A PYMNTS Company

Deere Settles Antitrust Lawsuit Over Equipment Repair Restrictions

By  |  April 7, 2026

Deere & Company has agreed to resolve a class-action antitrust lawsuit that accused the manufacturer of limiting how farmers repair their own equipment, a case closely watched in the ongoing right-to-repair debate.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    The dispute focused on claims that the company restricted access to essential diagnostic tools, software, and parts needed to service its machinery. According to a statement associated with the case, plaintiffs argued that these limitations effectively forced farmers to rely on authorized dealerships for repairs, increasing costs and reducing flexibility during critical planting and harvest periods.

    Per the terms of the agreement, compensation will be made available to members of the affected class, pending final court approval. A portion of the settlement funds will also be allocated to cover attorneys’ fees and administrative costs, the statement noted.

    Read more: Deere Must Face Antitrust Lawsuit Over Repair Restrictions, Judge Rules

    The resolution does not end broader scrutiny of Deere’s repair practices. Related legal challenges remain active, including a federal case brought by the Federal Trade Commission alongside several states. According to filings in that matter, regulators are examining whether similar restrictions violate competition laws.

    While the settlement brings closure to this particular lawsuit, it underscores the growing tension between manufacturers and equipment owners over access to repair tools and services. As outlined in the statement, the case has become part of a wider national conversation about whether consumers should have greater control over maintaining and fixing the products they purchase.

    Source: Hoosier AG Today