Colorado has led the US on legislation that ensures people can fix their stuff. Manufacturers tried to claw back that control but ultimately failed—for now:
A controversial bill in Colorado that would have undone some repair protections in the state has failed. The bill had been the target of right-to-repair advocates, who saw it as a bellwether for how tech companies might try to undo repair legislation more broadly in the US.
Colorado's landmark 2024 repair law, the Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment , went into effect in January 2026 and ensured access to tools and documentation people needed to modify and fix digital electronics such as phones, computers, and Wi-Fi routers. The new bill, SB26-090 , would have carved out an exception to those repair protections for "critical infrastructure," a loosely defined term that repair advocates worried could be applied to just about any technology.
SB26-090 was introduced during a Colorado Senate hearing on April 2 and was supported by lobbying efforts from companies such as Cisco and IBM. It passed that hearing unanimously. The bill then passed in the Colorado Senate on April 16. On Monday evening, the bill was discussed in a long, delayed hearing in the Colorado House's State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. Dozens of supporters and detractors gave public comments. Finally, the bill was shot down in a 7-to-4 vote and classified as postponed indefinitely.
Danny Katz, executive director of the local nonprofit consumer advocacy group CoPIRG, says the battle was a group effort. Speaking against the bill were a cohort of repair advocates from organizations such as PIRG , Repair.org , iFixit , Consumer Reports , and local businesses and environmental groups like Blue Star Recyclers , Recycle Colorado , Environment Colorado , and GreenLatinos .
[...] Supporters of the bill, backed by companies like Cisco, had pointed to the potential for cybersecurity risks as their motivation for altering the law's language. If companies were required to make repair tools available to anyone, the theory goes, what's to stop bad actors from using those tools to reverse engineer critical technology like Internet routers? Withholding those tools, they posited, would make them less available to hackers who could misuse them. Advocates of the bill said that companies should be allowed to keep their secrets if it ensured security, though that argument starts to fall apart with a little scrutiny.
At one point in the hearing, Democrat Chad Clifford, a Colorado state representative and the House committee's vice chair who was also a prime sponsor of the bill, pointed to what appeared to be a reference to Cloudflare's very public use of a wall of lava lamps to help randomize Internet encryption, citing that as an example of the need for sensitive systems to be inscrutable to be secure.
"I don't know why anybody has to have lava lamps on a wall to keep the Chinese from getting into a network, but it's what they came up with that worked," Clifford said. "How they do that, I believe they should be able to keep it a secret, even in Colorado."
The problem with that argument, as cybersecurity experts pointed out during the hearing, is that the vast majority of hacks are not carried out via replacement parts or by taking apart individual machines. They're remote hacks, where the attacker makes changes in real time, and the people defending have to make changes on the fly without worrying about acquiring permission from the company that makes the equipment.
"There is no time," cybersecurity expert and white hat hacker Billy Rios said during the hearing. "It doesn't work that way."
Besides the cybersecurity argument, the other point of contention was the economics of angering the big tech companies that have invested in the state.
"They're not going to comply and give away the keys to their kingdom for the things that are securing billions of dollars of interest for their customers over the law that we passed," Clifford said. "What they're going to do is just not have commerce on those items here."
That argument didn't carry enough weight to change the vote in supporters' favor. By the end of the hearing, it was clear that everyone was exhausted and not entirely clear on how exactly the new bill and amendments would pan out.
"What are we really trying to do here?" said Colorado Representative Naquetta Ricks in her no vote at the end of the hearing. "Are we protecting just one company, or are we looking at really critical infrastructure? I'm not convinced."
Previously:
• Tech Companies Are Trying to Neuter Colorado's Landmark Right-to-Repair Law
• Right to Repair Laws Have Now Been Introduced in All 50 US States
Related Stories
https://www.ifixit.com/News/108371/right-to-repair-laws-have-now-been-introduced-in-all-50-us-states
With the introduction of a bill in Wisconsin, Right to Repair legislation has now been introduced in every single US state.
We've been fighting for the simple right to fix everything we own for the last eleven years—and we've been joined in that fight by more and more advocates, tinkerers, farmers, students, and lawmakers. Today, that movement has touched every corner of the country. Lawmakers in every state in the union have filed legislation demanding access to the parts, tools, and documentation we need for repair. This year alone, legislation is active in 24 states.
Some of those laws have passed: Five states (New York, California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado) have passed electronics Right to Repair legislation. One in five Americans lives in a state that has passed Right to Repair—and the remaining states are working hard to restore repair competition.
