HB 390 would create the “Montana Agricultural Equipment Repair Bill of Rights Act,” a right-to-repair law for agricultural equipment sold or used in Montana. It requires original equipment manufacturers to make available, on fair and reasonable terms, the documentation, parts, and tools needed for diagnosis, maintenance, and repair to owners and independent repair providers. The bill also covers updates to those materials and defines key terms such as agricultural equipment, authorized repair provider, independent repair provider, parts pairing, tools, and documentation.
The bill specifically prohibits manufacturers from using parts pairing or similar software mechanisms to block the installation or operation of otherwise functional replacement parts, reduce performance after a repair, create misleading warnings, impose extra fees tied to future repairs, or restrict who may buy repair materials or perform repairs. It also requires access to special materials needed to reset electronic locks when repair requires it, subject to the owner’s permission and secure release methods. At the same time, the bill preserves trade secret protections, limits liability for damage caused by independent repair work, and excludes certain items such as motor vehicles, industrial and construction equipment, and materials illegal under state or federal law.
If enacted, the bill would amend Montana law by adding a new part to Title 30, chapter 14, governing agricultural equipment repair rights and obligations. It would apply to manufacturers, authorized repair providers, owners, and independent repair providers operating in the state, and it would take effect January 1, 2026. The act would also automatically terminate if Congress later enacts federal right-to-repair legislation for agricultural equipment, making the state law contingent on the absence of a federal solution.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress appears mixed to negative. The bill received a 12-8 vote in the House Business and Labor Committee to table it, and it ultimately died in process. That suggests there was meaningful support for the concept of agricultural right-to-repair, but not enough agreement to advance it. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed floor or committee arguments, but the tabling vote indicates the proposal faced enough opposition or hesitation to stop it early in the process.
The main points of contention likely center on the balance between repair access and manufacturer protections. Supporters would favor giving farmers and independent mechanics broader access to parts, tools, software, and diagnostic information to reduce repair costs and downtime. Opponents or skeptics may have been concerned about trade secrets, cybersecurity, warranty and recall arrangements, liability for improper repairs, and whether the bill could interfere with manufacturer-controlled repair systems or software-based equipment protections. The bill’s exceptions and limitations suggest lawmakers were trying to address those concerns, but the committee vote indicates unresolved disagreement.
HB 390 would add a new statutory framework in Title 30, chapter 14, requiring agricultural equipment manufacturers to provide repair-related documentation, parts, tools, and updates to owners and independent repair providers on fair and reasonable terms. It would also prohibit software-based parts pairing and related restrictions that interfere with repairs, while preserving trade secret protections and certain manufacturer exceptions. The law would affect manufacturers, authorized repair providers, farmers, and independent repair shops, and would sunset if Congress enacts a federal agricultural right-to-repair law.
The bill appears to have had some support as a pro-farmer, pro-repair-access measure, but not enough to move forward. The 12-8 committee vote to table it and the bill’s final status as died in process indicate that the proposal was controversial and did not achieve consensus. The available record suggests a split between those favoring repair access and those concerned about manufacturer rights, security, and liability.
The central dispute is likely over whether manufacturers should be compelled to provide diagnostic software, parts, tools, and repair documentation to independent repair providers and owners. Supporters would emphasize lower repair costs, faster equipment turnaround, and reduced dependence on dealer networks, especially for agricultural users. Opponents would likely focus on trade secret protection, the risk of unauthorized or unsafe repairs, the integrity of electronic security systems, and whether the bill could force disclosure or access beyond what manufacturers consider appropriate. The bill’s carveouts for trade secrets, anti-theft systems, and unavailable parts show these concerns were anticipated, but the tabling vote suggests they remained significant.