Right to repair, my problem with it

[bdunham7]

Wrapping a trade secret in a contract doesn't make it legal.

Of course it does.  Trade secrets, even lame ones, are perfectly legal.  Contracts not to reveal them are also legal.

If its deemed anti-competitive, it's void and both parties will have legal trouble.

Anti-trust issues are certainly involved in R2R, but forcing a contract manufacturer to supply a proprietary chip to third parties seems pretty far fetched to me. 

R2R is partly about access to the same components that sellers put in their products.

No, it isn't.  R2R is mostly about non-OEM repair facilities being provide access to parts and service information on roughly the same terms as the OEM-authorized facilities.  So if Apple has bins of those chips at their repair centers and replacing them is how they fix the boards, they should offer the part for sale.  If they service the units by board replacement, then they only need to offer the boards.  Now I don't doubt that Apple will make every effort to circumvent these laws.  I wouldn't put it past them to 'service' units with refurbished boards, then send the board back to a remote location for 'refurbishing', which may include replacing said chip.  In that case I would take your side and call them liars and cheaters.  Oh wait, I already do call them liars and cheaters...

There's another aspect to R2R--aftermarket parts.  This has been a hotly contested issue in the automotive world--how much information do automotive OEMs have to provide so as to allow third-party parts manufacturing.  It's hugely complicated, but they typically don't need to reveal proprietary information--with some exceptions--but they do have to be careful to avoid antitrust issues.  If Apple's contract with Intersil prohibited Intersil from making any chips that would perform the same function, even if designed and contracted for by a third party (say L. Rossman Enterprises), that might be deemed anticompetitive.

[wraper]

If its deemed anti-competitive, it's void and both parties will have legal trouble.

Anti-trust issues are certainly involved in R2R, but forcing a contract manufacturer to supply a proprietary chip to third parties seems pretty far fetched to me. 

And it's bullshit and creating FUD because nobody asks for that. What is asked is that parts should be made available to 3rd party repair shops. If Apple provides that itself, it would be more than enough.

[T3sl4co1l]

Somehow, all of those anti-right-to-repair shills remind me of one small business owner in the US I once called to get a relatively old device's firmware because I had to replace the micro. He told me: "Fuck off, this is MY PROPERTY, I keep ALL THE CODE in a USB-Drive tucked in my underpants!!!".

Uhm, cultural differences, I guess.

It's weird what happens, when a populace that doesn't own any capital, is convinced that they are all capitalists.

Tim

[pqass]

Wrapping a trade secret in a contract doesn't make it legal.

Of course it does.  Trade secrets, even lame ones, are perfectly legal.  Contracts not to reveal them are also legal.

If its deemed anti-competitive, it's void and both parties will have legal trouble.

Anti-trust issues are certainly involved in R2R, but forcing a contract manufacturer to supply a proprietary chip to third parties seems pretty far fetched to me. 

People write unenforceable contracts all the time. A judge will determine if it's legal when challenged.
A contract manufacturer may find itself in hot water if all it did was re-badge chips. 

R2R is partly about access to the same components that sellers put in their products.

No, it isn't.  R2R is mostly about non-OEM repair facilities being provide access to parts and service information on roughly the same terms as the OEM-authorized facilities.  So if Apple has bins of those chips at their repair centers and replacing them is how they fix the boards, they should offer the part for sale.  If they service the units by board replacement, then they only need to offer the boards.  Now I don't doubt that Apple will make every effort to circumvent these laws.  I wouldn't put it past them to 'service' units with refurbished boards, then send the board back to a remote location for 'refurbishing', which may include replacing said chip.  In that case I would take your side and call them liars and cheaters.  Oh wait, I already do call them liars and cheaters...

There's another aspect to R2R--aftermarket parts.  This has been a hotly contested issue in the automotive world--how much information do automotive OEMs have to provide so as to allow third-party parts manufacturing.  It's hugely complicated, but they typically don't need to reveal proprietary information--with some exceptions--but they do have to be careful to avoid antitrust issues.  If Apple's contract with Intersil prohibited Intersil from making any chips that would perform the same function, even if designed and contracted for by a third party (say L. Rossman Enterprises), that might be deemed anticompetitive.

Rossmann on R2R; it's only 1min long:


A product seller can claim they don't have any facility that does board-level repairs.  They simply buy boards in bulk from China and may give you the option to buy the whole board if available.  And chuck the broken one in the bin. 

