FTC and private plaintiffs reach settlements with Deere over right-to-repair restrictions

Special thanks to summer associate Regina Loayza for her work on this article.

Deere & Company’s long-running dispute over agricultural equipment repairs reached a significant milestone in July 2026, when both private plaintiffs and federal and state regulators reached settlements aimed at expanding farmers’ ability to repair Deere equipment. Taken together, the agreements represent one of the most significant developments to date in the broader “right-to-repair” movement affecting the agricultural sector.

The litigation stemmed from allegations that Deere maintained control over the repair of its tractors, combines, planters, and other agricultural equipment by restricting access to critical diagnostic software, repair tools, and embedded software capabilities. Farmers and independent repair providers argued that these restrictions forced equipment owners to rely on Deere’s authorized dealer network for many repairs, increasing costs and creating delays during critical planting and harvesting seasons.

Two cases, one core issue

The first action, In re Deere & Company Repair Services Antitrust Litigation, was filed by farmers and other private plaintiffs in 2022 and consolidated as multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs alleged that Deere violated federal antitrust laws by designing agricultural equipment in a manner that required Deere-controlled software and equipment to diagnose and complete various repairs, effectively steering customers to authorized dealerships. According to the plaintiffs, Deere’s practices limited competition in the repair market and increased repair costs for equipment owners.

The second action, Federal Trade Commission et al. v. Deere & Co., was filed in January 2025 by the FTC and the states of Illinois, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The FTC and the states alleged that Deere unlawfully maintained a monopoly over repair services for Deere agricultural equipment by withholding repair capabilities from farmers and independent repair providers in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 5 of the FTC Act, and state antitrust laws.

FTC settlement focuses on expanding repair access

After the parties engaged in discovery and subsequently obtained a stay to continue settlement discussions, Deere and the government plaintiffs filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Relief on July 8, 2026. The proposed order resolves all claims asserted by the FTC and participating states without Deere admitting liability.

At the center of the FTC settlement is a requirement that Deere provide equipment owners and independent repair providers access to repair resources equivalent to those made available to Deere dealers. Under the order, Deere must make those resources available on “fair and reasonable terms” through licenses, subscriptions, or purchases.

The settlement’s definition of repair resources is extensive. It includes access to diagnostic trouble codes, diagnostic testing, software programming and reprogramming capabilities, replacement of electronic control units, embedded software installation, equipment calibration tools, technical manuals, schematics, troubleshooting information, warranty information, recall notices, and Deere’s Dealer Technical Assistance Center solutions. The order also requires access to capabilities necessary to return equipment to fully functional condition in accordance with factory specifications.

Importantly, the order extends beyond currently available tools. Deere must also provide “future repair resources”—including successor products, upgrades, updates, and newly developed repair tools—once such resources have been deployed to more than 50% of Deere dealer locations in the United States.

Dealer obligations and anti-retaliation provisions

The FTC settlement also places obligations on Deere’s dealer network. Deere must instruct dealers to promote and support repair resources and to sell those resources to owners and independent repair providers regardless of whether they purchase repair services from the dealership. Dealers are further prohibited from discriminating against or retaliating against equipment owners or independent repair providers that perform repairs or purchase Deere’s repair tools. This prohibition extends to the sale, financing, and servicing of Deere equipment, parts, and tools, subject to ordinary business considerations such as geographic location, creditworthiness, and legal compliance.

These provisions reflect the FTC’s broader concern that meaningful repair access requires not only the availability of software tools but also the ability of customers and independent technicians to obtain those tools without interference from authorized dealers.

Compliance and oversight

The stipulated order contains substantial compliance measures. Deere must provide notice of the settlement to owners, independent repair providers, and dealers, post information regarding the settlement on its website, and submit periodic compliance reports to the FTC and participating states. Initially, Deere must report every 60 days until the rollout of the required repair resources is complete and then provide annual reports for an additional nine years. The order remains in effect for 10 years and grants regulators ongoing authority to monitor compliance and seek enforcement if Deere fails to meet its obligations.

In addition, Deere agreed to pay $1 million to the plaintiff states to cover costs and attorneys’ fees associated with the litigation.

FTC Bureau of Competition Director Daniel Guarnera has indicated that the agency intends to continue challenging anticompetitive restrictions that limit consumers’ right to repair, suggesting that the Deere settlement may serve as a model for future enforcement efforts involving software-enabled products.

Relationship to the class action settlement

The private antitrust litigation resulted in a separate settlement. Under that agreement, Deere committed to provide owners and independent repair providers with digital repair tools for a 10-year period and agreed to establish a $99 million settlement fund, plus accrued interest, for the benefit of the settlement class.

On July 9, 2026, the court preliminarily approved the class settlement and directed the parties to submit briefing comparing the injunctive relief available under the class settlement and the FTC settlement by July 27, 2026. Both matters are pending before U.S. District Judge Iain D. Johnston in the Northern District of Illinois.

Key takeaways

• Right-to-repair enforcement is gaining momentum. The FTC’s lawsuit and settlement demonstrate that regulators are willing to challenge restrictions on repair tools, software, and technical information that are perceived to limit competition in aftermarket repair markets.
• Agricultural equipment manufacturers should review repair-access policies. Companies that limit access to diagnostic tools, software updates, repair manuals, or parts may face increased scrutiny from regulators and private plaintiffs.
• Government enforcement and private litigation can create parallel exposure. Here, Deere faced both an FTC enforcement action resulting in extensive injunctive relief and a separate class action settlement that includes a $99 million fund for class members.
• The settlement may serve as a roadmap for future right-to-repair disputes. Agricultural, construction, and other equipment manufacturers should expect continued focus on ensuring owners and independent repair providers have access to the tools needed to maintain and repair equipment.

Jay represents agriculture producers, cooperatives, and other agribusinesses in antitrust and consumer protection matters. He can be reached at 202.778.3021 or jlevine@porterwright.com.