FTC v. Deere & Company: A Fight For Farmers’ Right-to-Repair

Crystal Liao is a Junior in the Georgetown College of Arts & Sciences majoring in Computer Science.

Nearly everything we use contains software. Even products that did not run on software in the past have now been updated with digital services. While this can create accessibility and efficiency, companies are the ones profiting the most. Much of the software in these products is a mystery to anyone outside of the company, making fixing what you own nearly impossible for the average person to do. Consumers no longer have the choice to self-repair or to seek help from an independent repairman, as only companies have access to software repair tools. This has eroded consumer power in the marketplace. 

One of the groups most impacted by barriers to self-repair is farmers. Modern agricultural equipment contains software programs like global positioning systems (GPS), engine control, and sensors that are vital to the job.¹ Equipment failure needs to be addressed quickly due to the time-sensitive nature of farm work,  but farmers currently do not have the ability to perform repairs themselves. This is why John Deere, one of the leading manufacturers of agricultural equipment, is being sued over alleged anti-consumer practices related to equipment repair. The FTC v. DEERE & COMPANY case, filed in January of this year, is worth following, as it could set a new precedent for consumer rights. To better understand the lawsuit, this article will explain core components of the case filed, then discuss the most recent response made by the defendant, and conclude with the current status of the case.

Background

The Plaintiff: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is an independent federal agency created in 1914 with the goal of protecting citizens from unfair business practices and methods of competition.² This lawsuit is one of several antitrust cases the FTC has brought up against companies under the executive order signed by the previous president, Joe Biden, during his term in office. The order sought to limit corporate dominance and increase competition in the American marketplace.³ 

The Defendant: Deere & Company, commonly known as John Deere, is an agricultural machinery and equipment manufacturer founded in Illinois in 1837. As of 2022, John Deere became the leading manufacturer of farm machinery worldwide, with its 2024 revenue reaching around 52 billion dollars.⁴

The Context: Right-to-repair is a movement that has gained momentum in the past few years due to companies’ increasing restriction of repairs behind paywalls. The movement’s supporters are mostly owners of small repair shops that fix electronics and machinery, who hope to pass right-to-repair laws that prevent companies from using copyright law to sue over independent repairs.⁵ 

Summary of FTC v. DEERE & COMPANY

The lawsuit, filed in Illinois by FTC along with the states of Illinois, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin against John Deere, highlights several key issues faced by farmers using the company’s machinery. The plaintiff lists several complaints, which are summarized below, excluding those that have been redacted.⁶

1. Self-repair: Farming is a seasonal occupation, and farmers have traditionally relied on their own skills or independent repair providers to maintain equipment. This practice is usually carried out during the off-season to ensure that equipment has a lower probability of breaking down during critical agricultural periods. Due to the time-sensitive nature of farming, equipment failures during important months need to be addressed quickly.

2. Computerized Equipment: John Deere equipment has become increasingly computerized, with many functions now controlled by electronic control units (“ECUs”). This has made repairing said equipment more complex, as diagnosing and fixing issues requires specialized software to access and repair the ECUs in the equipment. 

3. Monopolization of Repair Software: John Deere has effectively created a monopoly on key software for repairs because only the organization knows how to develop the software program. They have developed a fully functional diagnostic program called “Service ADVISOR™,” which is exclusively available to authorized John Deere dealers. In contrast, farmers are limited to a restricted version of the software, which lacks the full functionality required for comprehensive repairs.

4. Impact: The restrictions force farmers to rely on John Deere dealers, who are authorized by the company to sell equipment and provide repair services. Authorized dealers sign a contract with John Deere, obliging them to “aggressively promote” parts manufactured by the company. This harms customers because dealers are incentivized to push sales rather than genuinely assist with their needs. By only allowing dealers who sign a contract with the company to gain access to equipment and software, John Deere is also able to gain greater control over its products. In regards to equipment repair, dealers are the only ones with permission to use John Deere’s fully functional diagnostic program, giving them complete control of the market. This leads to high prices and long wait times. 

The FTC has alleged that John Deere’s practices constitute a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”⁷ The company’s practices most likely fall under this category because of two key definitions in the FTC Act defining unfair and deceptive acts or practices as methods that “cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers” nor “outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”⁸ By withholding key repair software from the public, John Deere makes its repair services unavoidable for consumers. Small repair businesses are also effectively shut out, further strengthening John Deere’s market dominance.  Thus, John Deere’s practices can be seen as a violation of antitrust laws because they harm competition and consumer rights, which are both essential for a healthy market.

The plaintiff seeks three orders from the court: an order to prevent John Deere from continuing its practices, an order for all current and future repair tools to be made public, and any other relief the court deems appropriate.⁹ These orders aim to give farmers more control over their equipment and to open up the market to more competition.  

John Deere & Company’s Response

John Deere has issued a statement addressing the lawsuit on its official website. The company claims that it has always supported customer self-repair through innovations that assist both customers and independent repair companies, including resources like manuals, online videos, and an app that aids in equipment repair.¹⁰ Its response also mentions the views of Andrew Ferguson, President Trump’s nominee for FTC chair, regarding the case. Ferguson has spoken out against the lawsuit, claiming it is full of “partisan motivation” and a waste of taxpayer money––a sentiment also echoed by John Deere in its response.¹¹ 

The Importance of the Case

The FTC v. DEERE & COMPANY case is an important case in the right-to-repair movement. If the judge rules in the FTC’s favor, John Deere would be required to implement more consumer-friendly policies around repair. This would not only benefit farmers but also set a precedent for all companies, pushing other manufacturers to follow suit. Because John Deere is such a big player in the market, a win for the FTC would send a meaningful signal to other farm equipment firms that the act of monopolizing software repair tools to gain an unfair advantage over competitors is a violation of the law. 