[...] "This is more than a legislative landmark—it's a tipping point. We've gone from a handful of passionate advocates to a nationwide call for repair autonomy," said Kyle Wiens, CEO of iFixit. "People are fed up with disposable products and locked-down devices. Repair is the future, and this moment proves it."
Right-to-repair efforts are gaining headway in the US. A lot of that movement has been led by state legislation in Colorado.
Since 2022, Colorado has passed bills giving users the tools, instructions, and legal capabilities to fix or upgrade their own wheelchairs, agricultural farming equipment, and consumer electronics. Similar efforts have rippled out through the country, where repair bills have been introduced in every US state and passed in eight of them.
"Colorado has the broadest repair rights in the country," says Danny Katz, executive director CoPIRG, the Colorado branch of the consumer advocate group Pirg. "We should be proud of leading the way."
Manufacturers tend to be less supportive of right-to-repair efforts, as corporations stand to make more money charging for tools, replacement parts, and repair services than if they were to just let people fix things on their own. Some companies have begrudgingly agreed to make their products more repairable. Some have started actively pushing back against new laws intended to enable that.
At Friday's hearing of the Colorado Senate Business, Labor, and Technology committee, lawmakers voted unanimously to move Colorado state bill SB26-090—titled Exempt Critical Infrastructure from Right to Repair—out of committee and into the state senate and house for a vote.
The bill modifies Colorado's Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment act, which was passed in 2024 and went into effect in January 2026. While the protections secured by that act are wide, the new SB26-090 bill aims to "exempt information technology equipment that is intended for use in critical infrastructure from Colorado's consumer right to repair laws."
The bill is supported by tech manufacturers like Cisco and IBM, according to lobbying disclosures. These are companies that have vested interests in manufacturing things like routers, server equipment, and computers and stand to profit if they can control who fixes their products and the tools, components, and software used to make those upgrades and repairs. They also cite cybersecurity concerns, saying that giving people access to the tools and systems they would need to repair a device could also enable bad actors to use those methods for nefarious means. (This is a common argument manufacturers make when opposing right-to-repair laws.)
"IBM supports right-to-repair policies that empower consumers while protecting cybersecurity, intellectual property, and critical infrastructure," wrote an IBM spokesperson in an email to WIRED. "Given the critical and often sensitive nature of enterprise-level products, any legislation should be clearly scoped to consumer devices."
Cisco did not respond to WIRED's request for comment, but in the hearing a Cisco representative said, "Cisco supports SB-90. While it appreciates the arguments offered in favor of the right to repair, not all digital technology devices are equal."
During the hearing, more than a dozen repair advocates spoke from organizations like Pirg, the Repair Association, and iFixit opposing the bill. YouTuber and repair advocate Louis Rossmann was there [videos not reviewed -Ed]. The main problem, repair advocates say, is that the bill deliberately uses vague language to make the case for controlling who can fix their products.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Rich on Friday May 01, @08:37PM
Is the guy actually that clueless, or was that a last-minute save to just appear "clueless but harmless"?
(Score: 2, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 01, @08:43PM
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise...
Thank you for playing, better luck next time.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01, @08:49PM
Only if the supporters of the bill are not reelected, otherwise, all bets are off, and we can expect more drama further down the road. And notice, you will find no partisan advantage here.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by anubi on Saturday May 02, @01:36AM (9 children)
Law should not be a "Chinese Finger Trap", only tightening.
I feel reconsideration of existing patent law is due to include changes in the economy, landfills, wealth distribution, ability to earn an income ( by legal work, not simply assessing someone else ) . Do we really need to build a new thing instead of just repairing the broken one?
Jobs? My first "real" job ( i.e. not just mowing neighbor's lawns ) was being a technician at Ocean City Electric, learning how radios worked and how to fix them. Jobs like mine were sacrificed to fuel the import industry.
I see a basic problem with how we craft law. Those who have what they want place nothing at risk by continuing to hammer away, piece by piece, until they get everything they want, without risking what they already have.
I learned this little bit in traffic court, where I knew I was innocent for that which I was cited. I had broken no law. I was already into this to the tune of about $500 in legal advice and opportunity costs ( lost work ). They made it clear to me if I brought up a trial by judge, I would forfeit my ability to have my "points" cancelled by attending traffic school .
Apparently, this is legal to do this.
So, do this for law too. If you want to chip away someone else's rights, put the rights already lobbied for and won at risk.
Maybe patent law and copyright should not apply to replacement parts.
By lobbying to have existing law added to, get of some of it as well.
Why should patent law apply to replacements anyway?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 02, @01:48AM (8 children)
>Do we really need to build a new thing instead of just repairing the broken one?
