Tech Firms Challenge Colorado’s Right-to-Repair Law
▼ Summary
– Colorado has passed the broadest right-to-repair laws in the US, covering items like wheelchairs, farm equipment, and electronics.
– A new Colorado bill, SB26-090, aims to exempt critical infrastructure IT equipment from the state’s existing right-to-repair protections.
– Major tech manufacturers like Cisco and IBM support the exemption bill, citing cybersecurity and intellectual property concerns.
– Repair advocates oppose the bill, arguing its terms like “critical infrastructure” are vague and cynically broad, potentially covering general internet equipment.
– The bill has advanced from a committee to the Colorado state senate and house for a vote.
A significant shift is underway in the United States as right-to-repair legislation advances, with Colorado emerging as a national leader. The state has pioneered a series of laws since 2022, empowering consumers with the manuals, tools, and legal rights to repair everything from wheelchairs and farm equipment to personal electronics. This movement has inspired similar legislative efforts across the country, with bills introduced in every state and enacted in eight. “Colorado has the broadest repair rights in the country,” notes Danny Katz, executive director of the consumer advocacy group CoPIRG. “We should be proud of leading the way.”
Manufacturers, however, often resist these measures. Their business models frequently rely on revenue from proprietary tools, parts, and authorized service networks, which would be undermined by widespread independent repair. While some companies have acquiesced to making products more fixable, others are now actively contesting new laws.
This conflict reached a new stage recently when Colorado’s Senate Business, Labor, and Technology committee voted unanimously to advance Senate Bill SB26-090. Titled “Exempt Critical Infrastructure from Right to Repair,” the proposal now moves to the full state senate and house for consideration. The bill seeks to modify Colorado’s existing Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment Act, which took effect in January 2026. Its goal is to create an exemption for “information technology equipment that is intended for use in critical infrastructure.”
Major technology firms like Cisco and IBM, according to lobbying records, support the bill. These companies manufacture routers, servers, and enterprise computing systems, and they profit from controlling the repair process for these products. They argue that cybersecurity risks justify the exemption, contending that providing repair tools and access could also equip malicious actors to compromise vital systems. This security argument is a common refrain from manufacturers opposing right-to-repair laws.
An IBM spokesperson stated the company supports policies that “empower consumers while protecting cybersecurity, intellectual property, and critical infrastructure,” adding that legislation should be “clearly scoped to consumer devices.” A Cisco representative testified in support of SB-90, saying, “While it appreciates the arguments offered in favor of the right to repair, not all digital technology devices are equal.”
The hearing featured strong opposition from more than a dozen repair advocates representing organizations like PIRG, the Repair Association, and iFixit, including prominent YouTuber Louis Rossmann. Critics argue the bill’s language is intentionally vague, designed to allow manufacturers to retain control over a wide array of products. The central point of contention is the broad, undefined use of the terms “information technology” and “critical infrastructure.”
Nathan Proctor, who leads PIRG’s national right-to-repair campaign, calls the terminology deeply cynical. “It sounds scary to lawmakers, but it just means the internet,” he explains. While not explicitly defined in the bill, “information technology” typically refers to equipment like servers and routers. “Critical infrastructure” borrows from a 2001 federal definition describing systems so vital that their destruction would debilitate national security, economic security, or public health and safety. Repair advocates fear this expansive language could be used to exempt a vast range of devices from consumer repair rights.
(Source: Wired)