In the latest twist to the ongoing battle between John Deere (JD) and various organisations striving to maintain or even fully re-establish the ‘right to repair‘ JD branded machinery, a court in Illinois has rejected the company’s latest attempt to block the case from going ahead.
The action centred around the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) right-to-repair antitrust lawsuit against John Deere, filed in January 2025, which opened with the the following statement:
For decades, Defendant Deere & Company, a manufacturer of large agricultural equipment including tractors and combines, has throttled the ability of farmers and independent repair providers (“IRPs”) to repair Deere equipment, leaving farmers wholly reliant upon Deere’s network of authorized dealers for key repairs.
The lawsuit goes on to allege that JD violates antitrust laws in not giving farmers and independent mechanics the necessary tools to repair the brand’s tractors and combines.
This is a reference to the diagnostic software that JD provides to its own authorised dealers.
Northern Illinois
The FTC asked the US District Court for the District of Northern Illinois to issue a permanent injunction against Deere, which the presiding judge, Iain D. Johnston, upheld despite Deere attempting to block proceedings.
Deere had put forward several objections, most of them legal technicalities, but it also offered a new argument.
The company argued that the plaintiffs failed to plead a “cognisable aftermarket” and that farmers had full knowledge of Deere’s decades-long repair practices when they bought equipment.
That is to say, the FTC had not defined exactly who had suffered as a result and even if customers had sustained injury, it was a voluntary imposition, because they would have been aware of John Deere’s policy before buying.
Past statement on repair
This view may be compared to a statement issued by Deere last January, in which it stated that the lawsuit ignores the company’s long-standing commitment to customer self-repair.
Machinery dealers in the US are often very far apart, which means many farmers have little practical choice other than to purchase John Deere equipment.
This point was emphasised by the judge, who noted that Deere is able to charge supra-competitive prices because of the lack of any alternatives for farming customers.
Technology trap
The judge further added that, through adding technology to its equipment, the company makes farmers reliant on its own software to effect repairs
By licensing that software only to authorised dealers, the judge decided that farmers are obliged to use John Deere workshops rather than closer, or cheaper, options.
After the hearing, Deere & Company issued a statement in which it stated: “The complaint is based on flagrant misrepresentations of the facts and fatally flawed legal theories and it punishes innovation and procompetitive-product design,”
The battles over the ‘right to repair’ are as yet far from over, it would appear.