You mean: "Give away the razor, bleed 'em dry on the cost of blades?" Why, yes... it is the corporation's duty to the shareholder to use the psychological data driven profit maximization strategies bestowed upon them through the ages, and that's the biggest one: people carefully weigh "capital equipment purchases" but hardly think about "easily affordable purchases" - apparently including $6 coffee drinks from Dunkin Donuts. If you're not making your product consumable, or disposable, you're not maximizing ROI.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by anubi on Saturday May 02, @10:31AM (7 children)
Where I draw the line is I claim my right to do my own thing, even if someone else has claimed a patent / copyright on it, whether it be cooking a meal, making a run of moonshine, brewing a cup of coffee, fixing my own machinery, whatever.
I consider it nebulous at best about claiming rights to a song. This is almost like asking me to support rights about showing others how to change a tire, then expecting royalties from everyone else to do this.
What if I placed an "electronic lock" in someone's car which interfered with operation until my demand was satisfied? Is he guilty of a DMCA Violation if he simply hotwired my electronic lock out?
Seems when I work for someone, it's expected to be a "work for hire", yet I am expected to honor not really owning that which I have purchased? Sure, I will honor monopolies of scale, no questions asked. Anything think I can compete with a machine making light bulbs? The only reason free enterprise works so well is that the most efficient means of production is self-optimizing. Someone gets too greedy, someone else will do it. It's a lesson that was taught to me mowing lawns for neighbors.
I can't go running off to some law-maker to pass some law saying Johnny can't mow my neighbor's lawn. I have already registered my claim...this is my territory, and if the neighbor thinks I charge too much, he can't even mow his own lawn. I have "rights"!
Now, Mr. Honorable Law-Maker, can we close with that song about the land of the free and home of the brave?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02, @10:53AM
Every American Citizen has the right to be ripped off!
It is in the constitution
Right along with the right to be lied to!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 02, @01:03PM (5 children)
>It's a lesson that was taught to me mowing lawns for neighbors.
In Houston we bought a house with a big (0.8 acre) yard when our kids were 1 and 3 years old. Instead of buying a riding lawnmower to take up garage space, we just continued the lawn service contract that the previous owners had with a "local boy" now in his late 30s who started out mowing lawns for neighbors. Fast forward 20 years for him and now he's running crews, of Mexicans of course. Has 'em wear color coded uniform shirts, the green ones don't speak English, the beige ones do.
The shock-lesson for us came when Bush invaded Iraq and gas prices jumped 50% (sound familiar?) He "had to add a fuel surcharge" to our bill - and I pushed back: "how much gas can a weed whacker possibly use?" It wasn't the weed whackers, or the zero-turn riding mowers, it was the 35 mile commute (each way) into Alvin to pick up the crews and take them home every day, in his big dually pickup trucks. 800+ miles a week in 10mpg vehicles, when gas goes up $1 a gallon, even spread over 20 customers I guess you gotta pass on some of the costs. He still used it as an excuse to gouge, no way our share of that was $20 per month, those crews mowed several lawns a day, but... what are we going to do? Buy our own mower and spend 2 hours a week mowing?
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Saturday May 02, @05:54PM (4 children)
What vehicles do you expect them to be driving in that don't get terrible gas mileage? Just being the larger vehicles that are needed to haul the stuff results in bad gas mileage alone. You're whining about a service that would cost at least triple if they were using Americans over a $20 charge on the gas.
Comments like yours are why people hate Texas. You folks were a large part of why more fuel efficient vehicles are so expensive and why the infrastructure for other things requires so much fighting.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 02, @07:31PM
>What vehicles do you expect them to be driving in that don't get terrible gas mileage?
You can start with trucks with identically sized/shaped bodies that have 4 tires on the ground instead of six. Then you can equip them with a 3 liter V6 instead of a 6 liter V8 engine.
We also drove a 6 liter V8 at the time, gas was cheap when we bought it, plus we weren't putting 800 miles a week on it...
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 02, @07:36PM (2 children)
>You're whining about a service that would cost at least triple if they were using Americans over a $20 charge on the gas.
I'm whining about a premium annual contract price we "negotiated" which includes regular equal monthly payments to him for a service that runs twice a week in the summer and once every 8 weeks in the winter, and him whining about a bump in gas prices necessitating him charging us (and presumably his 39 other customers) an extra $240 per year starting immediately.