[bdunham7]

People write unenforceable contracts all the time. A judge will determine if it's legal when challenged.
A contract manufacturer may find itself in hot water if all it did was re-badge chips.

Manufacturers have been rebadging chips for years, for a variety of valid, legal reasons.  Have any of them been successfully sued for this specific practice? 

A product seller can claim they don't have any facility that does board-level repairs.  They simply buy boards in bulk from China and may give you the option to buy the whole board if available.  And chuck the broken one in the bin.

And there's very little that any R2R legislation I know of, or that is likely to appear anytime soon, is going to do about that.  At some point consumers have to use their buying choices to influence these issues.  If the issue of the charging chip occurs so often that we're all talking about it, a mandatory product recall might be the way to go.  In addition to, or perhaps instead of, R2R, how about mandated warranties or quality requirements?  Or do consumers have the right to buy a cheap POS if they want to? 

[Bassman59]

So if I ask Intersil to create a custom design for specially me and also ask them to produce it for me. Who are you to demand access to that chip? In my view you are asking for an "Apple component" from Intersil, and not a "Intersil component". Which manufacturer it makes totally doesn't matter. It is a "Apple component" so you should ask Apple if they could supply it to you. I don't see any point to have legally forced to sell you that part. Or should we also demand from Apple that they sell their M1 CPU?

NOW WAIT A MINUTE! I agree with the above, and here's why.

Since the dawn of the microcontroller era, back before some participants in this forum were even born, the chip manufacturers have offered mask-programmed parts. Send them money and a binary image and they make a mask and build your parts and they will even put whatever markings you want on the chip. So the part might be labeled Intel or Microchip or Motorola or whatever, with an obscure part number and it's used in a product or product line by an OEM.

Or as an alternative to mask-programmed parts the chip manufacturers would offer factory-programming services. Send them money and a binary image and they program a shitload of parts for you and they'd put whatever label you want on the part.

Same for PLDs and CPLDs and FPGAs ... I remember doing QuickLogic FPGAs (OTP) that would be converted into an ASIC and the required quantities weren't even astronomical -- maybe 1,000? Oh yeah, Altera and Xilinx used to offer a service that took your FPGA design and made a mask-programmed ROM version of it.

And we see this here in the forum: "I opened up a so-and-so, there's a Motorola chip with this part number, what is it?"

This still happens today.

Here's a question: What was (is) the chance that a third-party repair provider or individual end customer could buy any of the chips I described above, in any quantity, at any price?

Oh, let's think about that for a nanosecond. Hmm: identically zero chance, for all known and unknown values of zero.

So now there's a big brouhaha about Apple contracting Intersil to make a chip, and Apple and Intersil are suddenly bad guys because they won't sell that chip to people on the street?

Seriously?

[Bassman59]

Or do consumers have the right to buy a cheap POS if they want to?

It's not a question of whether consumers have the right to buy cheap pieces of shit.

They actually demand cheap pieces of shit.

Look at what is sold on Amazon, or in your local Walmart or Harbor Freight. Look at the junk on display at the end caps of your local supermarket. Look at how formerly trusted tool and consumer-electronics brands now sell crap. We are literally flooded by cheap pieces of shit.

And it's because consumers won't pay for anything better.

[pqass]

People write unenforceable contracts all the time. A judge will determine if it's legal when challenged.
A contract manufacturer may find itself in hot water if all it did was re-badge chips.

Manufacturers have been rebadging chips for years, for a variety of valid, legal reasons.  Have any of them been successfully sued for this specific practice? 

It would depend if the re-badged chips are unavailable during products useful life (or some part thereof).

IANAL but this would seem to appy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Technical_Services,_Inc.:
"Majority Opinion [of the Supreme Court]     {ISO=Independent Service Organizations}
"... Kodak did not make all of the parts that went into its equipment. It purchased parts from parts manufacturers. As part of Kodak's policy to limit sales of replacement parts for micrographic and copying machines only to buyers of Kodak equipment who use Kodak service or repair their own machines, Kodak sought to limit ISOs' access to other sources of Kodak parts besides Kodak itself, Kodak got manufacturers of its parts to agree with it that they would not sell parts that fit Kodak equipment to anyone other than Kodak. Kodak also pressured Kodak equipment owners and independent parts distributors not to sell Kodak parts to ISOs. In addition, Kodak took steps to restrict the availability to ISOs of used machines."

