Minnesota passed a right-to-repair law in 2023, and give the Legislature credit: it’s real. If a phone, a laptop, or a dishwasher is covered, the manufacturer has to make the manual, the parts, and the tools available to you and to the independent shop down the street.
Then you hit the exclusions. Cars are out. Tractors are out. So is your lawn mower, your portable generator, your boat, your power drill, and your kid’s game console. And when a covered manufacturer stonewalls you anyway, the statute hands the real enforcement hammer to the attorney general, not to you.
That’s the Digital Fair Repair Act, Minn. Stat. § 325E.72. Good law. Narrow front door.
What the manufacturer has to cough up
The core of it:
For digital electronic equipment and parts for the equipment sold or used in Minnesota, an original equipment manufacturer must make available to any independent repair provider or to the owner of digital electronic equipment manufactured by or on behalf of, or sold by, the original equipment manufacturer, on fair and reasonable terms, documentation, parts, and tools, inclusive of any updates to information or embedded software, for diagnostic, maintenance, or repair purposes.
— Minn. Stat. § 325E.72, subd. 3(a) (emphasis added)
The manufacturer has 60 days after the equipment’s first sale in Minnesota to make those things available. § 325E.72, subd. 3(b). The section took effect July 1, 2024, 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 57, art. 4, § 11, but it looks backward too: it “applies to equipment sold on or after July 1, 2021.” § 325E.72, subd. 8. A laptop bought in 2020 is out of luck under this Act. One bought in the fall of 2021 can be covered.
“Fair and reasonable terms” gets a definition, and it turns out to be three standards, each looser than the last:
- Documentation (manuals, schematics, service codes) has to be available “at no charge,” except that a manufacturer can charge the reasonable actual cost of printing and sending a paper copy. § 325E.72, subd. 2(h)(3).
- Tools, software, and documentation sold to you have to come at “costs that are equivalent to the lowest actual cost for which the original equipment manufacturer offers the tool, software, or documentation to an authorized repair provider, including any discount, rebate, or other financial incentive”. § 325E.72, subd. 2(h)(2)(i).
- Parts only have to come at “costs that are fair to both parties”. § 325E.72, subd. 2(h)(1)(i).
The manual’s free. The diagnostic software has to match the best deal the authorized shops get. The part just has to be “fair”, a word that’s going to carry a lot of weight the first time somebody litigates it.
There’s also language aimed at “parts pairing,” the trick where a replacement part won’t work until the manufacturer’s software blesses it. For tools, it reads cleanly: fair terms “do not impose on an owner or an independent repair provider” a “requirement that a tool be registered, paired with, or approved by the original equipment manufacturer or an authorized repair provider before the part or tool is operational”. § 325E.72, subd. 2(h)(2)(ii)(B). For parts, the matching clause refers to “a requirement that a part be registered, paired with, or approved by the original equipment manufacturer or an authorized repair provider before the part is operational”, § 325E.72, subd. 2(h)(1)(ii)(B), but read the whole paragraph and the grammar falls apart; clause (B) hangs off a sentence that was built for clause (A). I read it to mean what it’s plainly trying to say: a part that’s dead on arrival until the manufacturer approves it isn’t being offered on fair terms. That’s my reading, and a manufacturer’s lawyer will have another.
It’s a parity law. That’s the catch.
Here’s what the Act actually promises you: what the manufacturer’s own repair network gets. If the authorized shops don’t get it, you don’t either.
It’s baked into the definitions. Take “digital electronic equipment”: any hardware product that depends on digital electronics to function, “for which the original equipment manufacturer makes available tools, parts, or documentation to authorized repair providers.” § 325E.72, subd. 2(e). “Part” and “documentation” are defined the same way, by reference to what the manufacturer makes available to authorized repair providers. § 325E.72, subd. 2(f), (p). And the statute says outright that it doesn’t require a manufacturer to give owners or independent shops information, “other than documentation,” that it gives its authorized providers under their contracts. § 325E.72, subd. 5(c).
The Legislature did see the obvious dodge coming. A manufacturer that does its own repairs, with no outside authorized shops, is itself treated as the authorized repair provider. § 325E.72, subd. 2(b). So “we don’t have an authorized network” doesn’t get a manufacturer off the hook. But as I read the definition, a manufacturer that doesn’t repair a product at all, for anyone, has nothing it’s required to share. Your rights get measured against the manufacturer’s own repair program. No program, not much of a right.
The exclusions read like a hardware-store aisle
Subdivision 6 is where the law shrinks. Most of its paragraphs open with “Nothing in this section applies to”, and then the list starts:
- Cars. A motor vehicle manufacturer, a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, or a motor vehicle dealer acting in that capacity, and “any product or service” of any of them. § 325E.72, subd. 6(a).