If you have a business that is a heavy fuel consumer, you should factor that in your contract price: your lawn service cost is $200+5 gallons of gas per month, or whatever the true cost is. You should not be charging what is obviously far more than double what you're paying your staff to the customers, then turning around and whining when gas goes up, but secretly chuckling when gas goes down after you offer and have accepted a contract for service at a fixed price.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aafcac on Sunday May 03, @03:49PM (1 child)
You're pretty full of shit here. I've got an accounting degree and yes, business can and generally do factor in for increases in fuel costs. However, there's a limit to that and when you're talking about an increase of the size that happened then and again more recently, you can't budget for that without losing a ton of customers due to over charging what they're willing to pay the rest of the time. Buying a new truck over what is expected to be a relatively short term issue would have been far, far more expensive.
Charging far more than double what you're paying the people doing the work is normal. And as much as I hate the owners of capital underpaying employees, the fact is that just the cost of having an employee that doesn't use any business assets or supplies is about half again as much as what they're being paid in wages, between FUTA, SUTA, Social Security, Medicare and whatever other payroll taxes might apply. Then you get into the costs of whatever supplies the employees need to do the job and whatever profits you're intending to make and any company not charging at least double what the employees are being paid is unlikely to be making any consistent profit.
I do get being upset by the increases, but you are full of shit here and should probably just shut up as it just reminds the rest of us of why nobody like Texans. The rest of us would either not pay, or have the good sense to not advertise to the world that we're not cheapskates exploiting immigrants that may or may not have actual permission to work in the US over a surcharge to cover a legitimately out of the business' control and substantial increase in their cost of doing business.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday May 03, @04:38PM
>between FUTA, SUTA, Social Security, Medicare and whatever other payroll taxes might apply.
I think you lost the thread here, these empolyees got shirts, and a cooler with ice water in it, and a ride to and from the job site. If a local boy in that town paid Social Security on wetbacks he picked up in the Home Depot parking lot he'd be laughed out of every bar and restaurant in town and shunned as probably some kind of commie liberal government spy...
> have the good sense to not advertise to the world that we're not cheapskates exploiting immigrants
Oh, but it's oh-so-palatably packaged. The local hardworkig boy is the one you talk to, the one you make the checks out to. You don't ask questions about where he gets his workers, but it's all too obvious. You also don't really have a choice, all of his competition is doing the same thing - you either get out and mow the grass yourself, or you hire one of these smooth talkers to get a crew to do it for you.
> as it just reminds the rest of us of why nobody like Texans.
Texans, around the Clear Lake part of Houston, were generally nice people, on the surface at least. There's much more money flowing in that part of the world than the cost of living requires, unlike Florida - gives people a much more easy-going ability to "shake things off" because they can generally handle whatever comes their way. However, exploitation of undocumented labor is a tradition that goes back way past my birth in both places, you can't really start a business that doesn't do it if you're in an established market full of businesses who do. I have been fairly insulated from all of that for over a decade now, I have no idea how it's all shaking out with the deportation parties they're throwing.
I do know that back in the 70s and 80s the illegals camped out in the fields, out of sight for fear of deportation, and it was in the late 80s-90s that a "kinder, gentler" attitude in government tried to get them out of the fields, into the healthcare clinics and get the kids in school, which was a bit of a mixed bag in the overall results - on the one side, they no longer came lurking out of the shadows when they were truly desperate (which was pretty rare of them to do, but it did happen...) and the kids were getting educated, and they were no longer a "hidden sink" of communicable diseases, but... they also became very visible - lined up 10 deep at payphones, clustered around the low cost stores, renting the cheapest properties and constantly over-crowding them - like 16 living in a 1 bedroom trailer. Then they'd occasionally get enough money together to buy an old car and again overstuff it with people and frequently crash - no licenses - no insurance... that almost never happened when they were "in hiding". Somehow I doubt they're actually deported, I suspect the economic disparity between what they can earn as the old-school "hidden labor" force vs what they can earn in Central / South America, coupled with the costs (including risks from prosecution, which are pretty trivial if you're a big business owner with political connections) of hiring illegals vs paying domestic laborers legally is going to be too overwhelming - we're going to have migrant farm workers camping out in the fields again, probably already do.
Back to "nobody likes Texans" - yeah, we never had many regrets for leaving... the people around Clear Lake were nice, but the rest of it was pretty sucky.
> a surcharge to cover a legitimately out of the business' control and substantial increase in their cost of doing business.
Clearly visible: 20+ clients on similar contracts to our own. $240 annual surcharge because gas went up less than $1 per gallon, per customer. $5K per year surcharge. 5000+ gallons of gas per year? 50,000 miles of driving for the business? 1000 miles a week? Maybe during summer season for 2-3 months, but this wasn't just a summer surcharge. Suck it up, buttercup, it's like the greedflation whiners after the pandemic tripling their rates because some of their business input costs went up 20% - some of it turns into a positive feedback loop, higher prices mean higher costs mean higher prices. Somebody has to turn it off.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]