Apple has also been known for stopping ISOs from re-importing parts from foreign sources. 
https://www.vice.com/en/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-screens-jessa-jones

www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/nixing-fix-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictions/nixing_the_fix_report_final_5521_630pm-508_002.pdf  page 11:
"A. Antitrust Principles Related to Manufacturer Restrictions on Repair
Manufacturer restrictions on aftermarket competition may be subject to claims under
Section 1 or Section 2 of the Sherman Act or Section 5 of the FTC Act. Section 1 of the
Sherman Act prohibits agreements that restrain competition. Section 2 prohibits
monopolization or attempted monopolization by a single entity, as well as by combination or
conspiracy."

A product seller can claim they don't have any facility that does board-level repairs.  They simply buy boards in bulk from China and may give you the option to buy the whole board if available.  And chuck the broken one in the bin.

And there's very little that any R2R legislation I know of, or that is likely to appear anytime soon, is going to do about that.  At some point consumers have to use their buying choices to influence these issues.  If the issue of the charging chip occurs so often that we're all talking about it, a mandatory product recall might be the way to go.  In addition to, or perhaps instead of, R2R, how about mandated warranties or quality requirements?  Or do consumers have the right to buy a cheap POS if they want to?

Or maybe R2R might look like this:  (Page 48 of the same FTC PDF linked above)
"2. The European Approach
The European Union has adopted a number of regulations aimed at increasing consumer
repair options in the home appliance industry, which went into effect on March 1, 2021. Unlike
the model state legislation, which would require a manufacturer to make available to individuals
and independent repair shops those parts that the manufacturer provides to its authorized repair
network, the EU prescribes the types of parts and time period during which the parts must be
made available..."

[pqass]

So if I ask Intersil to create a custom design for specially me and also ask them to produce it for me. Who are you to demand access to that chip? In my view you are asking for an "Apple component" from Intersil, and not a "Intersil component". Which manufacturer it makes totally doesn't matter. It is a "Apple component" so you should ask Apple if they could supply it to you. I don't see any point to have legally forced to sell you that part. Or should we also demand from Apple that they sell their M1 CPU?

NOW WAIT A MINUTE! I agree with the above, and here's why.
...
So now there's a big brouhaha about Apple contracting Intersil to make a chip, and Apple and Intersil are suddenly bad guys because they won't sell that chip to people on the street?

Seriously?

Yes they're the bad guys.
If it's so simple to runoff another batch why don't they for a product that still has a useful life? 
I'm not talking about a 30yo obsolete door-stop.

Keysight can make a half-assed attempt. Why can't Apple?
https://www.keysight.com/my/viewPart/34461A

[Zero999]

FCC does not care as much about a single modified unit. There are limits to this, of course, in case if intentional radiators, but generally it dos not matter. The same as RoHS. You can use leaded solder for repairs, nobody will fine you.

But I wouldn't want to fly with one!  In theory, they shouldn't affect flight controls but I believe the verbal instructions still ask for cell phones (and other electronic devices) to be turned off during takeoff and landing.  Otherwise, the takeoff might actually be a landing...

I have no idea what a bodged laptop could do.

What a load of bollocks. If flight controls were so badly designed that easily be interfered with, they wouldn't pass the EMC tests themselves, otherwise we'd have terrorists taking down aeroplanes left, right and centre with radio transmitters. 

[bdunham7]

It would depend if the re-badged chips are unavailable during products useful life (or some part thereof).....IANAL but this would seem to apply:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Technical_Services,_Inc.:
"Majority Opinion [of the Supreme Court]   

No, I don't think it matters if the rebadged chips are available or not, although some other R2R laws may deal with that.

As I said above, if Apple actively tried to prevent someone from making a replacement chip equivalent to theirs, they might be liable for antitrust violations just like Kodak was found to be.  But it takes a lot more than rebadging a chip and keeping it in house--Kodak did a lot more than that.  Just for the record, I'm not on Apple's side and I think they probably have done things that should cause antitrust actions to be filed against them, I just don't think this particular issue that you raise is a good case.

Or maybe R2R might look like this:  (Page 48 of the same FTC PDF linked above)
"2. The European Approach
The European Union has adopted a number of regulations aimed at increasing consumer
repair options in the home appliance industry, which went into effect on March 1, 2021. Unlike
the model state legislation, which would require a manufacturer to make available to individuals
and independent repair shops those parts that the manufacturer provides to its authorized repair
network, the EU prescribes the types of parts and time period during which the parts must be
made available..."

