Ringo Chiu via AP
A customer leaves the Apple The Grove store in Los Angeles on September 22, 2023.
On Tuesday, White House National Economic Council Director Lael Brainard hosted a convening on the state of the debate over right to repair. Part of her remarks celebrated recently passed legislation in California requiring companies to allow users to repair their own equipment. But Brainard had more news to share: “Apple is announcing that they are going to do this nationwide. That means that whether you are in California, Maine or Michigan, Apple will make the parts, tools, and documentation needed to repair your Apple products available to you at reasonable prices, as outlined in the California law.”
That wasn’t all the tech giant was announcing. “Apple is calling for national right to repair legislation,” Brainard said.
At first glance, Apple jumping on board with right to repair is a monumental win for the right-to-repair movement, sometimes referred to as pro-repair or fair repair. The movement is composed of consumers, small-business owners, and advocacy groups that champion the public’s right to repair the equipment they own without being coerced into using a manufacturer’s repair services or upgrading devices through artificially induced obsolescence.
But upon closer examination, Apple’s reversal raises questions among advocates who’ve been the most critical of how Apple has set anti-repair standards across the technology industry. The degree of skepticism ranges from seeing Apple’s commitment as a minor victory that advocates can build upon in the future to Apple reversing course because the company either controls or restricts the supply lines for the independent repair market.
For years, Apple and other tech giants had aggressively lobbied against pro-repair legislation. Out of the gate, Joe Biden’s Federal Trade Commission announced it would aggressively enforce repair restrictions as violations of federal law. This led many companies to soften their stance. But legislation at the state and federal level clarifying consumer rights once and for all was still necessary.
In California, when legislation was finally drafted, state Sen. Anthony Portantino held the bill up in the Appropriations Committee, ensuring its death. Only when the Los Angeles Times’ editorial board and the Los Angeles Unified School District directly called on Portantino to move the bill along did it budge.
California’s adoption of right-to-repair legislation, even before Brainard announced Apple’s support for a federal law, was likely to be a benchmark across the country. It’s difficult for large companies to manage different standards on a state-by-state basis. Right-to-repair advocates know this to be true. That’s why, as the Prospect previously reported, it was critical when Massachusetts adopted legislation that would directly impact the automotive sector’s grip over the independent repair industry. Federal regulators first attempted to roll back the Massachusetts law, citing conflicts with federal law, but later reversed their stance.
The standards California places on the tech industry become a model for how tech companies operate nationally, colloquially known as the “California Effect.”
Aside from right to repair, the standards California places on the tech industry become a model for how tech companies operate nationally, colloquially known as the “California Effect.” Ultimately, that’s an accomplishment the Biden administration can tout as part of its pro-competition agenda.
But simultaneously, California’s ability to drive national standards also means that where the state ultimately settles on legislation, momentum for an issue slows down with it. Put differently, the California law—and however it manifests in a federal version—gives Apple and other tech companies a touch point they can use to justify why nothing more needs to be done over right to repair. And that gives the company a potential opportunity to subvert the intent of the law.
It’s likely Apple complies with the new California standard by the barest minimums, Louis Rossmann, an independent technician, right-to-repair activist, and popular YouTube personality, told the Prospect. In return, when complaints from Rossmann and others in the pro-repair community come, “[Apple will] say, ‘See we can never make those repair people happy.’”
But in the meantime, Rossmann told the Prospect, the actual market for buying parts for repairs on Apple devices is more restricted than it was 15 years ago.
“When I can buy a schematic, or a cd3217, or an LCD cell rather than an LCD assembly through legitimate means I will believe it,” Rossmann said. He was referring to how the lower rungs of the third-party repair market no longer exist.
In a YouTube video posted earlier this year, Rossmann explained that it’s impossible for a technician entering the industry today to grow a small business in the same way as he did. For example, he began his career replacing screens for $150 a pop while Apple would have charged $350 to $700. Over time, he saved up that money to reinvest into his business so he could work on more complex repairs.
In that same time, Apple both restricted the individual parts technicians could purchase and bundled the actual components themselves. For example, if you want to repair the screen on your laptop, you need to not just replace the screen. It’s likely the entire shell needs to be replaced, if not the entire computer. That makes right to repair, while technically true, impractical for nearly all consumers.
Rossmann dug further. “When [Apple] says they provide parts, does that mean a $700 motherboard,” or does that include technicians who are provided with the ability to make adjustments to a motherboard. (The latter is cheaper.)
The distinction Rossmann is drawing is critical. As 404 Media reported earlier this year, Apple initially endorsing the California right-to-repair legislation coincided with the company imposing additional restrictions on the iPhone 14’s repairability—a year after the product release date. In the iPhone 14’s case, Apple insisted that parts needed to be matched with a device via serial numbers, through a practice called “parts pairing.” It wouldn’t be a surprise if this logic was used for other Apple devices, further restricting the products an individual or technician can purchase.
Rossmann seemed resigned to the bait and switch. “I put up the best fight I could and I can be proud that I stood up for something over a decade and didn’t back down, but I believe this is the end,” he said.
On the other hand, advocacy groups are a bit more optimistic about Apple’s turn. Nathan Proctor, head of U.S. Public Interest Research Group’s Right to Repair campaign, told the Prospect, “We’ve had numerous examples over the last six years when companies tried to placate us with some incomplete argument, but we’ve shown that our coalition is tough to trick, we will keep pushing [until] the underlying issues are addressed.”
Going forward, it will be critical for the right-to-repair coalition to keep applying pressure at the state and federal level for a pro-repair agenda, combating the industry’s likely counters. Otherwise, Apple and the federal government will tout a PR win while the repair market is more restricted than it has ever been.