- Medical devices, as defined in the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, plus any “digital electronic product or software manufactured for use in a medical setting”. § 325E.72, subd. 6(b).
- Anything off-road. This list is long enough that I’ll quote it: “farm and utility tractors; farm implements; farm machinery; forestry equipment; industrial equipment; utility equipment; construction equipment; compact construction equipment; road-building equipment; electronic vehicle charging infrastructure equipment; mining equipment; turf, yard, and garden equipment; outdoor power equipment; portable generators; marine, all-terrain sports, and recreational vehicles, including without limitation racing vehicles; stand-alone or integrated stationary or mobile internal combustion engines; generator sets and fuel cell power; power tools; and any tools, technology, attachments, accessories, components, and repair parts for any of the foregoing.” § 325E.72, subd. 6(c).
- Video game consoles. The Act doesn’t require parts, tools, or documentation for a console “and its components and peripherals.” § 325E.72, subd. 6(d). The definition is careful to say a console is “neither a general nor an all-purpose computer”, and that a general-purpose computer includes “a desktop computer, laptop, tablet, or cell phone.” § 325E.72, subd. 2(t). Your phone’s in. Your console’s out.
- Energy storage systems as defined in § 216B.2422, subd. 1(f), § 325E.72, subd. 6(e), and information technology equipment intended for use in critical infrastructure as federal law defines it, § 325E.72, subd. 6(g).
Then there’s subdivision 5, which lists what even a covered manufacturer doesn’t have to do. It doesn’t have to divulge a trade secret, except as necessary to provide documentation, parts, and tools on fair and reasonable terms. Subd. 5(a). It doesn’t have to help you modify anything. Subd. 5(d). It doesn’t have to hand over tools that would override antitheft security the owner set “without the owner’s authorization.” Subd. 5(f). It’s off the hook entirely if it “provides equivalent or better, readily available replacement equipment at no charge to the customer.” Subd. 5(g). And it doesn’t have to provide access to parts, tools, or documentation for work that chapter 326B requires a licensed individual or contractor to do or supervise. Subd. 5(h).
Some of these carve-outs are fair. A medical device that’s been repaired badly can hurt somebody, and an antitheft lock that anyone can bypass isn’t a lock. But you don’t need a safety rationale to fix a cordless drill, and “power tools” are excluded anyway. I’d love to hear that argument.
Keep an eye on the cybersecurity sentence
If I had to bet where the first real fight under this Act breaks out, I’d bet on subdivision 6(f):
Nothing in this section requires an original equipment manufacturer to make available parts, documentation, or tools related to cybersecurity, except as necessary for the repair or maintenance of equipment. Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, an original equipment manufacturer is not required to make available parts, documentation, or tools related to cybersecurity which: (1) could reasonably give a recipient or third-party access to trade secret or personally identifiable information owned or possessed by an original equipment manufacturer for itself or on behalf of another person; (2) is protected from disclosure under other laws of this state; or (3) could reasonably be used to compromise cybersecurity or cybersecurity equipment.
— Minn. Stat. § 325E.72, subd. 6(f)
The first sentence gives with one hand: cybersecurity tools stay inside the Act to the extent they’re “necessary for the repair or maintenance of equipment.” The second sentence takes with the other. It opens with “Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary” and then exempts any cybersecurity tool that “could reasonably be used to compromise cybersecurity”. Almost any security tool could be. On a modern phone, the line between “security” and “repair” can be one software handshake. How a court squares those two sentences will decide how much of this law reaches the stuff people actually own.
Who enforces it? Mostly not you.
Here’s the whole enforcement provision:
A violation of this section is an unlawful practice under section 325D.44. All remedies, penalties, and authority granted to the attorney general under section 8.31 are available to the attorney general to enforce this section.
— Minn. Stat. § 325E.72, subd. 4
Section 325D.44 is the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Its private remedy is an injunction. “A person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may be granted an injunction against it”, and “[p]roof of monetary damage, loss of profits, or intent to deceive is not required.” § 325D.45, subd. 1. The court may award attorney fees in only two situations, and the one that helps you is where the defendant “willfully engaged in the trade practice knowing it to be deceptive.” § 325D.45, subd. 2. I explained why that statute pays nobody, even when it’s on your side, at /news/minnesota-consumer-fraud-act-deceptive-trade-practices/.
What about the private attorney general statute? Section 8.31, subdivision 3a, gives a damages-and-fees action to “any person injured by a violation of any of the laws referred to in subdivision 1”. But subdivision 1’s list names the Unlawful Trade Practices Act, §§ 325D.09 to 325D.16. It doesn’t name the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The list says “specifically, but not exclusively,” so there’s room to argue. But the Digital Fair Repair Act hands the § 8.31 toolbox, in its own words, “to the attorney general”. I walked through § 8.31, and the limits on it, at /news/minnesota-private-attorney-general-831/. My reading is that an owner or an independent shop can’t count on a damages claim under this Act. What you can count on is an injunction claim and a complaint to the attorney general.
