The Right to Repair Is Law in Washington State

Scope of the Washington law & major carve‑outs

• Many welcome the shift in regulatory “winds” but note the law excludes many high-impact categories: game consoles, cars, agricultural/construction equipment, medical devices, ISP equipment, security systems, off‑road vehicles, large energy/solar systems, and LEO broadband gear.
• Several commenters say these carve‑outs cover “most of what I actually want to repair,” especially tractors, road vehicles, and consoles.
• Carve‑outs are widely attributed to lobbying and corporate pressure; some point out this is especially ironic given tractors and autos helped spark the movement.

What the law does change (electronics & parts pairing)

• For covered consumer electronics and wheelchairs, manufacturers must provide parts, tools, documentation, and can’t use parts‑pairing to:
  • Block repairs or degrade features (e.g., cameras, fingerprint sensors).
  • Show non‑dismissable, misleading “unknown part” warnings or reduce performance.
• Debate over a secondary source’s claim that parts must be sold “at cost”: the statute actually says “at costs that are fair to both parties.”
• Long thread on economics of spares (tooling, logistics, low volume pricing) vs the need to prevent gouging (e.g., tying parts prices to full device value).

Wheelchairs and disability impacts

• Strong support for the wheelchair provisions from people citing extremely locked‑down, expensive chairs (e.g., batteries and simple components requiring factory service, five‑figure subframes).
• Others worry manufacturers may exit the WA market or raise prices, reducing options for users whose devices are often funded by government programs.

Security, anti‑theft, and “genuine” parts

• Examples: Apple serial‑paired MacBook components; TPMs and fingerprint sensors; vehicle ECUs.
• One camp argues pairing is needed to deter theft and supply‑chain attacks; critics say users could hold the keys, and current designs mainly protect OEM repair revenue.
• Ongoing debate over quality and safety of non‑OEM parts vs monopolistic pricing on “genuine” components.

Broader right‑to‑repair context and limits

• Clarifications for newcomers: right‑to‑repair addresses active barriers—DRM, unavailable parts/docs, voided warranties, and bricking—rather than knowledge of how to fix things.
• DMCA §1201 is cited as a major remaining obstacle (e.g., third‑party generator and vehicle tools becoming legally risky).
• Some fear manufacturers will region‑limit compliance or use contract terms to claw back control; others argue once a law exists, it’s easier to tighten loopholes and attack exemptions later.