House Bill 2847 would create the Agricultural Right to Repair Act in West Virginia. The bill requires original equipment manufacturers of agricultural equipment to make available, on fair and reasonable terms, the documentation, parts, and tools needed to diagnose, maintain, and repair farm equipment such as tractors, combines, sprayers, implements, and attachments. It applies to owners and independent repair providers operating in the state and covers equipment sold or used in West Virginia on or after the bill’s effective date.
The bill defines key terms such as agricultural equipment, independent repair provider, authorized repair provider, documentation, parts, tools, and fair and reasonable terms. It also requires manufacturers to provide access to special documentation, tools, and parts needed to reset electronic security locks or other security-related functions when those systems are disabled during repair. Documentation must generally be provided at no charge, except for reasonable printing and mailing costs for physical copies.
Impact
HB2847 would add a new article to the West Virginia Code and make violations of its requirements an unlawful practice under the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act. That means the Attorney General would be able to use the remedies, penalties, and enforcement authority available under that law to enforce compliance. The bill would also limit manufacturers’ ability to use contractual terms to avoid these obligations, while preserving trade secret protections and stating that manufacturers and authorized repair providers are not liable for damage caused by independent repair providers or owners during repair work.
Sentiment
The bill text and available context suggest a generally supportive policy goal centered on farmer repair choice, competition, and access to repair resources. The stated purpose is to reduce barriers for owners and independent repair providers by ensuring access to the same repair information and tools that manufacturers provide to authorized repair networks. No committee transcript or vote record is available in the provided materials, so there is no documented opposition or recorded sentiment from debate or floor action in the supplied context.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the scope of manufacturer disclosure obligations and the effect on proprietary systems. Manufacturers may object to being required to provide tools, software, security-reset information, and repair documentation on terms equivalent to those offered to authorized repair providers, especially where electronic locks or paired components are involved. The bill attempts to address those concerns by excluding trade secrets from disclosure and preserving existing authorized-repair arrangements, but it also voids any contract term that would waive the manufacturer’s statutory obligations. Independent repair providers and equipment owners are the primary beneficiaries, while original equipment manufacturers are the parties most likely to view the bill as imposing new compliance burdens.
An Act to Require the Cooperation of Original Manufacturers of Electronic Devices to Facilitate the Repair of Those Devices by Device Owners and Independent Repair Providers