Make repair parts and manuals available to everyone for a set period after a product stops being sold
Steps to make it happen
- Companies that make phones and appliances keep repair parts in stock for several years after they stop selling the product.
- How many years to keep parts is set for each type of product, based on how long people usually use it.
- Companies share repair manuals and tools for finding faults with local repair shops and with owners.
- If a part is swapped at a shop that is not the maker's, the product must not be made to stop working on purpose.
- Dangerous parts, such as batteries and gas parts, can be fixed by anyone who has taken the required training.
- Before people buy, they can see near the price tag how many years parts will be available.
- When something breaks, people fix it nearby and keep using it instead of throwing it away.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal ends the situation in which only the maker decides whether a product can be repaired, and opens the means of repair to users and independent repair shops as well. It covers products that last longer if repaired, such as smartphones, computers, home appliances like refrigerators and washing machines, bicycles, and farm machinery. After a maker stops selling a product, it must keep replacement parts ready for a period set for each type of product, and deliver them at a reasonable price within a set number of days. The period is decided by a public body, which listens to experts and consumers and bases the period on the average number of years that type of product is actually used. Makers must also share manuals showing how to take products apart and replace parts, along with the diagnostic tools and software for finding the cause of a fault, with both repair shops and individuals. Systems that stop a function or keep showing warnings through a software check when a non-maker shop replaces a part are banned, unless there is a legitimate safety reason. As an exception, repair of parts that handle large batteries, high voltage, or gas can be limited to people who have taken training and earned a qualification, but that qualification must be fairly open to shops with no tie to the maker. Information related to security, such as encryption keys, can be left out of what must be shared. Makers must show how long parts will be supplied at the time of sale, and a public body checks whether this is kept and publishes the results.
BenefitsLess waste and lower household spending
When parts and manuals are available, broken products can be fixed and used again instead of thrown away, which reduces both the amount of waste and the amount of new resources dug out of the ground. Much of the greenhouse gas from a new product is produced when it is made, so the longer a product is used, the more emissions are avoided. For users, cheap repair becomes an option in place of expensive replacement, which is a big help especially for low-income households and for areas where new products are hard to get. Local repair shops can keep working more easily, so skills and jobs stay in the community and money circulates within it. The used-goods market also becomes more trusted and more active when parts are available. Makers that must supply parts for a long time will also choose designs that are easy to take apart and hard to break from the start, so the quality of the products themselves can be expected to improve. When repair information is open, chances to learn how to fix things grow in schools and communities, which also helps pass a culture of taking care of things to the next generation.
DrawbacksConcerns about safety, protecting technology, and prices
People who oppose the proposal give the most weight to safety and quality. When repairs are done outside the maker's control, poor-quality or fake parts may circulate, and there is a risk of battery fires and appliance accidents. There is also concern that when an accident happens, it becomes unclear whether the maker or the person who repaired the product is responsible, which would damage trust in products. Some also point out that if diagnostic tools and design information are made public, competitors could copy technology that took years and a lot of money to develop, and makers would lose the drive to create new products. Dropping the software check could also make it easier to trade parts from stolen devices and could weaken anti-theft protections. Keeping parts in storage for years costs money for warehouses and management, and that cost may be added to product prices. Spare parts that go unused and get thrown away could even become a new kind of waste. The burden is heavy for small makers with little financial strength, and if rules differ from country to country, it becomes hard to make companies follow them.
Learn the background
Around the world, an enormous amount of electronic devices and appliances is thrown away every year, and the amount keeps growing. Recycling, which collects products and turns them back into materials, is moving forward, but it cannot recover all the finely mixed metals and parts, so many resources are lost. The most effective way to protect resources is to keep using products for a long time in the first place. In reality, though, there are many cases where even a small fault forces people to buy a new product, because the battery is glued in and cannot be replaced, parts become unavailable within a few years, manuals are not made public, or replacing a part limits the product's functions. When repair is limited to the maker's own service desk, it costs more, and in remote areas repair may not be available at all. In many places, local repair shops have supported people's daily lives, but as products grow more complex, their means of repair are being taken away. In some regions, discussion and rule-making about the right to repair have begun, and a shared way of thinking that applies anywhere in the world is needed.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes