From Singapore: There is a particular irony in the fact that one of America's most iconic brands, a company whose green-and-yellow machines have symbolised rural self-sufficiency for nearly two centuries, is now accused of doing the precise opposite of what those machines represent. The US Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against John Deere in January 2025 alleging unlawful repairability policies. Now, Iowa farmers are pressing the point through their own state legislature — and the outcome will matter far beyond the American corn belt.
Iowa lawmakers voted to advance state House bill 751 last week, legislation that would ensure farmers in the state can freely repair their own agricultural equipment. The bill was subsequently renamed House File 2709 and will be voted on again, and should the political winds align, it must clear the Iowa House and Senate before the legislature adjourns on 21 April. The legislation has cleared a significant threshold: following an 18-5 vote in favour of the bill in the Iowa House Agriculture Committee, the electronics repair outfit iFixit said it "thinks it's got a good chance of passing," specifically calling out John Deere as a company trying to kill these kinds of bills.
House File 2709 would require agricultural equipment manufacturers to make documentation, parts, software, firmware and tools available at "fair and reasonable terms and costs" to independent repair facilities and equipment owners. The Iowa bill defines which agricultural equipment it covers, including tractors, trailers, combines, sprayers, balers and other equipment used to cultivate and harvest crops. It excludes aircraft and irrigation equipment, along with jet skis and snowmobiles.
The economic case for the bill is not abstract. The non-profit Public Interest Research Group previously said that broad right-to-repair legislation could save US farmers $4.2 billion per year. That figure captures two overlapping costs: farmers who use tractors to plant, cultivate and harvest crops often need to repair their equipment while they work. Waiting for manufacturer approval, or taking equipment to an approved dealership, can cause delays and missed opportunities to harvest crops. For farmers operating on tight seasonal windows, the financial exposure is immediate and severe.
John Deere, which manufactures farm equipment used across Iowa, is officially registered against the bill. In a statement, the company said the legislation "goes far beyond enabling self-repair and would mandate government interference in how manufacturers and dealers make certain digital tools available." That framing reflects a long-standing position: John Deere argues that its repair ecosystem protects intellectual property, ensures safety standards are met, and supports its authorised dealer network. Those are not trivial concerns. Manufacturers also point to liability issues that might arise if repairs performed by non-authorised technicians result in accidents or equipment failures.
Back in 2023, John Deere signed a memorandum of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation, agreeing to provide independent repair shops with the tools they need to repair equipment. All the company asked for in exchange was that the AFBF not introduce or support right-to-repair legislation that went beyond the spirit of the MOU. Repair advocates have consistently questioned whether this arrangement delivered real change. Repair advocates criticised the move, saying the memorandum did little to make John Deere adhere to new regulations. "We have struggled to get John Deere to comply with the right to repair law that's passed in Colorado in a meaningful way," said Elizabeth Chamberlain of iFixit. "It was compliance in name only."
What has changed in 2026 is the political coalition arrayed against Deere. Farming industry groups that have traditionally aligned with John Deere in opposing these measures took a neutral position on the first version of the Iowa bill, and for the new HF 2709, groups like the Iowa Corn Growers Association and the Iowa Soybean Association have lobbied in favour of the bill. As iFixit's Chamberlain put it, "the massive base of support that John Deere has had from dealers, corn and soybean groups — that's starting to break down." The bill's bipartisan character reflects that shift: it was introduced by the committee chair, Republican Rep. Derek Wulf of Hudson, who said the farm economy needs more "problem solvers."
There is also now a federal dimension. The US Environmental Protection Agency recently advanced American farmers' lawful right to repair their farm and other nonroad diesel equipment, clarifying that the Clean Air Act supports rather than restricts Americans' ability to make their own repairs, and that manufacturers can no longer use the Clean Air Act to justify limiting access to repair tools or software. That clarification removes one of the arguments manufacturers have traditionally deployed against repair legislation.
For Australian exporters and farmers, the signal is direct. The Iowa battle is not a distant curiosity; it is a leading indicator for regulatory pressure that is building in this country too. Australia's National Farmers Federation abandoned talks with the Tractor and Machinery Association of Australia about a voluntary agreement on right to repair — an agreement that would have looked similar to the US memorandum of understanding. Instead, the NFF says it is looking to lawmakers to create strong right-to-repair laws for the benefit of all Australian farmers.
Lack of repair access in the agricultural machinery sector has been estimated by the Productivity Commission to cost close to $100 million annually in lost productivity, delays and inflated servicing fees. Under current Australian consumer laws, most agricultural machinery is excluded from consumer guarantee protections, including the right to third-party repair, because the law only applies to goods under $100,000 in value. With most tractors, harvesters and other essential equipment exceeding this threshold, farmers are left without the legal safeguards available to other sectors.
Farm lobby groups have ratcheted up pressure on Labor to regulate the industry after long-standing discussions between the National Farmers Federation and the Tractor and Machinery Association of Australia broke down without a voluntary agreement. Assistant Minister for Productivity Andrew Leigh told reporters that while his preference would have been for an industry-led MoU, the government was always "open" to intervening if those negotiations stalled. GrainGrowers chief executive Shona Gawel said the commitment would drive productivity improvements for the nation's grain farmers. "Extending right to repair laws to agricultural machinery will give farmers greater choice, reduce costs, and keep them operating when it matters most," Ms Gawel said.
The deeper question this debate raises is one about the nature of ownership in a world of software-defined machines. Deere equipment relies on proprietary diagnostic software, and dealers use a special tool that is more capable than what farmers have. That dealer-grade access includes deeper diagnostics, part calibrations, software updates, and specialty tests and resets. Farmers, meanwhile, have access to a more limited tool that can be useful but often stops short of the capabilities they need to complete a repair. When a half-million-dollar machine requires corporate permission to run a diagnostic, the meaning of property ownership becomes genuinely contested.
Reasonable people can disagree on where the line falls between protecting intellectual property and using it to capture a repair market. Manufacturers have real interests in safety and brand reputation, and those concerns deserve genuine consideration rather than dismissal. But the convergence of legislative pressure in multiple jurisdictions, active federal enforcement, and the breakdown of voluntary arrangements suggests the current balance has tilted too far toward the manufacturer. Iowa's bill, if it passes, would not solve everything. The timeline for implementation remains uncertain, as manufacturers may require time to develop systems for providing repair information and tools to farmers and independent shops. For Australian policymakers watching from across the Pacific, the lesson from Iowa is that voluntary agreements, without the teeth of legislation, tend to deliver compliance in form rather than in substance. Canberra's Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Productivity Commission have both previously recommended changes. The political will to act on those recommendations is the remaining variable.