Right to Repair - Issues and Proposals

THE ISSUE

Back in 2010 Apple introduced on the brand-new iPhone 4 the pentalobe screw, a flower-shaped fastener unseen before, for which at first there were no screwdrivers available to the public. It effectively made opening the phone way more complicated for the average consumer than it had ever been before.

Even though now it seems an insignificant change, it was the first step of what became a typical behaviour for the brand: making its products as difficult as possible to repair.

But while a decade ago the biggest challenge was hostile hardware, now it’s “hostile software”: most specifically parts pairing. This means that some components have a unique serial number, which is combined by the manufacturer to a single device using software. Therefore, if a component breaks, its substitute has to be paired again by the manufacturer or it will lose some of its functionalities.

A prime example of this is the iPhone battery: third party repairs severely impair the performance of the entire phone, as pop-ups and notifications will appear frequently, and “battery health” is permanently disabled. All of this even if the replacement is an original Apple battery.

While it could be understood why this caution is applied to non-original part replacements - a worse battery or display could create problems ranging from a worse user experience to a completely unusable device, having the same logic applied to authentic components seems to lose its purpose.

UNNECESSARY E-WASTE

Be it because the market is becoming more sensible to sustainability, be it because the price of technology has risen sharply over the years, the sales of refurbished iPhones are on the rise. But, by hindering the capabilities of repaired phones, also the cost of refurbished products as a whole increases, since the service fee has to account for not only original components, but also an authorised repair. Furthermore, even when customers buy third-party repaired iPhones, product returns have gone up since they tend to lose trust in the device - and understandably so, since unoriginal component warnings tend to sound quite scary. Marie Castelli, public affairs manager at Backmarket, one of the leading sellers of refurbished phones, stated that “even when explained that these messages are mainly a warning message and do not affect the functionality, we see a share of customers returning the product”.

Another issue arises when the original manufacturer ceases to produce pieces for older models, leaving the customer to choose whether to buy a newer generation or remain with a half-broken device.

This leads to unnecessary discarding of still functioning phones, which add up to the 50 million tons of e-waste produced globally each year.

THE PROPOSAL

On the 22nd of March, the European Commission put forward a proposal on common rules promoting the repair of goods, as part of the framework of the European Green Deal.

Within the legal guarantee, sellers would be required to offer repair instead of replacement if it proves to be less expensive - a stark contrast to Apple's tendency to swap out malfunctioning iPhones brought by customers with new ones. Beyond the legal guarantee, customers would still be able to claim repair from the manufacturer, or be able, through an “online matchmaking repair platform”, to connect to third-party repairers in their area. In addition, customers would be able to require a European Repair Information Form to compare offers and inquire about procedural details.

The proposal amends Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive, and would complement other acts issued by the EU to promote sustainable consumption: namely the Directive on Empowering customers for the green transition and the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products regulation.

But the piece of legislation that drew most attention in recent times was the EU battery regulation (Regulation 2023/1542), which officially requires all smartphones to have replaceable batteries by 2027. “Replaceable” is intended as easily removable and changeable by the consumer, so no technical expertise should be needed, effectively rendering useless the costly battery repairs issued by phone sellers. Original sellers would also be forced to produce batteries for at least five years after a model is discontinued, and sell them at a reasonable price. While it will be effective just in the European Union, it would make less sense for manufacturers to produce two different series of products, one complying with the Regulation for the European market and one for everywhere else, so it is sure to have global ramifications.

A behavioural study issued by the Commission in 2018 highlighted how customers, when asked, were generally favourable in taking part in circular economy practices, but that actual engagement was much lower than expected, as one third of the respondent had never repaired products in the past, and a staggering 90% would consider themselves inexperienced in regards of second-hand products. The Commission’s conclusion was that one of the reasons for this disconnection might be the sellers’ reticence to give information on product durability and repairability, and the scarcity of markets for refurbished electronics.

ANY JUSTIFICATIONS FOR PARTS PAIRING?

Security is probably the argument most used by original manufacturers to discourage third-party repairs. However, thinking that Apple would be immune to bad actors would be naive, as in 2016 authorised Apple contractors posted a customer’s nude pictures on Facebook after she had sent in her iPhone for reparations. This happened also to other tech giants, such as Google and Best Buy, so the only true snoop-proof solution would be to do a backup and factory reset the device. Otherwise, if Apple’s goal is to prevent personal data leaks, they could implement a solution like Samsung’s repair mode, which prevents technicians from accessing the customers’ private information.

Another angle that Apple has taken in defending parts pairing is that of customer safety, as unofficial parts could cause the phone to malfunction.

While surely poorly made components exist, removing parts pairing seems a necessary step in promoting a free market, where the customer is free to choose the option that best suits their needs and budget.

As the market would become more competitive, Apple would be forced to lower the price of its parts, which would be not a total loss for them either: while they would lose a margin of profit for each single part, they would gain a market share that currently buys non-genuine pieces because of the cost.

It must be said that, recently, Apple has made a step towards self-service repairs. Though, more than a step it is actually a little, cautious poke: the Independent Repair Provider program, which allows users to purchase genuine Apple parts and assemble them on their own. However, the catch is huge: disclosure of customers’ personal information, including address and phone number, consent to surprise inspections and a deposit fee for equipment of nearly 1.200 euros.

After all, the real reason original manufacturers push for parts pairing is quite clear: profit. And while it’s easy to only see Apple as the biggest offender, other companies are already jumping on the bandwagon in a more subtle way: Sony’s PS5 disc drive is paired to the motherboard, and Microsoft’s Xbox One’s as well, while. HP had tried discouraging the use of other brands’ printer ink with error messages.

By preventing third party repairs, the customer will turn again to the original brand: either for an authorised repair or to buy an entirely new product. It tries to cut out the competition and it prevents the buyer from exercising in full form their right of property: as customers can do less and less with their device without turning to the original brand for help, it starts to feel less like a purchase and more like a lease.

Ludovica Mazzei

---

I contenuti degli articoli rappresentano esclusivamente le idee e le opinioni degli autori, e in nessun modo i punti di vista dell'Università Bocconi.