So you get the right, and the State gets the big stick. For an independent repair shop that’s being frozen out of parts, an injunction may be exactly the remedy that matters. For a consumer with one broken laptop, it’s a long walk for a short drink.
I went looking for a court decision applying § 325E.72 and didn’t find one. That search ran through CourtListener, which has real gaps for Minnesota and doesn’t index district court files.
Your warranty is a separate fight, and federal law picked a side decades ago
Plenty of people skip the independent shop because they’re scared of voiding the warranty. That fear runs straight into a federal statute from 1975, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act:
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer’s using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if— (1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and (2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.
— 15 U.S.C. § 2302(c)
In plain English: a manufacturer can’t make your warranty depend on using its own parts or its own repair service, unless it gives those to you free or gets a waiver from the Federal Trade Commission.
And the FTC’s track record on that statute? Thin, as of 2021, and the agency said so itself. In its July 2021 policy statement on repair restrictions, issued after its May 2021 “Nixing the Fix” report to Congress, the Commission said it would “prioritize investigations into unlawful repair restrictions under relevant statutes such as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act”, and admitted in a footnote that it had “brought only one case alleging a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in the past decade.” One case. In a decade. It also said “current law does not provide for civil penalties or redress” for those violations. That’s the federal agency describing its own toolbox. Small box.
Minnesota’s Act adds a shield on the manufacturer’s side. No manufacturer or authorized repair provider “shall be liable for any damage or injury caused to any digital electronic equipment, person, or property that occurs as a result of repair, diagnosis, maintenance, or modification performed by an independent repair provider or owner”. § 325E.72, subd. 7. Put the two statutes side by side and here’s the practical rule as I read it: using an independent shop shouldn’t cost you the warranty, but if the shop breaks something, that’s between you and the shop. For what implied warranties you have in the first place, and how sellers disclaim them, see /news/minnesota-ucc-article-2-warranties/.
If it’s a car
The Digital Fair Repair Act won’t help you. Other statutes might. Minnesota’s Truth in Repairs Act governs the repair shop, not the manufacturer, and it covers repairs over $100 to a motor vehicle, an appliance, or a home used for personal, family, or household purposes. § 325F.56, subd. 2. I covered that statute at /news/minnesota-truth-in-repairs-act-325f56/. And if the car came off a used lot, I wrote about Minnesota’s used-car warranty statute at /news/minnesota-used-car-warranty-325f662/.
Minnesota gave you the manual. Getting the part, and getting paid when you don’t, is still up to you.
Madgett Law, LLC
Madgett Law, LLC represents Minnesota businesses in disputes over unfair competition and deceptive practices aimed at their business, and represents Minnesota consumers in disputes with sellers, repair shops, and dealerships under the state’s consumer protection statutes. If you run an independent repair shop that’s being refused parts or tools a manufacturer gives its authorized network, or a manufacturer’s telling you that independent repair voids your warranty, read more about our business litigation practice, then call me at 612-470-6529 or send us a message.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 325E.72 (2025) (Digital Fair Repair Act), subd. 1 (short title); subd. 2(b) (authorized repair provider; manufacturer that repairs its own equipment), (e) (digital electronic equipment), (f) (documentation), (h)(1)–(3) (fair and reasonable terms for parts, for tools, software, and documentation, and for documentation), (o) (owner), (p) (part), (t) (video game console); subd. 3(a) (duty to make available), (b) (60 days after first sale in Minnesota); subd. 4 (unlawful practice under § 325D.44; § 8.31 remedies available to the attorney general); subd. 5(a), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h) (limitations); subd. 6(a)–(g) (exclusions); subd. 7 (no liability for independent or owner repair); subd. 8 (equipment sold on or after July 1, 2021). 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 57, art. 4, § 11 (enactment; effective July 1, 2024). Minn. Stat. § 325D.44 (Deceptive Trade Practices Act); § 325D.45, subd. 1 (injunctive relief), subd. 2 (costs and attorney fees). Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 1 (enumerated laws), subd. 3a (private remedies). Minn. Stat. § 325F.56, subd. 2 (repairs defined). 15 U.S.C. § 2302(c) (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act anti-tying provision). Federal Trade Commission, Policy Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on Repair Restrictions Imposed by Manufacturers and Sellers (July 21, 2021), at 2 & n.4. This article is general legal information about Minnesota law. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and no particular outcome is promised or implied.