FTC and Five States Settle With John Deere, Forcing Open Its Repair Software for Farmers

FTC and Five States Settle With John Deere, Forcing Open Its Repair Software for Farmers

The FTC and the attorneys general of Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin filed a stipulated final order against Deere & Company on July 8, 2026, requiring the equipment maker to give farmers and independent repair shops the same repair software and tools it gives authorized dealers.

Information last verified on July 11, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: The FTC and five states filed a stipulated (agreed) final order on July 8, 2026, resolving their claims against Deere & Company; it takes effect on entry by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Deere neither admitted nor denied the allegations.

Jurisdiction scope: This settlement is a federal enforcement action joined by five states (Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). It binds Deere & Company nationally under the order's terms, but it is a government enforcement resolution, not a private right of action for individual farmers to sue Deere directly.

What Happened

The Federal Trade Commission and the attorneys general of Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin filed a stipulated final order on July 8, 2026, resolving their lawsuit against Deere & Company, the Moline, Illinois-based maker of John Deere agricultural equipment. The case is FTC v. Deere & Company, No. 3:25-cv-50017, pending before Judge Iain D. Johnston in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. Because the order is stipulated, meaning both sides agreed to its terms, it still requires the court to enter it before it takes legal effect.

The FTC and the states first sued Deere in January 2025, alleging that the company's control over repair software and diagnostic tools for its large tractors and combines locked farmers and independent repair shops out of timely, affordable repairs. The complaint focused on Deere's Full-Function Service ADVISOR, a diagnostic and reprogramming tool that Deere had made available to its authorized dealer network but restricted for farmers and independent shops.

Under the stipulated order, Deere must, for a term of 10 years and under the ongoing supervision of the FTC and the plaintiff states, make available to farmers and independent repair providers the same repair resources it already provides to its authorized dealers, on fair and reasonable terms. Those resources include reading, clearing, and resetting electronic fault codes; reprogramming electronic components, including pairing newly installed parts with equipment; restarting a machine after an emissions-related shutdown, commonly called limp mode; and viewing and searching technical manuals, troubleshooting guidance, and other diagnostic information. Deere also agreed to pay $1 million to the states to cover their legal, enforcement, and monitoring costs, and it will be subject to compliance reporting for the life of the order. Deere neither admitted nor denied the allegations and waived its right to appeal as part of the resolution.

What the Law Actually Says

The FTC's original complaint rested on Section 5 of the FTC Act, which bars "unfair methods of competition," combined with a monopolization theory under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The FTC and the states alleged that Deere willfully maintained monopoly power in the market for restricted repairs of its large tractors and combines through the exclusivity of its Service ADVISOR tool, an arrangement they characterized as anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct rather than ordinary business competition.

That legal theory sits alongside a separate, faster-growing track: state right-to-repair statutes that require manufacturers to share parts, tools, and documentation with independent repairers and consumers directly, without needing a federal antitrust case. Connecticut's recent right-to-repair rules, for example, require electronics and appliance makers to make repair resources available to owners and independent shops on terms tied to what they already give authorized providers, a structure similar to what the Deere order now imposes by court order rather than statute. The Deere settlement does not create a new private right for farmers to sue Deere on their own; it is enforced by the FTC and the five states under the order's terms. Farmers with equipment covered by the order can also review consumer protections for defective vehicles and equipment in our lemon-law guide, which covers a related but distinct set of remedies for equipment that does not perform as warranted.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

This settlement shows a federal antitrust enforcer using a repair-restriction theory, rather than price-fixing or merger review, to force open a manufacturer's software ecosystem. The 10-year supervision period and the specific list of required resources, fault codes, reprogramming, limp-mode reset, and manuals, give the FTC and the five states a concrete compliance yardstick rather than a general commitment to "improve" repair access. That specificity matters because vague settlement language is harder to enforce than an itemized list of tools a company must hand over.

The case also shows federal antitrust theory and state right-to-repair statutes converging on the same outcome through different legal paths. Connecticut and other states have moved through legislation, while the FTC and the five states here used litigation, applying Section 5's unfair-methods-of-competition standard against a single company's software licensing practices. This settlement resolves the FTC's claims against Deere; it does not resolve claims against other equipment makers or change the law for manufacturers outside this case. It is consistent with another recent FTC consumer-protection action in which the agency used enforcement authority rather than waiting on new legislation. Notably, Illinois, one of the five states, has been active on consumer protection on multiple fronts this year, not just this case.

How This Affects You

Farmers and independent repair shops that work on covered Deere large tractors and combines should, once the order is entered, gain access to the same fault-code, reprogramming, limp-mode reset, and manual resources Deere already gives its authorized dealer network, on fair and reasonable terms. The order does not require Deere to give away the tools for free; it requires Deere to offer them on terms comparable to what it gives its own dealers.

The order is limited to Deere's large tractors and combines and to the specific repair resources it lists. It does not extend by its own terms to other equipment makers, and it does not create a mechanism for an individual farmer to sue Deere directly over the order's terms; enforcement runs through the FTC and the five states. Farmers and shops with concerns about how Deere implements the order can raise them with the FTC or their state attorney general's office.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers a federal enforcement action joined by Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and reflects sources verified on July 11, 2026. This is a developing story and its terms are subject to court entry; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

Related articles

• Connecticut's recent right-to-repair rules
• Consumer protections for defective vehicles and equipment
• Another recent FTC consumer-protection action
• Illinois consumer protection: the state's junk-fee ban

---

Last updated: 2026-07-11. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-07-11.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this settlement give me a right to repair my own tractor?

It requires Deere to make the same repair resources available to farmers and independent shops that it gives its authorized dealers, including fault-code access, reprogramming tools, and manuals, on fair and reasonable terms. It is a government enforcement order, not a law that creates a personal right to sue Deere.

Does this settlement apply outside Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin?

The order binds Deere & Company under its own terms, so the repair-access requirements are not limited to those five states. The lawsuit itself was brought by the FTC and those five states specifically.

Is the settlement final?

The order is a stipulated final order, meaning the FTC, the five states, and Deere agreed to its terms. It requires entry by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before it takes legal effect.

Did Deere admit wrongdoing?

No. Deere neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the case and waived its right to appeal as part of the resolution.

How long does the order last?

The order runs for 10 years under the supervision of the FTC and the five plaintiff states, with compliance reporting required throughout that term.

What was the original lawsuit about?

Filed in January 2025, it alleged Deere used its Service ADVISOR diagnostic software to maintain an unlawful monopoly over repairs for its large tractors and combines, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Does Deere have to pay farmers directly?

No. Deere agreed to pay $1 million to the plaintiff states to cover their legal, enforcement, and monitoring costs. The order does not provide direct payments to individual farmers.