To enact sections 1350.01, 1350.011, 1350.02, 1350.03, 1350.04, and 1350.05 of the Revised Code to enact the Digital Fair Repair Act.
HB301 would enact the “Digital Fair Repair Act” in Ohio law. The bill requires original equipment manufacturers of covered digital electronic equipment to make available, on fair and reasonable terms, the documentation, parts, tools, and software updates needed for diagnosis, maintenance, and repair to both independent repair providers and equipment owners. It also requires manufacturers to provide special materials needed to disable and reset security-related locks during repair, and it prohibits manufacturers from using parts pairing or similar software mechanisms to block the installation or operation of otherwise functional replacement parts.
The bill defines covered equipment broadly as most digital electronic products over a low dollar threshold, while excluding a long list of categories such as motor vehicles, medical devices, construction equipment, utility equipment, certain public-safety systems, cable/telecom provider equipment with replacement options, and farming or forestry equipment. It also sets rules for pricing and access: documentation must generally be provided at no charge, tools must be usable without authorization or internet access, and parts must be offered to owners and independent repair providers on terms equivalent to the most favorable terms offered to authorized repair providers. The bill further makes violations of the repair-access requirements an unfair or deceptive act under Ohio consumer law, giving injured parties a private right of action and allowing attorney general enforcement.
HB301 would significantly affect Ohio consumer protection and repair-access law by creating a new chapter in the Revised Code and by limiting manufacturers’ ability to restrict repair through software locks, proprietary tools, or exclusive service arrangements. It preserves trade secret protections and does not require disclosure beyond what is needed to provide repair access, and it expressly excludes modifications, federal-law conflicts, and several specialized product categories. The bill would also void contract terms in authorized repair agreements that attempt to waive or limit the manufacturer’s obligations under the act.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly pro-repair and pro-consumer, emphasizing competition, affordability, and the ability of owners and independent shops to fix their own devices. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill suggests support for right-to-repair advocates and likely concern from manufacturers over proprietary control, security features, and trade secret protection.
The main points of contention are likely to be the scope of covered products, the breadth of the access mandate, and the limits on software-based restrictions such as parts pairing and security locks. Manufacturers may argue that the bill could affect product security, intellectual property, warranty systems, and service quality, while supporters would likely argue that the exclusions and trade secret carveouts are sufficient and that consumers should be able to choose independent repair options.
HB301 would add a new Chapter 1350 to the Revised Code, creating enforceable repair-access obligations for manufacturers of covered digital electronic equipment. It would require disclosure of repair documentation, parts, and tools to owners and independent repair providers, prohibit certain anti-repair software practices, and make violations actionable under Ohio’s consumer protection laws. The bill would also create statutory exceptions for several product categories and preserve limits related to trade secrets, federal law, and non-repair modifications.
The bill’s overall tone is favorable to repair access, consumer choice, and independent repair markets. No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s text itself. Based on the proposal, the measure appears aligned with right-to-repair priorities and likely to draw support from consumers and repair advocates, while manufacturers and some industry stakeholders may view it as burdensome or risky.
Likely areas of dispute include whether the bill goes too far in requiring manufacturers to provide tools, parts, and documentation to non-authorized repairers; whether prohibiting parts pairing and related software controls could weaken product security or reliability; and whether the exceptions for vehicles, medical devices, farming equipment, and other categories are broad enough. Another likely point of contention is the bill’s private right of action and consumer-law enforcement mechanism, which could increase litigation exposure for manufacturers.