U.S. District Judge rejects Deere’s motion to end FTC lawsuit on right-to-repair

On June 9, U.S. District Judge Iain Johnston in the federal court in Rockford, Illinois ruled to reject Deere’s effort to end a lawsuit by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission accusing the company of forcing farmers to use its authorized dealer network for repairs. The case was filed at the end of then-President Joe Biden’s administration, alleging Deere of violating federal antitrust law. 

The FTC filed the original lawsuit, along with attorneys general from Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. They allege that Deere is acting like a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which promotes competition in the marketplace.

Deere and its lawyers have repeatedly denied the allegations and sought to dismiss the case and other similar disputes. 

In his June 9 opinion, Judge Johnston wrote: 

“Sequels so rarely beat their originals that even the acclaimed Steve Martin couldn’t do it on three tries. See Cheaper by the Dozen II, Pink Panther II, Father of the Bride II. Rebooting its earlier production, Deere sought to defy the odds. To be sure, like nearly all sequels, Deere edited the dialogue and cast some new characters, giving cameos to veteran stars like Humphrey’s Executor. But ultimately the plot felt predictable, the script derivative. Deere I received a thumbs-down, and Deere II fares no better. The Court denies the Motion for judgment on the pleadings.”

According to court documents, Deere allegedly drives up the cost of repairs and parts by forcing farmers to use only Deere-authorized dealers for equipment service rather than independent shops, contractors and farmers. The dealers have exclusive access to an Deere’s Service Advisor interactive software that can diagnose and fix tractor computer issues. If Deere is found liable, the company may be forced to change its repair policies and make its resources more available to customers.

“Farmers have no alternatives because of the system created by Deere, which charges supracompetitive prices because of the lack of any alternatives,” Johnston wrote in his order. “In technologizing its equipment, Deere makes farmers reliant on Deere’s own Advisor software. And, in only licensing that software to its Authorized Dealers, Deere forces farmers to visit those shops instead of using closer, cheaper options. Once in the door, Deere Dealers sell Deere parts, which are comparable to other brands in quality but higher in price. And those parts sales, in turn, significantly boost Deere’s profits.”

It’s not clear, yet, how aggressively the Trump administration’s FTC will pursue this case. Newly appointed FTC Commissioner Andrew Ferguson, who sat as a Republican commissioner during the Biden administration, released a dissenting opinion on procedural grounds when the FTC’s chose to move forward with the case. He did acknowledge that “the right to repair one’s own equipment matters a great deal,” and wrote, “if the commission and Deere cannot reach such a settlement, then the courts will resolve the right to repair question here. Securing real relief for farmers in short order should be the commission’s focus.”

The case is Federal Trade Commission et al v. Deere & Co, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 3:25-cv-50017.