Deere fights back against antitrust suit’s repair monopoly claims

DAILY Bites

• Deere denies claims that its repair policies violate competition laws, asserting that its proprietary tools serve legitimate business purposes.

• The lawsuit centers on Deere’s Service ADVISOR software, which plaintiffs argue restricts independent repair access and increases costs for farmers.

• The case could set a precedent for right-to-repair legislation and manufacturers’ control over post-sale equipment repairs.

DAILY Discussion

Deere & Company has formally responded to a federal antitrust lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of state attorneys general, rejecting claims that its repair restrictions on agricultural equipment violate competition laws.

In a 49-page court filing submitted on March 17, Deere denies nearly every substantive allegation in the FTC’s amended complaint and asserts a series of affirmative defenses.

The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, accuses Deere of using its proprietary software tools and dealer network to monopolize the repair markets for its large tractors and combines.

According to the plaintiffs, Deere’s practices force farmers to rely exclusively on its authorized dealers for critical repairs, limiting competition and driving up costs.

At the center of the lawsuit is Deere’s Service ADVISOR, a software tool available only to authorized Deere dealers. The plaintiffs argue that this tool is essential for diagnosing and repairing electronic issues in modern Deere equipment and that a stripped-down version made available to customers and independent repair providers, known as Customer Service ADVISOR, lacks critical functionality.

Deere admits that Service ADVISOR is more capable but insists that Customer Service ADVISOR is sufficient for many repairs and is available for purchase. The company strongly denies that its practices amount to unlawful monopolization or unfair competition. In its filing, Deere asserts that it has legitimate business reasons for controlling access to its proprietary tools, citing safety, security, and environmental compliance.

Deere’s legal team, led by attorneys from Jones Day and Latham & Watkins LLP, laid out eight affirmative defenses. These include arguments that the FTC lacks the authority to bring standalone claims in federal court under Section 5 of the FTC Act and that the agency’s lawsuit violates constitutional principles such as separation of powers and due process.

Deere also challenges the plaintiffs’ market definitions and contends that the complaint fails to allege any actual anticompetitive conduct or harm.

The company argues that it operates within a competitive agricultural machinery market and that its relationships with dealers and its repair tool policies are driven by legitimate, procompetitive concerns.

Deere demands a jury trial

Deere has requested a jury trial and asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. The company is also seeking attorneys’ fees and any other relief the court finds appropriate.

The lawsuit is part of a broader national conversation around “right-to-repair” legislation, which seeks to give consumers and independent repair providers better access to the tools and information needed to fix modern electronic equipment. Several states have passed or are considering laws aimed at addressing concerns raised by farmers and other equipment users about repair restrictions imposed by manufacturers like Deere.

The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how far manufacturers can go in controlling post-sale repair access to their products.