Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right To Repair topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Repair coalition urges caution on right‑to‑repair bill, cites safety and privacy risks
Summary
At a third hearing on House Bill 301, Dustin Brinton of the Repair Done Right Coalition testified against the billas drafted, arguing mandatory access for third‑party repairers could create safety hazards and privacy vulnerabilities, and suggested technology‑neutral language and existing OEM training programs as alternatives.
Dustin Brinton, testifying for the Repair Done Right Coalition, told the House Technology Innovation Committee on Oct. 14 that the current draft of House Bill 301 would create “physical safety risks and threats to the security and privacy of the people of Ohio.”
The coalition, which Brinton said includes device manufacturers and related companies, opposes the provision in the draft that would require original equipment manufacturers to make tools, parts and documentation available to third‑party repair providers. Brinton said that manufacturers currently offer authorized networks that provide what he described as safer and more secure repair options.
“Mandating that companies outsource their repair service to a third party network prevents them from being able to fully stand behind their product safety and security,” Brinton said. He cited a 2021 study by researchers at the University of Guelph in Ontario, saying that the study found personal data on computers was accessed in about half of repairs done by third‑party shops and that those incidents disproportionately affected female customers.
Brinton also raised concerns about the safety of aftermarket batteries, saying some fail to meet regional safety requirements, and argued manufacturers need the ability to ensure repairs are performed by trained professionals and that parts remain compatible with security features such as facial recognition. He recommended lawmakers consider technology‑neutral language and pointed committee members to state laws in Texas and California as possible models.
Committee members asked whether large organizations could obtain OEM training to perform repairs in‑house; Brinton said many coalition members offer training, sometimes free, but cautioned that rapid product innovation makes ongoing manufacturer involvement important. Questions also covered coalition membership and whether the group would accept amendments to the bill; Brinton said manufacturers and their device lines make up much of the membership and that some compromise language used by other states could be a starting point.
No substitute was offered and the committee did not vote on the bill during the hearing; the sponsor indicated the office would seek further feedback and may introduce revised language at a later hearing.
