On Jan. 15, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court accusing John Deere of creating and presiding over a monopolistic and anti-competitive repair and dealer service system that puts farmers and independent repair professionals at an unfair disadvantage.
The news of this legal action has sent shock-waves through the ag equipment world. Deere has since offered an official statement condemning the action as “meritless…baseless…brazen partisanship.”
Incoming FTC chair, commissioner Andrew Ferguson, who has been appointed to head up the agency under President Trump, issued a statement that simultaneously recognizes the importance of allowing farmers to diagnose and fix their machines while indicating he disagrees with the decision to file the lawsuit. Fergusons’ statement was cosigned by fellow FTC commissioner Melissa Holyoak.
What happens next?
According to a post at FTC.gov, once the agency files a lawsuit the respondent – in this case, John Deere – has the right to contest the charges. FTC may then issue a final order, which can be appealed to the courts. The agency may also seek civil (i.e. financial) damages or request an injunction against Deere.
Plaintiff’s counsel have requested an injunction against John Deere. The lawsuit expressly asks for “a permanent injunction and other equitable relief against Deere to prevent its unlawful conduct in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act” along with several state statutes in Illinois and Minnesota.
The Interviews
Now that we’ve set the stage, here is what two experts who have paid close attention to the case have to say about it:
James Kovacs is an antitrust attorney with Shinder Cantor Lerner (SLC), a national litigation firm that specializes in antitrust law.
Q: Is what FTC is accusing Deere of difficult to prove in a court of law?
A: “This is actually a very interesting topic that has been going on now for a number of decades, called right to repair. And right to repair within the antitrust space, which is where I practice, has to do with whether or not restrictions placed by the original equipment manufacturer, in this case John Deere, and what we call an aftermarket, which are the areas in which people compete for repair or service, whether those, you know, aftermarkets are being harmed. And so looking at whether people cannot either independently repair their own equipment or whether independent retailers or repair centers are also restricted as well. With these cases, really any monopolization case is challenging, but here I will say that the practices of John Deere, I think, are quite open and notorious.
“For a long time, people have been aware that farmers have been restricted from repairing their farm equipment. There are a variety of means, most of which are sort of technical issues in which the data and information necessary to perform the repair or the tool, which I believe is called the Service Advisor, has been restricted. And so, when the farmer or the independent repair center goes to fix the John Deere equipment, they are not able to access the necessary technical information to complete the job. And now the farmer can only do those types of repairs through a John Deere retailer, an authorized retailer.
“And so, this type of conduct within the right to repair market dates back to cases in the 1990s, in particular, with Kodak printers. And it can be found to be anti-competitive, wherein there’s an entity with basically complete control over the repair market who applies these types of restrictions. So, this is not something that is uncommon. And it’s something that’s seen quite an uptick in interest since the Biden Administration made it a priority. And when the FTC issued their initial report, called Nixing The Fix, that sort of got the ball rolling on the FTC’s interest in these types of cases.”
Q: In your opinion, does FTC have a strong case here?
A: “In my experience, the FTC does not bring complaints unless they feel like there are strong grounds to do so. Again, I also think there are a couple key factors at play here. One, I think the public is becoming quite aware of John Deere’s practices. I know that there are several reports and public sources out there who have spoken about these issues and their impact on farmers and their farming equipment.
“The second aspect to keep in mind is there is also a private litigation against John Deere alleging the same practices. That case has proceeded past a motion to dismiss. And so, what that means is the allegations have been proven to be sufficient to allow the parties to proceed into discovery. And I think that gives credence to the fact these claims are not necessarily merit-less at all. But in fact, people who have been looking at these issues believe there are merits to these claims. And I think the FTC does not typically act unless they believe strongly that an issue could be problematic.”
Q: FTC, through their legal team, has requested an injunction against Deere along with their co-plaintiffs, the state attorney generals in Illinois and Minnesota. Let’s say I’m a farmer in Illinois or Minnesota, and I’m using Deere equipment. I may be looking to have some repairs made before spring planting by a John Deere dealer. Could there be implications at play for those users?
A: “I think it’s important to note that the FTC’s jurisdiction is nationwide. And so, what the FTC is seeking through its injunctive relief, as I understand it, is access to what they call the ‘full function Service Advisor (program).’ As of right now, there is sort of an incomplete Service Advisor that the independent repair pros and the farmers have access to, but that doesn’t give them the full suite of options to repair all the needs of their farming equipment. And the allegation is that John Deere has withheld some of this technical information out of a desire to sort of capture the repair market under the injunctive relief.
“As I understand it, if the FTC were to be successful in any litigation and a jury ultimately found in their favor, then ultimately the farmers would be able to get access to this full Service Advisor tool and therefore be able to complete more repairs. Whether or not John Deere comes up with additional ways of restricting repairs is going to be open to interpretation, but at least this is a very specific injunctive relief. And there’s also sort of broader language to sort of prevent them from continuing this unlawful conduct. And so, I think it could be substantial relief.”
Willie Cade is a Washington, D.C., lobbyist and Right to Repair advocate. His grandfather was on the board at John Deere and worked for the company as a chief engineer. He can be reached by email at willie@graceful.solutions.
Q: What have you learned about this legal action that sticks out to you?
A: “A couple of things really stick out in my mind. No. 1, deep into the filing, around paragraph 111, they talk about how this monopolization of repair actually affects all repairs.
“Yes, it’s not monopolization of every repair, but it affects the price of every repair, which is remarkable. And they really call it a monopoly. They’re flat out about it. I love the way they took the time – we initially filed the complaint with the FTC and I worked on that with the attorneys that filed it three years ago. So they did their homework and they’ve done a really good job. And I really recommend to the farmers who really care about this issue, that they read the complaint because it reads really well. It reads like they know the industry, like they know what they’re talking about and that kind of thing.
“The other thing that was kind of interesting is, is they have lots (of evidence). They have a number of John Deere executives on record saying that, yeah, we knew we were doing this. So, I mean, they’ve really nailed it from that point of view. And when you look at the dissenting opinion from the two Republican commissioners, it’s a non-dissent dissent. There really was no objection to the substance of the suit, just the timing.”
Q: Are you aware of any other major farm machinery companies that might be engaged in similar conduct?
A: “They’re all doing it. They all use the same similar kind of technology — the CAN bus. Caterpillar is a little different because it’s not a CAN bus, it’s a hub. But those are just technical details. They’re still wanting to, I assert, illegally control the consumer after they sell the product. That’s a legal concept called tying. And tying has been illegal for almost a century now. And the electronics allow you to do it today where you weren’t able to do it before, other than physically. So we’re going to nail this. It’s going to take a year or two and then we’re going to move on. We’re going to move on to some even more important issues in agriculture. But I won’t tell you what that is yet.”
Q: Could you see this becoming sort of a win-win situation, where the farmers win out on this and even Deere comes out of this looking somewhat okay and maybe better for the long term?
A: “Well, here’s the interesting thing. Due to the lack of rights to repair their own farm equipment, farmers stand to lose $4.2 billion a year. About 20% of that is realized in higher prices for repair and services. The rest is in lost yield. So, could you imagine if farmers could get that rough number, that $3.8 billion back or even $3.7 billion back? And it’s all profit, by the way. By the time you get the yield, it’s all profit. If they could get that as profit, of course John Deere is going to do better with sales.”
Watch this video for additional coverage from the Jan. 18, 2025, episode of U.S. Farm Report.
Your Next Read: How a Con Man Pulled the Evilest Agriculture Fraud in History
