Business Consultant & Law Firm - Legacy Partners. All Rights Reserved.
Designed by Nuewelle Digital Solutions LLP
Legacy Partners
We typically reply in a few minutes
