Analyses / Public Summary / 119 · HR 7404 Public Summary

119-HR-7404 Journalist Public Summary

119 · HR 7404 Fair Repair Act

A federal “Right to Repair” bill for consumer electronics would require manufacturers to sell parts and tools and share repair information on fair terms, ban software locks known as “parts pairing,” and let the FTC and state attorneys general enforce it; consumer advocates broadly back the idea, while some device makers warn about security risks. (morelle.house.gov)

Published
06 Feb 2026
Updated
06 Feb 2026
Tags
public-summary · right-to-repair · consumer-protection
Unvetted
01 · Section

Headline Summary

The Fair Repair Act (H.R. 7404) would give consumers and independent shops the right to fix most digital devices by requiring manufacturers to provide parts, tools, and repair info on fair terms—and by banning software locks (“parts pairing”) that block third‑party repairs.

02 · Section

What It Does

- Requires original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of digital electronic equipment to make documentation, parts, and tools—including software updates—available to owners and independent repair providers on “fair and reasonable” terms. - Prohibits “parts pairing” and similar software tactics that block otherwise-working replacement parts, reduce functionality after non‑OEM repairs, or force non-dismissible warnings. - Bars OEMs from limiting who can buy parts or do repairs, and from charging extra later because a device was repaired independently. - Enforcement: treats violations as unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act; authorizes both the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to enforce. - Limits liability for OEMs for damage or data loss resulting from independent repairs; clarifies no obligation to warranty independent repairs. - Important carve‑outs: the bill does not apply to motor vehicles or motor‑vehicle equipment, medical devices, off‑/non‑road vehicles (e.g., aircraft, ATVs, UTVs, marine craft, recreational/racing vehicles), or safety communications gear used by emergency services. - Effective date: 60 days after enactment; applies to covered equipment sold or in use on or after that date.

03 · Section

Who’s For It

  • Sponsors: Rep. Joe Morelle (D‑NY) and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D‑WA) introduced the bill on February 5, 2026.
  • Consumer and repair advocates: Consumer Reports, Repair.org, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, U.S. PIRG and the National Farmers Union publicly supported prior versions, arguing it lowers costs, expands choice, and cuts e‑waste; PIRG has estimated household savings from a federal standard. (morelle.house.gov)
  • Regulators’ direction: The FTC unanimously voted in 2021 to prioritize enforcement against unlawful repair restrictions and issued the “Nixing the Fix” report documenting common barriers and limited evidence of safety risks from independent repair. (ftc.gov)
  • State momentum: Similar right‑to‑repair laws have passed—California’s SB 244 (2023), Minnesota’s Digital Fair Repair Act (effective July 1, 2024), and Oregon’s SB 1596 (effective Jan. 1, 2025, and notable for curbing parts‑pairing). Supporters cite these as workable models. (a38.asmdc.org)
04 · Section

Who’s Against It

  • Some device makers—most prominently Apple—argue that banning parts‑pairing could weaken safety, privacy, and anti‑theft protections (e.g., biometric sensors). Apple opposed Oregon’s parts‑pairing ban while separately announcing support for used genuine parts within its own ecosystem. (arstechnica.com)
  • Industry groups caution about intellectual‑property and security risks if sensitive service tools are broadly shared, urging guardrails rather than strict mandates. (itic.org)
05 · Section

What’s Next

Status as of February 6, 2026: H.R. 7404 was introduced on February 5, 2026 and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Next steps typically include subcommittee hearings and markups before any House floor vote, then Senate consideration. For context, a similar Morelle bill in the previous Congress (H.R. 8544, 118th) was referred to subcommittee but did not advance. (congress.gov)

Discussion