Farmers Own the Tractor, Not the Right to Fix It
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have launched a joint investigation into agricultural equipment manufacturing and distribution practices after discovering something American farmers have been explaining for years: you can spend $400,000 on a tractor, but fixing the damn thing may still require permission from somebody who has never driven one.
The investigation examines potential anticompetitive practices, restrictive dealer arrangements, equipment pricing and obstacles preventing farmers from repairing machinery they supposedly own.
Farmers welcomed the announcement, although several expressed confusion about why Washington required an investigation to discover something their grandfathers could have explained over coffee.
“My grandfather bought a tractor in 1963,” said Nebraska corn farmer Earl Pritchard. “It came with a toolbox, an owner’s manual and the understanding that if something broke, you fixed it. My new tractor came with a touchscreen, seventeen warning lights and a customer service number in another state.”
Pritchard said his grandfather could rebuild an engine using three wrenches, a cigarette and language inappropriate for Sunday school. His grandson cannot replace an electronic component without first negotiating with a computer.
“That’s progress,” Pritchard explained. “We took a machine a farmer could repair and turned it into a machine that requires a software engineer who doesn’t know which end of the cow eats.”
Right to Repair: A $400,000 Tractor Farmers Can’t Fix
The controversy centers on a legal concept known as ownership. Ownership traditionally meant that after purchasing something, the buyer possessed it and could decide what to do with it.
Agricultural equipment manufacturers have helped introduce a more sophisticated interpretation: the farmer owns the metal, the company controls the software, and the dealership owns the farmer’s remaining disposable income. Industry economists describe this arrangement as recurring revenue. Farmers describe it with language that cannot be printed in a family newspaper.
Consider the experience of an Iowa soybean grower whose $400,000 tractor displayed an electronic fault code in the middle of harvest. The farmer investigated, found a minor sensor problem and fixed it himself. The tractor disagreed. Its computer demanded professional intervention.
The authorized technician arrived three days later, connected a laptop, pressed several buttons and announced that the machine was operational. The farmer received a bill large enough to qualify as a dependent on his federal income taxes.
The itemized invoice, a copy of which the farmer provided, lists travel (240 miles round trip) at $1,020, a diagnostic session at $450, a software authorization fee at $890, one and a half hours of labor at $450 and shop supplies at $75. A service manager at the dealership confirmed that the shop supplies charge covered one paper towel. Total due: $2,885.
“Apparently, the most valuable piece of equipment on my farm isn’t the tractor,” the farmer said. “It’s the laptop belonging to a man who charges $300 an hour to tell my tractor I’m allowed to drive it.”
Agricultural observers point out that the situation has created an extraordinary occupational paradox. Farmers can operate dangerous machinery, apply complex chemical treatments, manage multimillion-dollar businesses, diagnose livestock illnesses and navigate volatile commodity markets. Replacing a sensor, however, apparently requires a certified professional.
USDA Asks Farmers About Equipment Prices, Receives 40 Million Pages of Evidence
The USDA has invited farmers, repair technicians and equipment dealers to submit comments describing problems with agricultural equipment markets. The response threatens to become the largest collection of grievances since the invention of property taxes.
Federal officials reportedly considered distributing questionnaires asking farmers whether equipment companies were charging too much, restricting repairs or limiting dealership competition. Agricultural organizations recommended replacing the questionnaire with a single question: “How much time have you got?”
A survey of 1,200 growers conducted by the Great Plains Equipment Owners Association found that 71 percent had waited more than two days for a repair during harvest, 94 percent said they could have fixed the problem themselves with access to the right software, and 3 percent said they enjoyed the dealership coffee. The association’s executive director said the 3 percent were probably the same people who enjoy the dealership’s financing.
One Kansas wheat farmer submitted a complaint consisting of three repair invoices, two loan statements and a photograph of himself staring into a field while reconsidering every decision that led him into agriculture.
A Texas rancher reportedly requested permission to submit his comments orally because his entire complaint consisted of profanity. Government attorneys are still determining whether the remarks constitute testimony or a declaration of war.
Dealer Consolidation Leaves Rural Farmers One Dealership to Choose From
The FTC is also examining dealer concentration and practices that may limit competition. That has raised uncomfortable questions in rural communities where the nearest authorized dealership is 120 miles away and the next closest dealership belongs to the same corporate ownership group.
In some places, farmers enjoy the competitive freedom to choose between paying too much locally or driving two hours to pay the same amount somewhere else. Agricultural economists call this market consolidation. Farmers call it Tuesday.
A service department memo circulated at one regional dealership group, and reviewed by this publication, instructs employees that customers who ask whether they “own” their equipment should be “referred to Section 14 of the license agreement.” Section 14, according to the memo, is “under review.”
The timing makes everything worse. During planting and harvest, machinery breakdowns are not merely inconvenient. A farmer cannot tell a thunderstorm that his combine is waiting for a software update. He cannot ask corn to stop drying because the dealership technician is attending a corporate training seminar. And he certainly cannot explain to his banker that his loan payment will arrive once the manufacturer’s diagnostic server finishes maintenance.
