Last year, when the first Memorandum of Understanding between John Deere and the American Farm Bureau Federation was released, it was already well into session.
Bills were already introduced and bill sponsors, proponents and opponents had done plenty of legwork to set the table for the session. As is the case with most things, people don’t change their minds with sudden epiphanies about how things really are. It takes time for narratives to shift, especially in the legislative arena when the mere merits of policies are far from the only factor driving legislation. However, given time and a concerted effort to share a concise message, a new consensus on an issue can emerge.
Right to Repair MOUs Needed Time to Work
With the advent of MOUs, supporters of Right to Repair legislation came up with many ways to reject their value, ranging from pithy to absurd. At first, with only John Deere as a signatory, proponents stated the obvious that the agreement was only between one manufacturer and the AFBF. A valid point, but one that quickly eroded as the AFBF signed successive MOUs with several additional farm equipment manufacturers now covering 80 percent of the equipment sold in North America. However, some of those agreements were not announced until late last year, giving legislators a sliver of skepticism about whether the entire industry was on board with the same commitments. There is no doubt now about the consensus of major farm equipment manufacturers supporting customer self-repair.
Another challenge to the MOUs was they lacked a sufficient enforcement mechanism. Proponents often touted that they were a mere pinky promise to owners and independent repair shops. Not only is that insulting to the major stakeholders that gave serious contemplation to the issues involved, but it also belies the reality of the situation. As anyone who doesn’t live under a rock knows, this past year showed the reputational risk corporations face when they alienate their core consumer group, e.g., the Bud Light blunder. What quicker way for farm equipment manufacturers to lose goodwill with their customers than to not live up to the MOUs they signed. The market forces involved are a far greater check than any statute could ever hope to be.
The MOUs were designed to be living documents. Unlike legislation that once passed is mostly static and does not adapt to rapidly evolving developments like technology, the MOUs have a built-in assessment mechanism requiring manufacturers and AFBF to meet every six months to evaluate the agreement and discuss any updates or changes necessary. To inform that process, the AFBF set up a portal where members and non-members can file complaints. This one facet of the MOUs has been extremely impactful to legislators, especially
once they hear that there has not been a single complaint filed in the past year.
The Effect of the Colorado Bill
With the passage of an Ag-specific Right to Repair bill in Colorado, the farm equipment industry now mirrors the automotive sector. Nearly every Right to Repair bill we have seen in the last several years contains a carve-out or exemption for automobiles. The reason that exemption exists is because shortly after Massachusetts passed a Right to Repair bill for automobiles in 2012, manufacturers and independent repair companies created nationwide MOUs. The framework established a dynamic where nationwide MOUs avoided a patchwork of conflicting state laws with one state legislation in place to hold manufacturers accountable if they did not live up to their promises. With the passage of the Colorado bill, the farm equipment industry finds itself in an identical boat.
Right to Repair Legislation Proliferates with Industry Exemption
Headlines from coast to coast have been written about the passage of Right to Repair bills in the last year. Following New York, Minnesota and California, which each passed legislation late last year, many new states sought to do the same this year. Besides Colorado, what is interesting is that every state that has passed a Right to Repair bill has included our industry exemption language that carves out non-road equipment. Even states like Oregon have included our exemption because we have been proactive in coming to the table the last several years and demonstrating our commitment to customer self-repair. Unlike household consumer goods that lack formalized commitments, we are a leading example of an industry that not only has MOUs in place, but backs that up every day with our dedication to supporting customers in getting up and running as quickly as possible.
Change Takes Time
As I said at the beginning, narratives don’t shift overnight. However, there is real reason to believe that the MOUs in place are working, and legislators are coming around to the idea that legislation in our industry is not warranted. Politics are still involved and that is about the only thing left driving legislation. The veil has been lifted, and policymakers now see that we have formalized our commitment with the MOUs; they are working,
and the challenges we face in our industry are not attributable to access and availability of parts, tools, documentation, and diagnostics. We will continue with this message and work towards a day when we can close the chapter on Right to Repair.
Article Written By Eric Wareham
Eric Wareham is the senior vice president of government affairs for NAEDA. He has extensive legal and policy experience in both a trade association and the private sector.
