John Deere’s $99 Million Settlement and the Accelerating State Right-to-Repair Landscape
|
Deere & Company (Deere) announced this week that it has agreed to pay $99 million and take measures to facilitate the repair of certain equipment by independent repair providers to resolve multidistrict class action litigation, with “no finding of wrongdoing,” pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The proposed settlement, which is currently under review for preliminary approval by the court, resolves claims made on behalf of more than 200,000 farmers that Deere violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by withholding access to Deere’s proprietary diagnostic software and conspiring with authorized dealers to foreclose independent repair options. While the settlement is a significant development in the ongoing right-to-repair challenges facing Deere, legal risks remain — including a still-pending lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission and states of Illinois and Minnesota against the company on similar grounds in January 2025. In addition, the settlement arises in the context of a broader and rapidly evolving legislative landscape that could present additional right-to-repair challenges for manufacturers in sectors well beyond agricultural equipment. |
The Class Action Settlement
The class action, originally filed in 2022, alleges that Deere’s policies monopolized the aftermarket repair landscape, forcing customers to pay high costs for authorized repair providers given restricted access to necessary repair tools and software. Under the proposed agreement, the $99 million settlement fund would compensate class members who paid Deere or its authorized dealers for large agricultural equipment repairs between January 10, 2018 and the date of preliminary approval. Deere also agreed to injunctive relief, including providing repair resources and services available to every owner, lessor, and independent repair provider for specified large equipment on fair and reasonable terms for a period of 10 years.
Pending Action by FTC and State Attorneys General
In addition to the class action, the Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general of Illinois and Minnesota filed suit in January 2025 against Deere in the same court under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Similar to the class action, the government’s complaint focuses on Deere’s restriction of diagnostic software access to authorized dealers, alleging that it constitutes an unfair method of competition that has inflated repair costs and deprived farmers of timely repair options during critical planting and harvesting seasons. In June 2025, the court denied Deere’s motion to dismiss, finding the claims legally sufficient to proceed. Remedies sought include compelling Deere to make its diagnostic software tool available to equipment owners and independent repair providers on equal terms with authorized dealers. That proceeding continues to move forward, though it is unclear how changes in federal political leadership could impact the FTC’s approach.
State Right-to-Repair Legislation Continues to Expand
The Deere litigation has developed alongside significant and accelerating state legislative activity on right-to-repair. As of January 1, 2026, enacted laws in California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Washington now require manufacturers of consumer electronics and other covered products to make parts, tools, documentation, and diagnostic software available to independent repair providers and product owners on fair and reasonable terms. Several new repair laws will go into effect later this year, including those in Connecticut and Texas. In addition to existing laws, more than 33 right-to-repair bills were introduced in the first few weeks of January 2026, and H.R. 5857 (or the FARM ACT) was introduced in October 2025 to make parts, software, and tools available to facilitate the repair of farm equipment. Notable trends in emerging bills include strengthened anti-parts-pairing provisions that would prohibit manufacturers from using software to restrict component-level repair, as well as requirements that repair tools function offline.
Implications for Manufacturers
The Deere settlement serves as a reminder that right-to-repair issues present material third-party litigation exposure — not only regulatory and compliance risk — including for manufacturers of products beyond farm equipment. Particularly for manufacturers that rely on proprietary diagnostic software or maintain robust product repair ecosystems, the evolving legal landscape warrants careful attention to several questions, including whether current repair access policies align with the requirements of enacted state laws and whether software-based restrictions on parts or repair authorization are defensible under antitrust standards. To the extent that state laws continue to grow in number and similar class actions arise, the regulatory and litigation risks for practices that could be viewed as restricting repair are likely to increase.
For questions about right-to-repair compliance, antitrust exposure related to repair access policies, or developments in the Deere litigation, please reach out to the authors of this post or any member of Arnold & Porter’s Consumer Products & Retail industry group.
© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.
Authors