The government has requested evidence. Farmers have offered to deliver it by the truckload, assuming their trucks still work.
John Deere Settlement Puts Farmers’ Ownership Rights Under the Microscope
The controversy became particularly significant after the FTC and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company addressing restrictions on farmers’ ability to repair their equipment.
Under the settlement terms, Deere must provide farmers and independent repair providers access to repair resources comparable to those supplied to authorized dealerships. That includes important diagnostic software capabilities. The National Farmers Union called the deal a win that farmers had earned by refusing to stay quiet, and said it would keep pushing for a permanent, nationwide right-to-repair law.
For farmers, the development represents a remarkable technological breakthrough: a man who purchases a machine might eventually be permitted to maintain it. Agricultural historians are comparing the achievement to the invention of the wheel, although the wheel required considerably less litigation.
The problem extends beyond one manufacturer. Modern agriculture increasingly relies on machines containing computers, sensors, electronic controllers and proprietary software. What once required mechanical knowledge may now require digital authorization. A farmer can replace a hydraulic hose, rebuild a transmission and weld a broken implement, but when a dashboard displays an error code, the tractor may suddenly become a $400,000 monument to corporate intellectual property.
The absurdity becomes clearer when compared with other industries. Imagine purchasing a refrigerator and discovering that replacing the lightbulb requires a certified technician. Or buying a pickup truck whose manufacturer must approve each oil change. Or purchasing a house only to discover that the original builder retains exclusive rights to unclogging the toilet.
Americans would revolt. Farmers, unfortunately, are usually too busy planting.
An agricultural marketing consultant explained that equipment manufacturers have invested heavily in sophisticated customer relationships.
“In the old days, you sold a tractor once,” he said. “Today, you can continue developing the customer relationship every time something breaks.”
When asked whether the relationship benefited farmers, the consultant said farmers were receiving valuable lessons in patience, technological dependence and financial humility.
Meanwhile, independent mechanics expressed optimism that improved repair access could restore competition to rural communities. One retired mechanic in Missouri said he spent forty years fixing tractors with tools that fit inside a pickup.
“I never needed permission from the factory,” he recalled. “I needed the right wrench, the right part and occasionally somebody to hold the flashlight.”
He added that modern equipment manufacturers had successfully replaced the flashlight holder with a subscription service.
Farm Equipment Comment Period Gives Farmers Weeks to Explain the Obvious
The FTC and USDA are still accepting public comments as part of their agricultural equipment market inquiry. Farmers have been encouraged to provide documented examples of restrictive practices, costs, dealer arrangements and repair problems. Government officials hope the information will help shape future enforcement and regulatory priorities.
Farmers hope something considerably simpler will happen. They would like to buy a tractor, own the tractor, repair the tractor and use the tractor to grow enough food to make the tractor payments.
One North Dakota farmer offered Washington a modest proposal.
“Before Congress investigates anything else, make every senator buy a $400,000 car that won’t start until a dealership technician drives 150 miles to reset the radio,” he said. Then he paused. “Then charge them $2,800 and tell them their warranty doesn’t cover it.”
Agricultural economists predict the resulting legislation would pass unanimously before lunch.
The broader lesson is that American farmers do not object to technology, computerized equipment or legitimate manufacturer support. They object to purchasing expensive machinery and discovering that ownership comes with fewer privileges than a rental agreement.
Farmers already contend with unpredictable weather, unstable commodity prices, rising land costs, expensive fertilizer and the occasional cow determined to die in the most inconvenient location imaginable. They don’t particularly need a tractor that demands permission to be a tractor.
And if Washington genuinely wants to restore agricultural competition, perhaps it should begin with one principle:
When a farmer finishes paying $400,000 for a tractor, the tractor should belong to the farmer.
Not the software company. Not the dealership. Not the technician carrying the sacred laptop. The farmer. Preferably before harvest is over.
Relevant reporting:FTC and USDA agricultural equipment market inquiry | FTC settlement advancing farmers’ right to repair John Deere equipment | FTC public comment information | National Farmers Union
Five Humorous Observations
- You ever notice a $400,000 tractor has a touchscreen? This guy’s been up since four a.m. doing math with a hay bale, and now he’s getting a Terms and Conditions pop-up. Nobody’s ever read one of those. Not once, in history. And the tractor’s like, “He agreed.” To what?
- Seventeen warning lights. Seventeen! My grandfather’s tractor had one warning light, and it was him, yelling.
- The technician charges $300 an hour to press a button. That’s not a repair, that’s a hostage negotiation where the hostage is a combine and the ransom is also a combine.
- You bought it, you paid for it, you can’t touch it. That’s not ownership, that’s a bad relationship. “We’re exclusive, but I can’t see the inside of your engine.”
- Nearest dealership is 120 miles away. Everybody says shop local. Local is a four-hour round trip and a sandwich.