A bill giving consumers and independent repairers the right to electronic device repair resources received mixed opinions during the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB476, sponsored by Rep. Marilyn Lands, D-Huntsville, proposes a “right to repair” for electronics. It requires manufacturers to provide parts, tools and instructions needed to fix devices, whether by consumers or by independent repair shops.
While the bill aims to promote consumer choice, lower costs, and reduce electronic waste, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are raising questions about the scope and impact of the proposal.
Supporters of HB476 say the bill is fundamentally about consumer empowerment. Giving people more options to repair their own devices or to shop around for competitive repair services breaks the hold that major manufacturers currently have on the repair process.
“I think there has to be some measured response to making sure that consumers have as many options as possible available to them to get their devices repaired because when one party controls the ability to prepare your device, they can also control how much it costs, which could also become prohibitively expensive,” said Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa. “We can all work together to get to that point. In concept, it makes sense to me.”
The bill also includes language ensuring that manufacturers maintain parts and instructions for at least five years, a provision supporters argue is crucial for keeping older devices in service longer and out of landfills. One of the strongest objections was to the bill’s legal provisions, which allow for civil penalties and lawsuits if manufacturers don’t comply.
“I’ve got a lot of concerns about this—mainly about the lawsuit portion,” said Rep. David Faulkner, R-Mountain Brook. “The ability to sue manufacturers… that raises a lot of concerns for me.” He added that, for him to even consider supporting the bill, “that part’s got to come out.”
Other lawmakers echoed the sentiment, expressing worry that allowing lawsuits could be burdensome for businesses, especially if the requirements for maintaining parts and documentation were too rigid or ill-defined.
In addition to the legal concerns, questions were raised about the environmental impact of requiring manufacturers to stock parts for years. Rep. Matt Simpson, R-Daphne, questioned whether this might create more waste rather than less.
“If you’re having multiple parts that have to stay there for five years for all of the potential parts that could be injured, are you creating more waste? How does that help the environment,” asked Simpson
Rep. Ben Robbins, R-Sylacauga, responded by emphasizing that parts typically take up far less space than full appliances, and the goal is to keep entire machines out of landfills. Robbins also suggested softening the bill’s requirements around part availability, proposing a shift from “shall ensure” to “may ensure,” which could give businesses more flexibility in managing their inventory and projections.
Lands added that some manufacturers are already finding innovative ways to reuse excess parts, including donating them to artists for use in public and private installations. Acknowledging the concerns, Lands said she was willing to work toward a compromise.
The committee expects to consider amendments addressing both legal liability and environmental feasibility in the coming weeks. A vote on the bill has been delayed to allow time for revisions and further discussion.
