Relative to portable wireless device repair
House Bill 4982 would create a new chapter of Massachusetts law governing the repair of portable wireless devices, such as smartphones. The bill requires manufacturers of these devices, and of parts for them, to make available to owners and independent repair providers on fair and reasonable terms the documentation, parts, and tools needed to diagnose, maintain, and repair the devices, including updates. It also limits manufacturers from forcing authorized repair providers to use proprietary formats when standardized diagnostic information is available on more favorable terms, while preserving certain protections for trade secrets and non-diagnostic information.
The bill includes consumer disclosure requirements for repair providers. Independent repair providers would have to notify customers that they are not authorized by the manufacturer, advise them to review warranty terms and consumer protections, and provide written disclosures about non-manufacturer parts, used parts, estimated costs, technician training, and any access to personal data. The bill also limits liability for manufacturers and authorized repair providers for damage caused by independent repairs, and it exempts FDA-approved devices. The act would take effect on January 1, 2027.
The bill would add a new Chapter 93M to the General Laws and materially expand access to repair information, parts, and tools for portable wireless devices in Massachusetts. It would affect manufacturers, authorized repair providers, independent repair shops, and device owners by creating enforceable obligations to share repair resources on fair and reasonable terms, while also giving the attorney general authority to seek injunctions and Chapter 93A relief for violations after a 30-day cure notice. The measure would also shape warranty-related disclosures and repair transparency practices in the state.
The available legislative context suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. The Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee reported the bill out with a recommendation that it ought to pass, and there is no recorded opposition, vote tally, or committee transcript in the provided materials indicating organized resistance. The bill’s structure also reflects an effort to balance consumer repair access with manufacturer concerns about trade secrets, privacy, and safety, which may have helped support its advancement.
The main points of contention implied by the bill text are the scope of mandatory disclosure and the balance between repair access and manufacturer protections. Manufacturers may object to requirements to provide parts, tools, and documentation on fair and reasonable terms, especially where trade secrets, proprietary formats, or security-related information are involved. Independent repair providers and consumer advocates would likely favor the access provisions, while manufacturers may also be concerned about liability exposure, privacy risks, and the limits on proprietary repair ecosystems. The bill addresses these concerns by preserving trade secret protections, excluding certain non-diagnostic information, and limiting liability for manufacturer actions taken to protect privacy, security, or digital safety.