For years, John Deere has been using environmental law to stop farmers from fixing their own tractors.
Today, the EPA said: nope.
The Scam
Here's how it worked:
Modern farm equipment has emission control systems (diesel exhaust fluid, catalytic converters, etc.). The Clean Air Act says you can't tamper with those systems.
John Deere said: "Fixing your tractor means accessing emission controls. Therefore, you can't fix your tractor. Use our authorized dealers or void your warranty (and maybe break federal law)."
Farmers said: "My tractor broke during harvest. Your nearest dealer is 90 miles away and booked for three weeks. My crops are dying."
John Deere said: "Sounds like a you problem."
It was a brilliant monopoly play. Use regulation as a moat, charge whatever you want for repairs, lock farmers into your ecosystem.
Until someone actually read the Clean Air Act.
What the EPA Said
Administrator Lee Zeldin issued new guidance this week:
"The Clean Air Act supports your right to repair, not restricts it. Temporary overrides for repairs are fine. Using independent repair shops is fine. Fixing your own equipment is fine."
Translation: John Deere's interpretation was incorrect.
The EPA clarified:
- Repairing emission systems ≠ tampering with emission systems
- Temporary diagnostic overrides (to run equipment to a repair shop) are explicitly allowed
- Farmers and independent shops can fix equipment without violating federal law
The kicker: This was always the correct interpretation. John Deere just bet that farmers didn't have the legal resources to fight back.
Why Founders Should Care
This isn't about tractors. It's about regulation as a moat.
Every industry has examples:
- Apple claims security concerns to block third-party iPhone repairs (conveniently routes customers to Apple Stores)
- Tesla claims safety issues to restrict service to authorized centers (creates recurring revenue from repairs)
- Software companies use DMCA to prevent reverse engineering (locks out competitors)
- Medical device makers claim FDA compliance requires proprietary service (gouges hospitals on maintenance)
The playbook:
- Find a regulation that sounds related to your product
- Interpret it as broadly as possible to restrict competition
- Bet that customers won't sue
- Profit
And it works—until someone calls your bluff.
The Lesson for Startups
If your competitive advantage depends on a creative interpretation of a law, build a backup moat.
Because eventually:
- A regulator will issue clarifying guidance (like the EPA just did)
- A court will rule against you
- A well-funded competitor will challenge your interpretation
- A customer will sue and win
Regulation-as-moat only works if the regulation actually says what you claim it says.
If You're On the Receiving End
Most "legal barriers" are just threats that sound lawyerly enough to work.
When a company tells you "Sorry, federal law prohibits us from letting you do that," ask:
- Which law, specifically?
- Can you cite the section?
- Has any court or regulator confirmed this interpretation?
Most of the time, the answer is: "Uhh, our legal team said so."
Cool. Your legal team also has an incentive to maximize your revenue. Maybe they're not the most objective interpreters of the law?
Read the actual statute. Or hire a lawyer who will. You'd be amazed how often "legal prohibitions" turn out to be "business preferences."
The Bigger Picture
The right-to-repair movement is winning.
- Federal: FTC issued a policy statement in 2021 supporting consumers' right to repair
- States: 30+ states introduced right-to-repair bills in 2025
- EPA: Just sided with farmers over manufacturers
The regulatory tide is turning against monopolistic repair restrictions.
If your business model depends on locking customers out of repairs, start planning your pivot.
Because the era of "you can't fix your own stuff" is ending.
