Cfrgtkky

I know there's a lot of discussion at the moment of the EU introducing new "right to repair" regulations to try to reduce waste.

I was recently told that this is effectively a reversal of existing policies and that EU regulations have actively prevented such activity on electrical devices, meaning small traders etc could only recondition, not repair (e.g. replace whole circuit boards, not fix individual components).

I've searched for such a rule without success. Does anyone know if this definitely exists and, if so, where I might find the details?

No. There is no regulation that prevents a citizen from repairing themselves any kind of electronic device. The problem is that there is also no regulation that requires electronics companies to provide documentation or standardization of parts for the repair of these devices.

This means that your company (let's say a company making TVs) can obfuscate access to their device by using unique proprietary parts (that only they produce). This has been in discussions for years particularly due to some manufacturers doing planned obsolescence (which is worth its own analysis).

The EU proposal "right to repair" is following a world trend (the movement in US is even stronger) and it requires manufacturers to provide adequate conditions for third parties to repair the devices.

Currently this has been enshrined in EU law (which is positive) but somewhat watered down (see this article):

Everyday products including lighting, displays, washing machines,
dishwashers and fridges will need to be made to be more easily
repairable and longer-lasting from April 2021.

...

However, campaigners have criticised the new laws for limiting access
to most spare parts and repair manuals to professional repairers only.
This may restrict the access of independent repairers, repair cafés
and consumers to some key replacement parts and information, limiting
the availability and affordability of repair services, they said.

Campaigners blame strong pressure from industry lobby groups for
prompting the European Commission to water down proposals on
repairability in favour of recyclability.

This was not totally unexpected since the EU members with large industries were against the proposal (see this article):

The European Commission has put on the table proposals to make it
easier for consumers to have certain products repaired instead of
having to buy new ones. They would trigger substantial environmental
benefits by reducing waste and unleashing the potential of job
creation in the sector, according to Chloé Fayole from ECOS, co-leader
of the Coolproducts campaign, who attended the discussions. “At the
moment, consumers are forced to discard products, as repair is made
impossible or unaffordable.”

According to their statements during the meetings, Germany, Italy and
the UK are currently blocking the proposals, while France, Poland and
Spain are either completely disengaged or have adopted a neutral
stance. Because of the high weight their votes carry, the proposals
are likely to be dropped from the agenda if their positions are not
challenged.

I don't think there's any one law or regulation that does this. Instead, we have old laws being used in new ways. While the Electronic Frontier Foundation is in the US, they describe the problem as this

[U]ntil it breaks and you want to fix it yourself (or take it to a local repair shop you trust). Or you think of a way to make it work better that requires tinkering with the software (or some third party does). Or you want to give it to a friend or re-sell it. Then, you have a problem. Why? Copyright.

Further complication: the software may come with digital locks (aka Digital Rights Management [DRM] or Technical Protection Measures [TPMs]) supposedly designed to prevent unauthorized copying. And breaking those locks, even to do something simple and otherwise legal like tinkering with or fixing your own devices, means breaking the law, thanks to Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

And then there’s manual lockdown, which happens when manufacturers refuse to publish crucial repair information (including the manuals themselves, but also things like diagnostic codes for cars)—and then threaten to sue anyone else who tries to do so with a lawsuit for copyright infringement.

Most of these laws exist in Europe and manufacturers have learned that copyright laws are an effective tool in ensuring that only the original manufacturer (and their hand-picked repair shops) can repair a device. And some companies are getting even more aggressive with restricting repairs

Users who have had a screen repair performed by a third party, rather than with Apple, on their iPhone 8 smartphones found that the iOS 11.3 update stopped the touchscreen from working, reports Motherboard.

The screens continue to display the homescreen once updated to iOS 11.3 but cannot be interacted with, effectively rendering the affected iPhone 8 device unusable without warning from Apple.

The real problem is software is being used in more and more products, which means that copyright laws meant to protect software and its manufacturers are now being used to create monopolies around entire ecosystems. So you need a law to specifically address this usage, as opposed to repealing one single law.

I think you missinterpreted the term in this context

right to repair

It is not the case that the EU forbids repairs, it is meant the other way round: As Machavity in his answer said, the companies making it really hard for consumers to repair their products. The "right to repair" should give the consumers the right to fix and repair broken products, without companies (looking at you, Apple) prohibiting/hindering them.

Sadly I can't provide you with the sources you ask for, but I'm certain this issue is either in the EU-law to copyright or in the EU-law to warranty.

There are certainly regulations that can be misused by a hostile OEM in such a manner against independent, commercial repair services:

• safety regulations - one could argue that someone repairing an undocumented device cannot ensure it to be safe. Or that a device that has been modified by a repair that uses alternative or custom made spare parts forfeits safety approvals that are documented for/on the device




• trademark regulations - one could argue that a modified (as above) device still bearing the original manufacturers trademark misrepresents that manufacturer's brand




• environmental, patent, liability etc laws that would equate to a barrier to market entry if you were to build such a device from scratch - these might be applied to a modified device too....