Missouri lawmakers are debating a series of right-to-repair bills that could reshape how consumers and farmers access tools, software and information needed to maintain and repair their equipment — an issue advocates said is costing farmers time, money and control over the equipment they own.
Sen. Tracy McCreery, sponsor of SB 1564, which has advanced to committee in the state Senate, said the proposal is aimed at restoring balance in an increasingly software-driven marketplace.
The bill aims to give owners of these products access to "the same diagnostic and repair information that manufacturers supply to independent repair providers or authorized repair providers" and the parts necessary to make the repairs.
“This legislation ensures that when Missourians purchase equipment, they are able to repair it without unnecessary barriers,” McCreery said. “It’s about fairness, competition and keeping costs down for farmers and small businesses.”
She added that the timing reflects growing pressure from constituents.
“We’re hearing more and more from farmers and independent businesses who are running into these barriers,” McCreery said. “This is about responding to a real, ongoing problem.”
For Jared Wilson, a veteran right-to-repair advocate and farmer in west-central Missouri, that problem is very evident.
“When my fertilizer spreader went down, it sat for nearly a month waiting on repairs,” Wilson said. “That’s time you don’t get back in a planting season.”
During harvest, the stakes can be even higher.
“I had soybeans literally falling to the ground because the combine wasn’t working,” he said. “You’re just sitting there losing money.”
Those moments, he said, changed how he understood the issue.
“I realized it wasn’t me — it was a systemic problem,” Wilson said. “You can have the part in your hand, but if you can’t install it or pair it with the machine, you’re stuck.”
Ownership in a software-driven world
Right-to-repair legislation centers on whether owners should have full access to the tools and information needed to fix their own equipment — particularly as machinery becomes increasingly dependent on software.
Leah Chan Grinvald is the dean of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Law and is one of the foremost experts on the right-to-repair. She says the issue cuts to the core of ownership.
“It’s about reclaiming ownership,” she said “What does it mean to own something if you can’t repair it?”
She contrasted today’s landscape with the past, given the difference in the ease of repair and the availability of tools.
“Products used to come with manuals and the knowledge needed to fix them,” Grinvald said. “Now, that information is often restricted, and even sharing repair knowledge can raise legal concerns.”
The cost of restricted repair
Data from the U.S. PIRG Education Fund shows those restrictions carry measurable financial consequences.
Farmers lose an average of $3,348 annually due to repair-related downtime, with total losses reaching roughly $3 billion nationwide. Dealer repairs cost about $58.90 more per hour than independent mechanics, contributing to an additional $1.2 billion in labor expenses.
Nathan Proctor, who leads right-to-repair research for PIRG, said those costs reflect structural limitations — not inevitabilities.
“These are avoidable costs,” Proctor said. “When farmers are locked out of repair, they’re forced into slower, more expensive options.”
He emphasized that the issue extends beyond individual breakdowns.
“This isn’t just about a single repair,” Proctor said. “It’s about how the market is structured. When one group controls access, it limits competition and drives up costs across the board.”
PIRG estimates right-to-repair policies could save farmers roughly $4.2 billion annually.
Wilson said those figures mirror what he’s experienced.
“It’s not just the repair bill — it’s the downtime,” he said. “If your equipment is down when you need it most, you’re losing crops.”
Software barriers and control
Modern farm equipment often requires manufacturer software to complete even routine repairs, creating a layer of dependency that farmers said did not exist in the past.
“People think it’s just turning a wrench,” Wilson said. “But now you replace a part and the machine won’t even recognize it without software from the manufacturer.”
He said even when repairs are physically simple, access to diagnostic tools and programming systems can stop the process entirely.
“You might know exactly what’s wrong,” Wilson said. “But without their system, you can’t clear the code, you can’t pair the part — you can’t finish the job.”
That limitation, he said, raises deeper concerns about ownership.
“You pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for this equipment,” Wilson said. “But do you really own it if you can’t fix it? We’re not asking for proprietary source code,” he said. “We’re asking for access to the tools needed to repair what we already own.”
On safety, he added:
“Farmers already have every incentive to keep their equipment safe and compliant,” Wilson said. “We rely on these machines every day.”
Legal limits and market impact
Grinvald said those tensions are shaped in part by federal law, particularly the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
“You can have a situation where a farmer is allowed to repair their own equipment,” she said, “but the person who teaches them how to do it could face legal risk.”
Under the DMCA, manufacturers can use digital locks on equipment software that make it illegal to access or share certain repair information. That means while farmers may be allowed to fix their own machines, bypassing those protections — or teaching others how to — can carry legal risk.
That restriction, she said, has ripple effects.
“If knowledge can’t be shared, independent repair shops are effectively locked out of the market,” Grinvald said.
She also addressed industry concerns about the potential violation of intellectual property rights.
“Right-to-repair does not inherently violate intellectual property rights,” Grinvald said. “It depends entirely on how the legislation is structured.”
Without access, she added, smaller repair businesses struggle to compete.
“When only authorized dealers can perform certain repairs, economic activity becomes concentrated,” Grinvald said. “That limits competition and affects rural economies in particular.”
Industry and business response
Manufacturers argue that existing systems already provide sufficient repair access.
In a statement, John Deere said it supports customers’ ability to maintain equipment, citing “timely and reliable repair access” through its current tools and resources. The company described the proposed legislation as “government interference” and said it prefers industry-led solutions, including its 2023 Memorandum of Understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation.
The MOU notes one of the obligations of the manufacturer is to ensure that those interested in making repairs have “electronic access on Fair and Reasonable terms to Manufacturer's Tools, Specialty Tools, Software and Documentation.”
Those tools include John Deere Customer Service ADVISOR™, manuals for operators, parts, and service, product service demonstrations, training, seminars or clinics, on-board diagnostics via diagnostics port or wireless interface, and other publications with information on service, parts, operation and safety.
The Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry also opposed the measure.
In its statement, the organization warned the bill would create “a government mandate that interferes with how businesses operate internally” and argued it could force companies to disclose proprietary technology. The Chamber also raised concerns about safety and regulatory compliance, including potential violations of federal emissions standards.
A question of access
For McCreery, those competing arguments underscore the need for clear policy.
“This is about making sure Missourians have options,” she said. “Right now, too many people are limited in how and where they can get their equipment repaired.”
Grinvald said the outcome will likely depend on how well lawmakers — and the public — understand the issue.
“These are complex questions about law, technology and markets,” she said. “But at the end of the day, they come back to a simple idea: ownership.”
For Wilson and many like him, the stakes remain high.
“This isn’t about politics,” he said. “It’s about whether we can keep working when something breaks.”