Yes, that is expanding the R2R arena a bit in regard to those specific items.  It may be a good thing but should be done carefully so as to not cause a reduction in consumer choice or an increase in price.  The concept is not entirely new, there have been laws on the books for years mandating parts support at least for the term of the longest warranty, and occasionally more.  I'm not sure that having some bureaucrat decide how long my refrigerator should be supported is better than simply insisting that if the manufacturer has the parts as service parts, they sell them to me.

[Brumby]

I am astounded by some of the arguments against Right To Repair.  Some are pure invention and others rely on befuddling those who may not understanding the basic issues by scaremongering and brandishing buzzwords.  It's worse than politics.

The equivalent practices, issues and arguments applied to motor vehicle repairs would be considered anything from petty to outrageous.  I include all "quality of repair" issues as well.

A well-equipped workshop does not guarantee top notch repairs, nor does a humble mechanic with only one old hoist mean you'll get ripped off.  Flash equipment only makes the job of performing repairs easier - the result comes from the skill of the person doing the job.  This is where a mechanic will build their reputation and, if they are good, their business.  Bad actors will suffer.  Along the way, consumers will find out who is which.

Intellectual property issues are a strawman argument (particularly, grasping at straws).  Anyone wanting to perform a repair has no particular interest in how a specific part does it's job or any other information that IP relates to.  The issue is simply that once they have identified that a part is faulty, that they can source a replacement, fit it correctly and restore proper operation.

Imagine the uproar if your starter motor died and the manufacturer of the starter motor was told by the vehicle manufacturer to not sell you a replacement - and your only option was offered by the manufacturer of the vehicle and that was to replace the entire engine and transmission.

Or let's say the ignition module was the same as used in dozens of other vehicles, but your particular one was "customised" under direction of the vehicle manufacturer to have a serial number that had to match one stored in your ECU or the engine wouldn't start.  Is this really a matter of security (questionable in my book) or an example of restrictive trade practices, forcing the manufacturer into a position of control?

* The above was written with the average motor vehicle in mind.  Try re-reading with a piece of electronic equipment in mind. *

It should also be made clear that, for the core issues of right to repair, there is no burden on a manufacturer to impede their development of newer technologies, improving performance, security, functionality or miniaturisation.  If a new manufacturing process results in repair being more difficult, then that is going to weed out some of the hacks and only those with better ability will rise to the top.  This is fine - just that they refrain from actively thwarting repair efforts for no good reason.  (Controlling the after-market is NOT a good reason for anything but their bottom line, IMHO.)


If you allow parts to be available (yes, add a licensing fee into the price if you want), allow information to be available and allow tools to be available then I believe this will attract more people into the repair industry that are more principled.  I would be much happier using someone who was not prepared to do deals under the table as is often the case now.

[ace1903]

I own Citroen Berlingo that developed oil leak in pressure sensor in hydraulic steering. I asked local Citroen service for repair and they need 4 days to keep the car in their premises to investigate and fix.
I complained since there is nothing to be investigated, I only ask to replace the sensor, but they refused and wanted 200eur for  the fix. Four days out of service was too much for me and 200eur for sensor is also difficult to swallow. One friend of mine said to me to ask in Peugeot service for part since Peugeot Partner and Citroen Berlingo are basically same car. Peugeot service center sold me the sensor for 70eur on my own responsibility.
I took off the old sensor and put new one in 5min. Four days vs 5min and 200eur vs 70eur.
The old sensor and the new one have same product number engraved on them from Valeo. If Valeo was allowed to sell the sensor in local parts market probably it will cost around 40eur.
That is why I support R2R initiative. Give me the spare part list and place where I can buy.

Hiding schematics , part list , service manual can not be the way to protect intellectual property.

[langwadt]

I own Citroen Berlingo that developed oil leak in pressure sensor in hydraulic steering. I asked local Citroen service for repair and they need 4 days to keep the car in their premises to investigate and fix.
I complained since there is nothing to be investigated, I only ask to replace the sensor, but they refused and wanted 200eur for  the fix. Four days out of service was too much for me and 200eur for sensor is also difficult to swallow. One friend of mine said to me to ask in Peugeot service for part since Peugeot Partner and Citroen Berlingo are basically same car. Peugeot service center sold me the sensor for 70eur on my own responsibility.
I took off the old sensor and put new one in 5min. Four days vs 5min and 200eur vs 70eur.
The old sensor and the new one have same product number engraved on them from Valeo. If Valeo was allowed to sell the sensor in local parts market probably it will cost around 40eur.
That is why I support R2R initiative. Give me the spare part list and place where I can buy.