Status of the Case

While the lawsuit will be in the discovery phase until mid-May, there are reasons to doubt whether it will move forward after the information exchange. Besides the fact that the current FTC chair has spoken out against the case, the Trump administration is rapidly undoing acts enacted by the previous administration. Under Ferguson, the FTC is likely to shift its focus to other issues in the future. In fact, Melissa Holyoak, the new FTC Commissioner, outlined three key FTC goals of the new administration: 1) improving corporate merger reviews, 2) facilitating AI growth in the United States, and 3) going after Big Tech’s censorship of Americans.¹² These statements signal a pivot from Biden-era antitrust probes into a more digitally focused FTC. Another worrying sign about this lawsuit’s status under the new administration is Holyoak’s complaint that the Biden FTC’s antitrust approach was too hostile.¹³ There is a possibility that this lawsuit will conclude with a settlement between John Deere and the FTC, ultimately resulting in minimal changes for the company. 

However, it may be too early to declare the FTC’s plans with this lawsuit, as the current commission is still continuing an antitrust investigation into Microsoft from the Biden era.¹⁴ This might indicate that Trump’s FTC is not as radically different from the previous administration as initially thought. The commission’s probe into Microsoft’s software licensing abuse concerns issues similar to the FTC’s claims in the John Deere suit.¹⁵ If the current FTC is willing to keep investigating the Microsoft case, there is a possibility the John Deere lawsuit will be continued as well. The key question is what the current commission’s intentions are going forward with the investigation. Is this merely a tactic to intimidate Microsoft as part of its campaign against Big Tech, or do they actually intend to continue the work of the previous administration? If it is the former, then John Deere would most likely be safe from further litigation as they are not considered a Big Tech company like Microsoft.

Small Update

As of March 6, 2025, US District Judge Iain D. Johnston, who is overseeing the case, rejected John Deere’s claims of privacy issues and ordered the company to turn over all communications between it and third-party equipment and trade associations the company is part of. These documents are believed to contain discussions around defending equipment design, potentially providing important information to the FTC regarding John Deere’s methods towards preventing self-repair.¹⁶ This decision could be a sign that the case is shifting in favor of the plaintiffs.

Conclusion

The FTC v. Deere & Company case represents a significant step in the right-to-repair movement. Addressing monopolistic practices helps restore consumer power and promote competition in the marketplace. Although the outcome of the case remains uncertain due to political influences and the current administration’s priorities, the momentum of the right-to-repair movement has not vanished. This will not be the only case with the potential to set new legal precedents in the realm of product repair and maintenance.

1.  Rainer Hofmann, Software in Tractors: Aspects of Development, Maintenance and Support, CLUB OF BOLOGNA (Oct. 23, 2008), https://www.clubofbologna.org/ew/documents/Software%20in%20Tractors%20Aspects%20of%20Development%20Maintenance%20and%20Support%20-%20part%201.pdf.
   ↩︎
2. About the FTC, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc (last visited Mar. 14, 2025). ↩︎
3. Biden administration steps up antitrust enforcement, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (Nov. 2021), https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2021/11/antitrust-enforcement. ↩︎
4. Global net sales and revenues of John Deere from 2001 to 2024 (in million U.S. dollars), STATISTA (Jan. 30, 2025), https://www.statista.com/statistics/271865/john-deere-net-sales-and-revenues-since-2001. ↩︎
5. Iris Kim, The right-to-repair movement is growing as wins stack up, NBC NEWS (Mar. 9, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/right-repair-movement-growing-wins-stack-rcna195230. ↩︎
6.  Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Deere & Co., No. 3:25-cv-50017, 2025 FTC 211 0191, at 2–6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 15, 2025).
   ↩︎
7.  Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (2025). ↩︎
8.  See supra note 3. ↩︎
9. See supra note 4. ↩︎
10.  Deere & Company Responds to Complaint from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, DEERE & CO. NEWSROOM (Jan. 15, 2025), https://www.deere.com/en/news/all-news/deere-responds-to-ftc-complaint.. ↩︎
11.  Janhoi McGregor, FTC Takes On Deere & Co. In New Right-To-Repair Fight, FORBES (Jan. 16, 2025), https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaymcgregor/2025/01/16/ftc-deere–company-right-to-repair-lawsuit-john-deere. ↩︎
12. Melissa Holyoak, Remarks at GCR Live: Law Leaders Global 2025, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (Jan. 30, 2025), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2025-02-04-holyoak-remarksr-for-global-competition-review-event.pdf. ↩︎
13. See supra note 12. ↩︎
14. Reuters, Trump’s FTC won’t drop broad antitrust probe of Microsoft: Report, NEW YORK POST (Mar. 12, 2025), https://nypost.com/2025/03/12/business/trumps-ftc-moves-ahead-with-broad-antitrust-probe-of-microsoft-report/. ↩︎
15. Taylor Herzlich, FTC to investigate Microsoft’s cloud unit on antitrust concerns in last hurrah under Biden, NEW YORK POST (Nov. 14, 2024), https://nypost.com/2024/11/14/business/ftc-to-investigate-microsofts-cloud-unit-on-antitrust-concerns/. ↩︎
16. Court Orders John Deere to Disclose Trade Group Communications to Farmers in Repair Case, NORTHERN AG NETWORK (Mar. 6, 2025), https://www.northernag.net/court-orders-john-deere-to-disclose-trade-group-communications-to-farmers-in-repair-case/. ↩︎