FTC’s John Deere Settlement Signals Scrutiny of Aftermarket Repair Restrictions

On July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), together with the State Attorneys General for Illinois, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin announced a proposed settlement resolving their January 2025 lawsuit against John Deere & Company (John Deere) alleging that John Deere unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ (IRPs) access to key repair tools and software capabilities for its large tractors. The proposed settlement requires John Deere to provide farmers and IRPs with access to a broad range of repair resources that John Deere previously only provided to its authorized dealer network. 

Key Takeaways 

• A Victory for the “Right to Repair” Movement. Companies that limit access to repair tools, diagnostics, software, technical information, or other aftermarket resources should be aware of heightened FTC scrutiny and ensure they can articulate and substantiate the business justifications for any restrictions that limit the ability of owners or third parties to service aftermarket products.
• Pocketbook Issues Remain a Focus. This settlement reflects the FTC’s continued focus on antitrust enforcement in sectors which impact prices for everyday consumer goods and costs for small businesses.
• Behavioral Remedies Are on the Table. Although current FTC leadership has stated that behavioral remedies should be treated with “substantial caution” because they may be difficult to monitor and enforce, this settlement demonstrates that conduct-based consent orders remain an option to resolve competitive concerns. 

Background on the Proposed Settlement 

The proposed order requires John Deere to provide farmers and IRPs with the same repair resources that it currently provides to authorized John Deere dealers, including applicable software capabilities. Those resources include electronic repair tools and other software capabilities used to service John Deere agricultural equipment containing embedded digital electronics. 

Notably, the proposed order goes beyond simply requiring John Deere to make repair resources available. The order requires John Deere to provide those resources on “fair and reasonable terms,” accounting for affordability of the tools for farmers and IRPs. In evaluating whether terms are fair and reasonable, John Deere must consider several factors, including: (1) the net cost paid by John Deere dealers for comparable access; (2) John Deere’s costs for preparing, maintaining, and distributing the resource; (3) prices charged by other agricultural equipment manufacturers for similar resources; (4) the ability of farmers and IRPs to afford the resource; (5) the method of distribution; (6) the extent to which the resource is used; and (7) inflation. According to the FTC, these provisions are intended to prevent John Deere from making repair tools technically available while pricing them in a manner that effectively makes them unavailable for farmers and IRPs. 

This parity requirement extends beyond John Deere’s current repair offerings. Under the proposed order, John Deere must also make available “any successor products, versions, improvements, additions, upgrades, or updates to” its repair resources, as well as future repair tools and resources that are similar to or reasonably necessary for repairing John Deere equipment. Once a new repair tool or repair resource is made available to more than 50 percent of John Deere’s authorized dealer locations in the United States, John Deere generally must provide that tool—or an equivalent capability—to farmers and IRPs as well. The FTC has explained that the 50-percent threshold reflects the point at which a tool is no longer experimental or in a pilot phase and instead is likely to affect competition in repair services. 

The proposed order also contains provisions aimed at ensuring that farmers and IRPs can make use of those resources in practice. John Deere must instruct its authorized dealers to promote the availability of repair resources and not “discriminate or retaliate in any way, including in the sales, financing, or servicing of Deere Agricultural Equipment, tools, or parts, against any Owner or IRP that purchases Repair Resources or Future Repair Resources or engages in repair of Deere Agricultural Equipment.” 

Reporting, Monitoring, and Enforcement 

To facilitate oversight, the proposed order imposes both compliance and reporting obligations. John Deere must submit an initial compliance report within 30 days after the order is entered and, while John Deere is carrying out the order’s required rollout of repair resources to farmers and IRPs, it must submit reports every 60 days. Once the rollout is complete, John Deere must submit annual compliance reports for the remainder of the order’s ten-year term. Those reports must be supported by facts and documentation, and must address, among other things, John Deere’s progress in providing repair resources, newly released repair tools, complaints relating to repair access, allegations of dealer retaliation or discrimination, the pricing and terms associated with repair resources, and John Deere’s justification for those pricing decisions under the order’s fair and reasonable terms factors. 

The order also requires interim reporting in certain circumstances. If John Deere makes a new repair tool available to more than 50 percent of its dealer network without corresponding plans to make that tool—or an equivalent capability—available to farmers and IRPs, John Deere must promptly notify the FTC and submit an interim compliance report describing the tool, its purpose, and its reasons for withholding access. This conditional compliance reporting requirement is similar to the one employed by the FTC in its merger consent order for the 365 Retail/Cantaloupe transaction for interoperability with third parties (discussed in more detail in our prior blog post). 

The proposed order would remain in effect for ten years. In addition to annual and interim reporting, the FTC and the plaintiff states may request further compliance information as necessary. The order also contains enforcement provisions that survive its expiration. For four years after the order terminates, the FTC or any plaintiff state may seek enforcement if it possesses evidence that John Deere violated the order before expiration. Available remedies include extending the duration of the order, contempt sanctions, additional compliance measures, and recovery of fees and expenses.

Key Implications Going Forward 

A key issue going forward will be how the FTC monitors the order’s requirement that repair resources be provided on “fair and reasonable terms”. Because the pricing standard is based on a flexible set of factors rather than a bright-line rule, the FTC retains discretion to assess John Deere’s pricing if complaints arise regarding the affordability or availability of repair resources. More broadly, companies that rely on aftermarket restrictions should take note that the FTC is scrutinizing these limitations on access to repair tools, software, and related services, and may wish to evaluate the risks associated with those practices.

To receive the latest insights on US legal developments, subscribe to the Freshfields A Fresh Take Blog.