Hiding schematics , part list , service manual can not be the way to protect intellectual property.

afaiu in Germany car manufacturers are required to make spare parts available for minimum of 10 years

[G7PSK]

[/quote]

afaiu in Germany car manufacturers are required to make spare parts available for minimum of 10 years
[/quote]

Same here in UK, dealers get to be the only source for many components due to "proprietery" parts and some manufacturers require the onboard computers to be reset for simple things like lam changes otherwise the item is not recognised and wont work despite being a standard lam/bulb. Many smaller garages dont have the computer software required and its almost certain that the average motorist wont have the equipment, in the past all that was required to change said bulb was a screwdriver and the replacement bulb. Gone are the days where all cars had the same lights and you could replace them easily. Years gone by Rolls Royce lams cost £500.00 for a sealed beam unit the same one as could be purchased for £5.00 for an Austin mini or Rover or Jaguar the only difference was the units did not have the RR logo on them now the lights are made so they only fit one make or model, this can only be so that they can charge more ensuring that you cannot go elsewhere. wing mirror glass used to be availble at 70 pence each now you have to buy a complete unit for £350.

[rstofer]

Or let's say the ignition module was the same as used in dozens of other vehicles, but your particular one was "customised" under direction of the vehicle manufacturer to have a serial number that had to match one stored in your ECU or the engine wouldn't start.  Is this really a matter of security (questionable in my book) or an example of restrictive trade practices, forcing the manufacturer into a position of control?

* The above was written with the average motor vehicle in mind.  Try re-reading with a piece of electronic equipment in mind. *

The auto manufacturer is being told to comply with certain regulations (emissions, among other things), forever and always.  Of course they want to know which parts are being used for repairs and they want to know who is doing the repairs.  The deep pockets in substandard repairs will be the manufacturers, not the individual owner.  So, if the manufacturer provides the parts openly, they're on the hook for the customer's mistakes.  Not going to happen.

[langwadt]

afaiu in Germany car manufacturers are required to make spare parts available for minimum of 10 years
[/quote]

Same here in UK, dealers get to be the only source for many components due to "proprietery" parts and some manufacturers require the onboard computers to be reset for simple things like lam changes otherwise the item is not recognised and wont work despite being a standard lam/bulb. Many smaller garages dont have the computer software required and its almost certain that the average motorist wont have the equipment, in the past all that was required to change said bulb was a screwdriver and the replacement bulb. Gone are the days where all cars had the same lights and you could replace them easily. Years gone by Rolls Royce lams cost £500.00 for a sealed beam unit the same one as could be purchased for £5.00 for an Austin mini or Rover or Jaguar the only difference was the units did not have the RR logo on them now the lights are made so they only fit one make or model, this can only be so that they can charge more ensuring that you cannot go elsewhere. wing mirror glass used to be availble at 70 pence each now you have to buy a complete unit for £350.
[/quote]

I read somewhere that the number of spare parts sold are a small fraction of a percent of the parts used for the initial production, so it can't be that
much they make considering the hassle of keeping it in stock for 10 years. A only stocking and a selling whole units instead of a million part numbers
makes sense, since the units probably came as a unit form a subcontractor  anyway

[cdev]

Manufacturers should be required to build products as much as possible with replaceable parts unless thre is a real need to use some special part. I mean whts with some bulb that costs an arm and a leg, does it have a LAN connection built in?

When you buy a Rolls I guess you really have signed up for a cash extracting monster, but other cars, the bulbs should be easy to replace.

Some semi-luxury cars are also very reliable and economical to maintain. Thats what I would want

[robint91]

What a load of bollocks. If flight controls were so badly designed that easily be interfered with, they wouldn't pass the EMC tests themselves, otherwise we'd have terrorists taking down aeroplanes left, right and centre with radio transmitters. 

Then why are we required to put our device in airplane mode during landing and take-off. Is prevention not better, licking the wound afterward. Something something Prevention paradox.... Shouldn't we better be safe that sorry? You can claim that it has NO risk.

[SiliconWizard]

What a load of bollocks. If flight controls were so badly designed that easily be interfered with, they wouldn't pass the EMC tests themselves, otherwise we'd have terrorists taking down aeroplanes left, right and centre with radio transmitters. 

Then why are we required to put our device in airplane mode during landing and take-off. Is prevention not better, licking the wound afterward. Something something Prevention paradox.... Shouldn't we better be safe that sorry? You can claim that it has NO risk.

