House Bill 460 would create a new “Medical Equipment Right to Repair Act” in Chapter 66 of the North Carolina General Statutes. The bill requires original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of medical imaging equipment and medical radiation therapy equipment to provide hospitals, equipment owners, and independent repair providers with access to the support documentation, tools, parts, and related information needed to diagnose, maintain, and repair that equipment. It defines key terms such as OEM, authorized repair provider, independent repair provider, support documentation, tools, parts, medical imaging equipment, and medical radiation therapy equipment, and it covers equipment such as MRI, CT, X-ray, ultrasound, mammography, fluoroscopy, and radiation therapy systems.
The bill also requires OEMs to notify known owners and independent repair providers when support documentation is updated, to provide documentation at no charge except for actual printing and shipping costs, and to make tools available without unnecessary authorization or registration barriers. It further requires OEMs to provide access to security-related information needed to access or reset electronic security locks, and to offer owners and independent repair providers the same training materials or courses that are offered to authorized repair providers. OEMs may satisfy these obligations by delegating them to authorized repair providers, and parts must be offered on the same terms as the most favorable agreement with any authorized repair provider.
HB 460 would make violations of the act an unfair or deceptive trade practice under Chapter 75, allowing enforcement by injured parties and the Attorney General. At the same time, it preserves OEM trade secret protections, voids contract terms that try to waive the statute’s requirements, and limits liability for damage or injury occurring during repair, diagnosis, or maintenance. The act would take effect July 1, 2025, and apply to equipment in use on or after that date.
Because the bill was only referred to the House Rules, Calendar, and Operations Committee and there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts, there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or amendments in the available record. The overall sentiment from the bill’s text is pro-access and pro-competition, aimed at expanding repair options for hospitals and independent providers while balancing manufacturer concerns through trade secret protections and liability limits. The main likely point of contention is the tension between repair access and OEM control over proprietary information, security systems, and service networks, especially for highly regulated medical equipment where safety, cybersecurity, and liability are significant concerns.
HB 460 would add a new Article 52 to Chapter 66, creating statutory repair-access obligations specifically for medical imaging and radiation therapy equipment. It would require OEMs doing business in North Carolina to provide documentation, tools, parts, and training on nondiscriminatory terms to owners, hospitals, and independent repair providers, while also creating a private and public enforcement mechanism through Chapter 75 unfair or deceptive trade practice claims. The bill would also affect contract terms with authorized repair providers by voiding any waiver or limitation of the statute’s requirements, and it would apply prospectively to equipment in use on or after July 1, 2025.
There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the available materials, so no formal legislative sentiment can be measured from debate or roll call. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears to be supported by repair-access and cost-competition goals, with safeguards added to address manufacturer concerns. The text suggests an attempt to balance broader repair access with protections for trade secrets, security functions, and liability exposure.
The likely areas of contention are whether manufacturers should be compelled to share service manuals, software tools, security codes, and parts with independent repair providers, and whether doing so could create cybersecurity, patient safety, or intellectual property risks. OEMs and authorized repair networks would likely favor preserving control over proprietary systems and service channels, while hospitals, owners, independent repair providers, and consumer-rights advocates would likely support the bill’s access requirements and anti-restriction provisions. The bill’s explicit preservation of trade secrets and liability limits indicates those concerns were anticipated, even though no committee discussion is available.