1. Repair Access Means More Than Buying Parts
A shop may have the replacement part and know how to install it, yet lack the software needed to finish the repair. Meaningful access depends on the functions available and the conditions for using them.
Diagnostic Tools May Leave Repairs Unfinished
Reading a fault code does not necessarily allow a technician to reset it, program a component, or pair a new part with the machine. For an independent business, that missing function can mean losing the job to an authorized dealer.
Access conditions matter as well. A subscription’s price, duration, equipment coverage, and technical limitations can determine whether a small shop can realistically offer the service. Records should distinguish a tool that is unavailable from one that is available but commercially difficult to use.
The Deere Settlement Has a Defined Scope
In July 2026, the FTC announced a Deere settlement addressing equivalent dealer repair resources for farmers and independent providers. Its company-specific terms illustrate the importance of software capabilities; they do not impose the same obligations on other manufacturers.
2. The Inquiry Also Examines Dealer and Supply Restrictions
The FTC and USDA launched their joint inquiry on October 7, 2026. Beyond repair software, they seek information about practices affecting equipment purchases, parts supply, and service competition.
Restrictions That Affect Customer Access
The inquiry examines how sales territories, supply conditions, and dealer networks affect market participants. Small businesses can explain these effects through specific transactions.
| Practice Examined | Effect Worth Documenting |
|---|---|
| Sales or service territory restrictions | Customers a business cannot serve |
| Parts or service tied to a particular dealer purchase | Reduced repair choices |
| Dealer network consolidation | Fewer independent alternatives |
| Retaliatory treatment | Denied supply or worse terms after objections |
Sales or service territory restrictions
- Effect Worth DocumentingCustomers a business cannot serve
Parts or service tied to a particular dealer purchase
- Effect Worth DocumentingReduced repair choices
Dealer network consolidation
- Effect Worth DocumentingFewer independent alternatives
Retaliatory treatment
- Effect Worth DocumentingDenied supply or worse terms after objections
Identify What Changed in the Transaction
These are subjects for examination, not established violations. A useful account identifies who imposed the restriction, what it required, and how it affected transactions. Those details help separate a dispute over agribusiness agreements from conduct affecting competition more broadly.
A service refusal may operate differently from a higher price or a delayed parts order. Documenting the exact response helps show whether the business lost access altogether or continued trading on less favorable terms.
3. When a Restriction Raises Federal Competition Questions
An access refusal or lost customer does not automatically establish an antitrust claim. The FTC may challenge unfair methods of competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act, but the applicable analysis depends on the conduct and business relationships.
Manufacturer Policies and Dealer Coordination
A manufacturer’s nonprice distribution restriction generally requires analysis of competitive effects and possible efficiencies. A naked agreement among competing dealers to divide territories or customers raises a different issue and is generally unlawful.
Similar refusals by several dealers do not alone prove coordination. Written policies and communications help establish whether dealers acted independently, followed manufacturer instructions, or agreed among themselves. That distinction shapes the competition law analysis.
Market Power and Repair Alternatives
Monopolization requires more than proprietary software or a strong brand. The analysis examines monopoly power and conduct that unlawfully creates or maintains it. Relevant facts include available repair alternatives, switching barriers, and the work independent providers cannot complete.
The availability of competing equipment brands does not, by itself, resolve whether customers have meaningful repair alternatives for machines they already own. Purchase costs and compatibility may affect switching, although identifying a legally relevant repair market requires further analysis.
Safety, cybersecurity, and intellectual-property explanations also require examination in relation to the particular restriction. This federal inquiry does not replace separate state repair-access requirements.
4. What Small Businesses Can Submit
The agencies seek firsthand accounts and supporting records. A submission should connect the restriction to a concrete effect on price, service availability, or the ability to compete.
Connect Records to Business Consequences
Useful materials show what access the business requested, the response it received, and the work affected.
- Software terms and dated access-denial messages.
- Equipment models and unavailable repair functions.
- Comparable prices, delivery times, or service conditions.
- Records of lost work or changed supply terms.
Distinguish documented losses from estimates and identify other explanations, such as parts shortages. A short chronology can connect the access request, the supplier’s response, and the customer’s eventual decision without overstating what the records prove.
Deadline and Confidential Submissions
Comments are due December 7, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time, under docket FTC-2026-1585. Public comments go through Regulations.gov and generally become publicly available.
Confidential submissions require the separate process described in the request, including a justified request under 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(c). Confidential treatment is subject to agency review, so sensitive pricing, customer information, and nonpublic contract terms should not simply be attached to a public comment.
5. Comments and Private Claims Serve Different Purposes
Submitting a comment informs agency priorities; it does not award compensation or resolve a private dispute. A business facing substantial losses or threatened supply termination may need a separate assessment of its contracts, evidence, and possible claims.
Assess Disclosure and Claims Separately
Before disclosing sensitive commercial records, an attorney can assess confidentiality and submission options. Any potential antitrust litigation requires an independent review of the legal basis and available relief.
15 Oct, 2026
