,
,
,
Context: This article was originally written in response to Right-to-Repair hearings in which opponents argued that farmers would use repair access to tune tractors or bypass emissions rules. Since then, that argument has been overtaken by policy and enforcement. Colorado adopted an agricultural Right-to-Repair law in 2023, the EPA clarified in 2026 that manufacturers may not use the Clean Air Act to block access to repair tools or software, and the FTC reached a settlement with Deere & Company in July 2026 over access to repair resources for farmers and independent repair providers. The text remains relevant as historical and social context for agricultural equipment, tuning, emissions enforcement, manufacturer control, software locks and Right to Repair.
Follow our fight for Right to Repair
In a recent right to repair hearing in the state Maine, which was attained and recorded by Louis Rossmann of the Rossmann Repair Group,one of the opposition told the senators that the farmers in that state should not be able to repair their own farm equipment, or have it repaired by independent farm equipment repair businesses. Their reasoning to the committee was that if farmers could repair their own equipment, as they were able to in the past, they would hack or alter their tractors to get more power and speed out of them. And thereby violating emission guidelines set out by the government. Louis reacted that farmers would not tune their tractors, so that the corn guy could race the avocado guy to win a bet. To my own experience, and reactions on Louis’ video about the hearing, Louis was unfortunately wrong about that. Farmers do tune their equipment. However this does not give the right to repair opposition a valid statement. Let me explain.
First of all, my experience with farm equipment. I went to a school, where there was a boy in my class who traveled quite a bit each day back and forth to school. He lived in Lisse or Hillegom, both neighboring villages in the middle of the Dutch flower region. He was about 14 years old, and regularly talked proudly to his classmates about him driving around on farm equipment on his parents’ flower farm. He was getting his drivers license valid for farm equipment. In our country (at that time) you were only allowed to take car drivers lessons from the age of 18. However this was not the case with farm equipment, as they are not allowed on all roads and have a speed limit. Pretty often, if you're driving in the country side, cars are stuck behind a tractor slowly passing along to the next field.
However since quite recently, due to privatization of municipal road construction and city landscaping, the cities are seeing more and more frequent usage of tractors instead of dump trucks and single cab vans or 4×4’s pulling a trailer. More than once, these tractors, although looking the same as the ones used by regular farmers, are tuned. They drive just as fast if not faster then the regular traffic. A while back I was in a car with such a tractor in the lane next to us. It was on the lane to enter the A9 highway. The tractor was pulling a large multiaxel tank and was first in line. The lights turned green and the tractor jumped up and drove off leaving all the cars lagging behind. Although being so huge, more than twice the height and six times the length of a big car, it took off like a rocket. Accelerating from something like 0 to 80 km/hour in 5 seconds literally stripping the black top and leaving marks behind. They do this not to race each other, but to get more hired jobs done in the same amount of time.
The right to repair opposition is still wrong about their point though. Farmers should be allowed to tune their equipment. Whether it being for getting more done in a day, or participating in a tractor pulling event. That’s as valid as people chiptuning their car for better performance or converting it to participate in a sport or hobby. However, government rules are not to be violated. If you modify your car to participate in formula 3 or drag racing, you should not drive that car on public roads and for instance use it as a daily driver. This should and must be enforced by government, not by the manufacturers!
What the famers want, is properly functioning and optimized equipment which can be repaired without expensive transport back to the manufacturer and without having to wait days of weeks.
The years after this article made the distinction clearer. The argument that farmers would use repair access to bypass emissions rules kept appearing in debates about agricultural equipment. At the same time, it became increasingly clear that this is not a reason to block normal diagnosis, maintenance and repair by owners or independent repair providers. Tuning, illegal road use and disabling emissions systems are enforcement questions. Repair itself is an ownership and access question.
That distinction matters. A farmer, contractor or repairer may legitimately need access to diagnostic functions, fault codes, software procedures, component pairing or temporary recovery modes to restore a machine to proper working order. That is different from permanently removing, disabling or manipulating emissions control. By deliberately mixing those two issues, a manufacturer can use safety or environmental concerns as a general argument against independent repair.
In 2023, Colorado adopted a Right-to-Repair law for agricultural equipment. The law took effect on January 1, 2024 and requires manufacturers to provide owners and independent repair providers with reasonable access to parts, tools, software, documentation and diagnostic resources. The law also makes clear that voluntary nationwide manufacturer agreements do not replace legal obligations.
That was an important step because agricultural equipment often fails at exactly the moment when waiting is most expensive: during planting, harvesting or contracted work. Repair restrictions are then not merely inconvenient; they can directly cause loss of time, yield and income. With agricultural machines, the difference between “repair it later” and “repair it now” is economically and practically significant.
In 2026, the U.S. EPA clarified that manufacturers may not use the Clean Air Act as a general reason to restrict access to repair tools or software. The EPA also made clear that temporary overrides of emissions systems may be allowed when they are necessary for legitimate repair and the machine is then returned to its certified configuration.
This goes to the core of the article. Environmental rules remain important, and illegal manipulation of emissions systems should be enforced. But that enforcement belongs to government and regulators, not to a manufacturer using repair access to steer customers toward its own dealer network. An emissions rule is not a license for manufacturer lock-in.
In January 2025, the Federal Trade Commission sued Deere & Company. According to the FTC, farmers and independent repair providers had for years been restricted in their ability to repair agricultural equipment themselves or locally. The problem was especially about software access: the fully functional dealer tools offered capabilities that the more limited customer version did not.
In July 2026, a settlement followed. For ten years, under supervision by the FTC and the plaintiff states, Deere must provide farmers and independent repair providers with repair resources comparable to those available to authorized dealers. This includes software capabilities needed for modern electronic repairs.
That further weakens the original argument heard in the hearings. The question is not whether farmers ever tune machines; they do, just as people modify cars, motorcycles or other vehicles. The question is who is responsible for enforcing rules, and whether that enforcement may be misused to keep normal repair, diagnosis and maintenance under manufacturer control. The answer should be clear: illegal use should be treated as illegal use, but repair should not be blocked as if every owner is suspicious by default.
Copyright © 2026, ASK-Solutions
