Provides that original equipment manufacturers, implemented by/with surrogate distributors, of agricultural equipment, provide to independent service providers repair information and tools to maintain and repair electronics-enabled agricultural equipment.
H5159 creates the “Agricultural Equipment Right to Repair Act” in Rhode Island law. It requires original equipment manufacturers of electronics-enabled agricultural equipment to make available, on fair and reasonable terms, the documentation, parts, tools, and related updates needed to diagnose, maintain, and repair covered equipment. The bill applies to equipment used in farming, ranching, and other agriculture, including tractors, combines, irrigation equipment, balers, unmanned aircraft systems, and off-road vehicles, but it excludes motor vehicles and consumer electronics.
The bill defines key terms broadly, including what counts as equipment, repair, tools, documentation, embedded software, and independent repair providers. It also limits the scope of repair rights by excluding activities such as resetting immobilizer systems, reprogramming engine control units, changing emissions- or safety-related settings, or accessing proprietary source code. The measure preserves trade secret protections, while requiring manufacturers to provide access to necessary repair materials without imposing unreasonable barriers.
The bill would amend Rhode Island commercial law by adding a new chapter to Title 6 and would create a statutory duty for manufacturers to support repair access for owners and independent repair businesses in the state. It also provides that any contract term attempting to waive the manufacturer’s obligations under the act is void and unenforceable. Enforcement would be available through private civil actions for damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, as well as actions by the attorney general for injunctive or other equitable relief, with a three-year limitations period.
Overall sentiment appears supportive of repair access and agricultural equipment owners’ ability to service modern machinery, though the bill text itself reflects an effort to balance that access against manufacturer intellectual property, safety, emissions compliance, and existing authorized-repair arrangements. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no recorded debate in the supplied materials, but the bill’s structure suggests the main policy tension is between independent repair rights and manufacturer control over software, diagnostics, and protected information.
This bill would add a new chapter to Rhode Island’s commercial law governing agricultural equipment repair rights. It would require manufacturers of electronics-enabled agricultural equipment sold or used in the state to provide owners and independent repair providers with repair documentation, parts, tools, and software updates on fair and reasonable terms, while preserving trade secret protections and limiting access to certain software functions and security-related features. It also creates private and attorney general enforcement mechanisms and voids contract terms that would undermine the act’s requirements.
The bill’s overall tone is pro-repair and pro-access for farmers, owners, and independent repair providers, reflecting a right-to-repair policy approach. At the same time, the legislation is carefully drafted to reassure manufacturers by excluding source code access, immobilizer resets, emissions and safety tampering, and by preserving trade secrets and existing authorized repair relationships. No votes or committee testimony were provided, so there is no recorded public opposition or support in the supplied history.
The main points of contention are likely to be the scope of manufacturer obligations and the limits on what independent repair providers can do. Supporters would favor broader access to diagnostics, parts, software, and manuals to reduce repair costs and downtime for farmers, while manufacturers may object to mandatory disclosure of repair information, software tools, or updates, especially where proprietary software, trade secrets, cybersecurity, emissions compliance, or safety systems are involved. The bill attempts to split the difference by requiring access to repair materials but expressly excluding source code access and certain reprogramming functions.