John Deere agrees to landmark “right to repair” settlement driven by Colorado farmers 36%

By Michael Booth49%

7/15/2026, 10:08:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 12.4% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 473 faulty-reasoning hits from 468 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.8% and a BS Rank of 36% (10,359 of 15,985 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.80% of the article peer group.

Major farm equipment dealer John Deere has agreed to a “right to repair” that Colorado farm and consumer advocates were key in launching, settling with the federal government and five states to give access to diagnostics and fixes for crucial agricultural equipment. 
The farmers union and CoPIRG, consumer advocacy nonprofit Colorado Public Interest Research Group, helped lead the fight in the legislature. 
“We should be able to fix our own stuff,” said U.S. 
PIRG Right to Repair Campaign senior director Nathan Proctor. 
“This settlement from the Federal Trade Commission gives farmers more and better options to repair their equipment. 
It is a win for farmers and all of us who want a more fixable world.” 
The FTC said in announcing the deal in its antitrust case, “The settlement requires Deere—for the next 10 years and under the supervision of the FTC and plaintiff states—to provide farmers and independent repair providers with the same equipment repair resources, including applicable software capabilities, that it currently provides to authorized Deere dealers.” 
The deal also requires Deer to pay the five states $1 million for legal costs and for consumer protection enforcement. 
Right to repair in farming is similar to consumer and trade movements in other fields, from wheelchair repairs to consumer electronics, with advocacy groups claiming corporations keep expensive, illegal monopolies by locking off software or key repair tools and techniques. 
“The settlement with Deere will help lower costs for American farmers,” an FTC official said. 
The nationwide settlement stemmed from a 2025 antitrust case originally brought by the FTC and five states in U.S. 
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 
The state co-plaintiffs were Illinois, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. 
When the Colorado right to repair bill was passed in 2023, the Associated Press reported that manufacturers and dealerships voiced opposition that providing tools and information to farmers would allow equipment owners to illegally boost horsepower and bypass emissions controls. 
They said that could endanger equipment operators and harm the environment. 
Opponents also worried that compelling companies to share more detailed information necessary for repairs could expose proprietary information, the AP reported. 
“When farmers can’t access the proprietary software tools or critical information that are required to diagnose or complete repairs, it means they have to wait for an authorized technician before they can finish their work,” Proctor said. 
“The weather doesn’t wait on a dealership’s schedule  a delay could mean the loss of your harvest.” 
The Associated Press also noted Deere had settled a $99 million class-action case with farmers earlier this year. 
The FTC case is considered significant because it goes beyond individual compensation and orders Deere to let independent repair shops and farmers carry out fixes previously restricted by the company. 
Confirmation Bias
9.8%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
8.5%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
3.4%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
3.6%
Pessimism Bias
7.1%
Negativity Bias
2.4%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
7.9%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
3.8%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
3.8%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
6.4%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
12.4%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
4.1%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
7.9%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
4.3%
Quote-first Misdirection
6%
Biased Writer Voice
9.6%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

468 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.