A John Deere tractor with a failure light blinking on its dashboard on a central Illinois farm is practically worthless until someone with permission to access Deere’s proprietary diagnostic software arrives. The software needed to read the error, clear it, and approve the repair is locked behind a system that Deere controls and that only Deere’s authorized dealers can access, not because the mechanical issue is necessarily serious (in some cases, a skilled farmer or local mechanic could fix it in an hour). A dealer appointment is not necessary for the start of planting season. Nor does Harvest. For years, hundreds of thousands of American farmers have had to deal with this reality, which ultimately led to a $99 million class action settlement and an ongoing Federal Trade Commission lawsuit.
Deere was accused of systematically monopolizing the agricultural equipment repair market by denying farmers and independent repair shops access to diagnostic tools and repair software. The class action was filed in 2022 as a multi-district complaint in the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois. The idea was simple: only authorized Deere dealers could perform repairs on Deere equipment if only authorized Deere dealers were able to run diagnostics and clear fault codes. Additionally, Deere can charge whatever the market will bear without facing competition from independent operators who might perform the same operation for less if only Deere’s network of dealers can complete the task. The complaint did not hold back when describing Deere’s position in the market, pointing out that the company’s share of the large tractor and combine market in North America was greater than the combined share of the next two biggest rivals, Case New Holland and Kubota.
| John Deere Right-to-Repair Settlement — Key Facts | |
| Settlement Amount | $99 million — deposited into a class settlement fund; resolves the 2022 multi-district class action filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois with no finding of wrongdoing |
|---|---|
| Core Allegation | Plaintiffs alleged John Deere intentionally made diagnostic software and repair tools inaccessible to farmers and independent repair shops — effectively monopolizing the repair service market and artificially inflating prices without competition |
| Market Position Named in Suit | The complaint stated Deere’s market share in large tractors and combines exceeds that of the next two biggest competitors — Case New Holland and Kubota Corp. — combined |
| Key Remedy | Deere must make diagnostic and repair tools available to farmers and independent repair shops — the Operations Center Pro Service tool allows users to access trouble codes, diagnose, reprogram, calibrate, and repair equipment independently |
| Duration of Remedy | Tool access must remain available for a minimum of 10 years under the terms of the settlement agreement |
| Ongoing Action & Broader Context | |
| FTC Case Status | The Federal Trade Commission’s 2025 antitrust lawsuit against Deere — alleging the same monopolization of repair markets — remains active; a federal judge rejected Deere’s dismissal attempt, requiring the company to face government allegations |
| PIRG Assessment | U.S. PIRG called the $99 million settlement “a relatively minor financial penalty,” estimating repair restrictions from all manufacturers combined cost U.S. farmers $4.2 billion per year |
| Eligible Claimants | Farmers impacted by Deere’s practices after 2018 — after attorneys’ fees, lead plaintiff payments, and litigation expenses, remaining funds will be distributed to eligible claimants; claim forms available at deererepairsettlement.com |
The $99 million settlement, which was announced following years of litigation, settles the class action without finding any wrongdoing. This is the typical result of most major institutional settlements and, as usual, merits both a literal and contextual interpretation. After attorneys’ fees, lead plaintiff payments, and other legal costs are subtracted, the funds will be given to farmers affected by the practices after 2018. Eventually, claim forms will be accessible at deererepairsettlement.com. After the fund is distributed among the qualifying class, the reimbursement per farmer will probably be little in comparison to the real expenses that most individual farmers incurred over years of paying dealer prices for repairs that they might have completed on their own.
The remedy included in the settlement is arguably the more significant and long-lasting result. For at least the next ten years, Deere must provide independent repair businesses and farmers with diagnostic and repair equipment. A key component of this commitment is the company’s Operations Center Pro Service tool, which enables customers to read and clear trouble codes, diagnose issues, reprogram systems, calibrate components, and finish repairs without going through an authorized dealer. In the upcoming years, farmers and activists will be keenly observing if the tool fulfills its theoretical promises.
The settlement was referred to as “a relatively minor financial penalty” for Deere’s actions by U.S. PIRG, a consumer and public interest advocacy group that has been one of the most outspoken opponents of agricultural equipment maintenance limitations. They put the $99 million amount in a perspective that the company’s press statement did not offer, estimating that repair restrictions from all equipment manufacturers together cost American farmers $4.2 billion annually. The leader of PIRG’s Right to Repair campaign, Nathan Proctor, made a statement that struck a cautious mix between recognizing advancements and emphasizing that the effort was still ongoing. The settlement is a start rather than a finish.
The Federal Trade Commission’s 2025 antitrust action against Deere, which alleges the same monopolization of the repair market and withstood Deere’s attempt to have it dismissed, lends credence to this narrative. The government case is moving forward on its own schedule, separate from the class action settlement, as a result of a federal judge rejecting that dismissal request. Beyond what the private class action could accomplish, the FTC action carries potential remedies, such as the potential for structural changes to Deere’s software licensing practices and the requirements for independent operators’ access as a matter of law rather than settlement negotiations.
It’s difficult to ignore the fact that a $99 million payment from a business whose yearly sales are in the tens of billions is, by any proportionate view, a reasonable expense of conducting business. What matters more is whether the tool access requirements are actually implemented in ways that work for farmers in the field—not just available on paper, but genuinely functional without barriers that effectively recreate the problem in a different form. This could ultimately determine whether this settlement represents a genuine turning point.
