The objective of this directive is simple: simplify the repair of goods and make it cheaper for consumers. To do that, a set of pioneering measures were negotiated, notably thanks to the Right to repair coalition – which HOP is part of. Nevertheless, its impact still is uncertain due to blurry terms.
To facilitate repair
Manufacturers of goods concerned by the directive will have to propose repair services in case of failure happening out of the warranty period. It is a nice step to build consumers’ trust in terms of repair.
More importantly, the text forbids all technical or software barriers to repair. Specifically, they must not prevent the use by independent repairers to second-hand or 3D-made spare-parts. Consequently, part-pairing ought to be forbidden. HOP, which actively fights against those practices, is satisfied with this success.
However, we remain aware of the limitations written in the text. In France, even though those practices are banned by the AGEC law, it lacks the regulatory framework for the ambition to be reached.
Moreover, an online platform to help consumers localize repair stores and refurbishers should be put in place. HOP is happy about this measure. It will help both repairers and consumers. However, HOP thinks that communication must be done about this platform for it to be known.
To make repair cheaper
Thanks to the Right to repair directive, the spare-parts and necessary tools must be placed on the market at a « reasonable price which does not prevent repair ». HOP fights for consumers’ purchase power via product lifetime extension. We are consequently happy with this measure knowing that for 68% of French consumers, price is the main obstacle to repair. We keep a close eye on the application that will be made of this measure. It is indeed important for the terms « reasonable price » to be defined to frame the producers’ practices. For instance, the Ademe threshold could be used as a basis. Indeed, their studies show that if the cost of repair is above 33% of the price of the product, the consumer will replace the product rather than repair it.
On the other hand, we regret that price has not been taken as a criterion for the European repairability index on smartphones. It means concretely that a manufacturer proposing expensive spare-parts will still be able to get a good grade.
The Right to repair directive includes the obligation for each member State to introduce at least one measure to incentivize repair before mid-2026. This can be a repair fund, repair courses, a VAT reduction for repair… HOP has fought in France for the repair fund. We are happy about this measure although we are aware of the various impacts of such measures. It would have been better to incentivize the systematic implementation of a repair bonus. The French example shows the positive effect on consumers and repairers.
A lack of ambition for repair under legal warranty
When a product has a failure during the warranty period (two years), manufacturers will have to propose to the consumer at least one repair option. The consumer will choose between repairing and replacing the product. The directive proposes that a repaired product benefits from a one-year warranty after its repair. This seems inefficient knowing that if the consumer buys a new product, they will have a two-year warranty for it. Prioritizing repair under the legal warranty period should have been put more clearly.
A scope too narrow
The impact of these measures on the right to repair is nuanced by its scope. Only products covered by repairability requirements are concerned: smartphones, dryers, dishwashers, fridges, screens…
HOP regrets that these promising measures are not applicable to all electric and electronic devices. Repair is an essential lever to protect natural resources and avoid e-waste.
