HB 235 creates the “Portable Wireless Device Repair Act,” a new part of chapter 559, Florida Statutes, to establish a digital right-to-repair framework for portable wireless devices such as cell phones. The bill requires manufacturers to make available to device owners and independent repair providers, on fair and reasonable terms, the documentation, parts, and tools needed to diagnose, maintain, and repair covered devices, including updates. It also bars a manufacturer from forcing authorized repair providers to keep buying diagnostic, service, or repair information in a proprietary format when the same information is offered to third parties in a standardized format on more favorable terms, unless the proprietary format contains additional information or functionality not available in the standardized version.
The bill defines key terms such as manufacturer, owner, independent repair provider, authorized repair provider, part, tool, documentation, and portable wireless device. It applies to portable wireless devices sold or in use on or after July 1, 2025, but excludes devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The bill also preserves trade secret protections, limits the scope of required disclosures, and states that manufacturers are not required to provide parts that are no longer available.
HB 235 would add new enforcement mechanisms to Florida law. An owner or independent repair provider alleging noncompliance must first give the manufacturer written notice and a 30-day opportunity to cure. If the issue is not resolved, the complainant may file in circuit court, and violations are also treated as deceptive and unfair trade practices under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, making those remedies and penalties available. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s structure is consumer- and repair-friendly, with a clear policy goal of expanding access to repair information and parts while limiting manufacturer control over repairs. At the same time, the bill includes safeguards for manufacturers, especially around trade secrets, unavailable parts, and information not already provided through standard support channels. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, but the bill’s final status indicates it died in the Industries & Professional Activities Subcommittee, suggesting it did not advance despite its right-to-repair focus.
The main point of contention is the balance between consumer repair access and manufacturer intellectual property and service-model protections. Independent repair providers and device owners would benefit from broader access to repair materials, while manufacturers may object to mandatory disclosure obligations, limits on proprietary formats, and the potential for FDUTPA enforcement. The bill’s exceptions for trade secrets and unavailable parts appear designed to address those concerns, but the subcommittee outcome suggests the policy may still have faced resistance.
HB 235 would create new statutory duties for manufacturers of portable wireless devices under chapter 559, Florida Statutes, requiring them to provide owners and independent repair providers with repair documentation, parts, and tools on fair and reasonable terms. It would also restrict certain proprietary-format practices for diagnostic and repair information, establish a notice-and-cure process before litigation, and make violations enforceable as deceptive and unfair trade practices under Florida law. The bill would affect manufacturers, authorized repair providers, independent repair providers, and device owners, while preserving trade secret protections and excluding FDA-approved devices.
The bill appears to have a generally pro-consumer and pro-repair orientation, consistent with the broader right-to-repair movement. Its text suggests support for independent repair access and reduced manufacturer restrictions, while still including carveouts intended to soften industry concerns. Because no committee discussion or vote record is available, the strongest available indicator of sentiment is the bill’s failure to advance, as it died in the Industries & Professional Activities Subcommittee, implying that support was not sufficient to move it forward.
The central contention is whether manufacturers should be compelled to share repair-related information, parts, and tools with independent repair providers and owners on terms comparable to those offered to authorized repair networks. Manufacturers may view the bill as imposing burdens on proprietary systems, service models, and trade secret protections, while repair advocates likely support the measure as necessary to improve access, competition, and consumer choice. The bill attempts to mediate these disputes through exceptions for trade secrets, unavailable parts, and non-diagnostic/non-repair information, but those limits may not have fully resolved industry objections.