Why Phone Companies Resist Right-to-Repair Laws

The Battle Over Device Ownership

In recent years, the right-to-repair movement has gained significant momentum, advocating for consumers’ ability to fix their own electronic devices—including smartphones—without being forced to rely on manufacturers. Yet, despite growing public support, major phone companies continue to fiercely oppose these laws. Their resistance raises an important question: Why are tech giants so determined to prevent customers from repairing their own devices?

Protecting Profits Through Control

One of the primary reasons phone companies resist right-to-repair legislation is the financial incentive. Manufacturers profit not only from initial device sales but also from repair services, extended warranties, and planned obsolescence. By restricting access to genuine parts, specialized tools, and repair manuals, companies ensure that consumers must turn to authorized service providers—often at premium prices.

Additionally, many manufacturers design their products in ways that discourage third-party repairs, such as using proprietary screws, gluing components together, or implementing software locks that disable functionality if unofficial parts are detected. These tactics create a monopoly over repairs, allowing companies to maintain high service fees and push customers toward upgrading rather than fixing their devices.

Security and Safety Concerns—Or Just Excuses?

Phone manufacturers often argue that right-to-repair laws could compromise device security and user safety. They claim that allowing untrained individuals or independent repair shops to handle delicate components might lead to battery fires, data breaches, or malfunctioning devices.

While these concerns are not entirely unfounded, critics argue that they are exaggerated. Many independent repair technicians are highly skilled, and standardized safety guidelines could mitigate risks. Moreover, manufacturers themselves have faced scandals involving exploding batteries and security flaws, suggesting that their own quality control isn’t flawless.

Environmental Impact vs. Corporate Interests

Another contentious issue is the environmental cost of restricting repairs. Electronic waste (e-waste) is one of the fastest-growing pollution problems globally, with millions of discarded smartphones ending up in landfills each year. Right-to-repair advocates argue that extending the lifespan of devices through affordable repairs would significantly reduce this waste.

However, phone companies prioritize rapid product cycles and frequent upgrades, as this drives continued sales. By making repairs difficult or expensive, they ensure that consumers replace their devices more often—boosting revenue at the expense of sustainability.

The Future of Repair Rights

Despite corporate pushback, the right-to-repair movement is making progress. Several U.S. states and European countries have passed or proposed legislation to enforce repairability standards. If these efforts succeed, consumers may finally gain the freedom to choose how their devices are maintained—without being locked into a manufacturer-controlled ecosystem.

For now, the battle continues, highlighting a fundamental conflict between corporate profits and consumer rights. As awareness grows, the pressure on phone companies to embrace repairability may become impossible to ignore.