Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: FTC, states reach deal with Deere over right to repair farm equipment, (Jul 9, 2026)

By Peter Reap, J.D., LL.M.

The manufacturing giant must provide farmers and independent repair shops with the same tools as authorized Deere dealers for the ten-year term.

The FTC announced that it and five states have agreed to a settlement of their antitrust lawsuit against farm equipment manufacturer Deere & Company that will ensure farmers can enjoy the right to repair their own John Deere tractors and farm equipment. The lawsuit, alleging unfair competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act along with unlawful monopolistic behavior under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and related state statutes, was filed in January 2025 by the FTC, Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The settlement, if approved by the federal district court in Rockford, Illinois, will require Deere to provide farmers and independent repair providers (IRPs) with the same repair resources that Deere now makes available to Deere dealers for the next ten years (FTC v. Deere & Co., No. 3:25-cv-50017 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 8, 2026)).

The allegations. Deere & Co. is the largest U.S. manufacturer of agricultural equipment, particularly dominating the market for large tractors and combines, machines essential for modern farming and priced in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. As agricultural technology has evolved, repair and maintenance have become increasingly dependent on proprietary software and tools, namely Deere’s "Service ADVISOR" diagnostic tool.

Farmers and IRPs used to perform repairs on their own. However, modern equipment contains electronic control units (ECUs)—computer systems that require specialized interactive software for diagnosis and repair. Deere licenses the full version of its Service ADVISOR tool exclusively to its Authorized Dealers, making it inaccessible to farmers and independent repair providers (IRPs). The stripped-down version available to non-dealers is considered inadequate.

Authorized Dealers operate under close contractual and structural oversight by Deere, are incentivized to use Deere-branded parts, which are more expensive than generic alternatives, and generate substantial revenue for Deere through repairs and parts sales. The FTC and plaintiff states (together, the Government) contended that Deere’s practices have foreclosed competition in the repair and diagnostic services market, resulting in supracompetitive pricing and reduced availability of repair options. The system created by Deere allegedly leads to supracompetitive pricing, as farmers have no alternatives for repairs and parts.

Denial of judgment on the pleadings. Deere moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing that the Government’s allegations were insufficient. However, the federal district court in Rockford denied the motion, finding that the complaint plausibly stated claims under § 2 of the Sherman Act and § 5 of the FTC Act, as well as under parallel state antitrust statutes.

On the monopolization claim, the court held that the Government adequately pleaded (i) a cognizable aftermarket, and (ii) that Deere possesses monopoly power in that aftermarket. The Government also adequately alleged that Deere engages in anticompetitive conduct by limiting access to its fully functional repair tool. The FTC’s § 5(a) claim survived for essentially the same reasons as the antitrust claim. Since § 5 is broader than the Sherman Act, a plausible § 2 violation necessarily supports a § 5 claim.

The court also rejected Deere’s argument that the FTC could not constitutionally bring this suit. Because the Commissioners were properly appointed and the enforcement decision was made during the Biden administration, which did not oppose the action, Deere failed to show injury or standing to challenge the FTC’s structure.

Challenges to the states’ standing both in their sovereign and parens patriae capacities were also rejected. Finally, Deere’s argument that state claims for civil penalties were time-barred under the respective four- and six-year statutes of limitations was without merit, at least during the current point of the proceedings.

Settlement terms. The stipulated order settling the lawsuit will, if approved by the court, require Deere to:

• Make available to farmers and independent repair providers, on fair and reasonable terms, repair resources equivalent to those Deere now makes available to Deere dealers including:

• Reading, clearing and resetting electronic fault codes;

• Reprogramming of electronic components (including “pairing” newly installed electronic parts with equipment);

• Restarting a machine following an emissions-related shutdown (commonly referred to as “limp mode”); and

• Viewing and searching technical manuals, troubleshooting solutions (including so-called “product improvement programs” and “DTAC solutions”) and other guidance and information useful for equipment diagnosis, maintenance, repair or upgrade.

• Make available to farmers and independent repair providers any future repair resources that are similar or reasonably necessary for repairs, once Deere makes them available to over 50 percent of its authorized dealer network in the United States;

• Instruct its authorized dealers to promote the availability of these repair resources and support their use, and not to discriminate or retaliate against any farmers or independent repair providers who purchase or use such resources rather than dealer repair services; and

• Provide notice to the public, to Deere’s farmer and independent repair provider customers and to its authorized dealers information about the stipulated order and the availability of Deere’s repair resources.

Deere will also be subject to strict reporting and oversight requirements to ensure its compliance with the stipulated order over its ten-year term. The length may be extended if Deere violates its terms.

Enforcer comments. “Today’s settlement enables farmers to do what they’ve done for generations—fix their own tractors and other farm equipment—without having to pay an authorized John Deere dealer to do it for them,” said FTC Bureau of Competition Director Daniel Guarnera. “The settlement with Deere will help lower costs for American farmers. The FTC will continue fighting against anticompetitive restrictions on American consumers’ right to repair.”

FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson, joined by Commissioner Mark Meador, released a separate statement. The settlement “restores competition by ensuring that farmers enjoy the right to repair their own equipment or can turn to IRPs to get the job done, rather than being dependent solely on Deere dealers; and it does so now rather than at some unspecified time in the future after further costly litigation,” Ferguson wrote.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-50017.

Attorneys: Alok Narahari for the FTC. Lauren Miller Forbes (Jones Day) for Deere & Co.

Companies: Deere & Co.

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust FederalTradeCommissionNews IllinoisNews GCNNews