Well, it's a grey area. You can't claim there is absolutely no risk, but anyone involved with avionics these days will tell you there is very little risk of misfunctioning if passengers use their electronic devices. The most reasonable rationale for this, as far as I've heard, is mainly for the passenger's safety itself. Playing with cell phones, tablets, laptops during take off or landing could potentially be directly dangerous in case of turbulences or if something goes wrong. In particular, some landings can be pretty rough depending on conditions, and you don't want portable devices flying all over the place inside the cabin. That's also why it's reminded to put your stuff back under the front seat. Just a thought.

[TimFox]

As an older person, I have learned not to trust strangers with electronic equipment, especially when there is no need to use ones phone during a legally-defined take-off and landing interval, on a common-carrier passenger aircraft.
A few years ago, Mythbusters tested cell phones vs. avionics with an inconclusive result, but decided that in that case the safe thing to do was to follow the regulations and not risk others onboard the flight by claiming superior knowledge of ones cell phone's EMC characteristics.

[robint91]

After all these discussions the two main questions are in my opinion still unanswered.

First, does a product loose conformity when an unauthorized repair has been done? In simpler terms, does every UL/FCC/... testing and certification become void after an unauthorized repair? Is it still "legal" to use that device? What are the trigger points when this certification become void. Who decides on that? (The one who was originally liable for that certification) --> Who is liable after a repair?

Secondly, what is repair? Does a manufacturer needs to support component level repair? Does right to repair entitle that you the customer can do the repair, or that the manufacturer needs to provide repair services for x amount of time for a particular cost?

[bdunham7]

After all these discussions the two main questions are in my opinion still unanswered.

I think they have been answered, but maybe not succinctly, so...

1)  The question as stated makes no sense--there is no conformity to 'lose'.  The laws generally do not place the burden of proving conformance to the original specifications on either the user or the repairer.  Those regulations only apply to a new product as designed and delivered, although they may apply to latent defects that appear later.  If I buy a new product and then drop it on the floor causing it to have raised emissions, or to be unsafe due to current leakage or flames coming out the side, there's no requirement that I resubmit it to UL or test it for FCC compliance.  The laws as written generally do not apply to the user or the repairer, although other laws may apply.   For example, it may be illegal to modify something to broadcast more power than originally designed, or to eliminate a safety feature like airbags.  These difference is that the user or repairer generally does not have an initial burden of proving compliance or having any testing done, although they may be liable if there is a problem or complaint.

2)  A repair is taking something that is not functioning correctly and doing whatever you do to it to restore that function.  A complete hack that makes the product light up again is a repair, whether you approve of it or not.  Right to repair, as generally understood and legislated so far, is mostly based on the theory that the manufacturer (or retailer) does not have the right to prevent, restrict or monopolize the repairing of their products once they are sold to an end user.

[Brumby]

although other laws may apply

THIS!  One thousand percent this!!

Any Right To Repair legislation does not need to include ANYTHING that is already covered by existing legislation, nor should it include anything that would be better implemented under existing legislation.  Found something in Consumer Protection law that needs buttoning up? - then amend the Consumer Protection law.  For heaven's sake DON'T add it into Right To Repair legislation!

That would not only make the legal framework more confusing than it already is, but it also opens up the potential for inconsistencies or outright contradictions that could result in such legislation being thrown out.

[ace1903]

Will give another example for other car: Nissan Sunny from 1991. I found 1200 pages service manual leaked on internet. Every chapter starts with list of tools that are needed to do diagnostic and service of certain subsystem. Some fixes I did myself for some other I visited service shop. I have choice what to do according my toolbox and amount of time.
I see no difference for electronic product. For sure Apple or some other service center does not have EMC chamber and regularly does testing of each product that is serviced.

Detailed service manual that will state that before doing any fix on the device one needs to obtain replacement coper tape, emc gasket and any other part that gets damaged if device is open is enough.

As for legislation, all that manufacturer guaranties is  properties of the devices at the day the devices leaves the store.
There is no guaranties that EMC compliance will be still valid even when capacitors in the device are one year old cooked due to poor thermal design.
No guaranties that pollution emission will be same after 20.000 km/miles.
 
 One mentioned headlamp example. Nearby my house there is one car service shop. Sadly, there are 100's headlamps each month each dumped due to single failed led. People are afraid that will need replacement after guarantee period that will cost ~1000eur and insist headlamp to be replaced for free even when there is single failed led. Mountain of polycarbonate garbage is generated each year just because all lamps are sealed in single housing.