On July 8, 2026, just one week after the news of the opposition to the $99 million class action settlement against John Deere, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced Deere & Co. has agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by it and U.S. states for alleged violations of requiring farmers to use its authorized dealers for repairs instead of independent service providers or self-repair. 

The FTC’s stipulated order requires Deere — for the next 10 years under the supervision of the FTC and plaintiff states — to provide farmers and independent repair providers with the same equipment repair resources, including applicable software capabilities, that it currently provides to authorized Deere dealers. Read the update here »

On July 9, the Pioneer Equipment Dealers Assn. (representing the Dakotas and Minnesota machinery dealers) released a memo to its members about the previous day’s events. Farm Equipment connected with several industry officials over the July 11 weekend, including retired dealer association executive John Schmeiser. 

Schmeiser was with a large John Deere dealer the day after the news hit and both agreed “Deere most likely achieved one of its larger strategic goals on the Right to Repair (R2R) file because it converted an uncertain antitrust battle into a predictable compliance framework … going back to 2012 when they originally announced Service Advisor as a customer support tool.”

According to Schmeiser, the FTC wanted a win and got it. The Trump administration came out with R2R as an issue they felt wanted addressed and can state that they secured meaningful right-to-repair protections for farmers. 

“From a strategic business perspective, this isn't a decisive loss for Deere but more of a negotiated compromise that limits legal risk while conceding broader access to repair tools.” The R2R advocates, of course, will claim a huge victory and possible strength for the movement, he says.

“Deere is smart though,” he says. “The bigger win for Deere in this settlement formalizes practices Deere was already expanding, like Service Advisor and Operations Center Pro, and provides customers with greater flexibility in repair tools. My opinion is that Deere was already going to do this, and the Class Action Suit just gave them the confirmation that not only were they on the right track, but they were also ahead of the curve based on their competitors in providing support tools to the end user.” 

Schmeiser believes that instead of years litigating and risking landmark antitrust defeat, Deere now knows what it must provide, for how long – 10 years and under what oversight. He thinks it’s a good settlement for the dealer distribution system. 

Not everyone had the same initial impression, however. It was immediately clear others felt differently. Farm Equipment reached out directly to dealers for context on Monday, July 13.

What came back from dealers was that this was a “big deal.” A lot of concerns were voiced, including the question of whether a lesser service absorption rate should now be forecast. This article recaps what is on dealers’ minds, just days after the FTC notice hit. 

Several dealers asked that their names be withheld from attribution. Farm Equipment honored their requests for anonymity among known and familiar enterprises. All but a couple were large-store dealer groups. In total, the dealers represented in this article oversee about $6 billion in annual sales.

Ongoing, curated news on this matter can be found at Farm-Equipment.com/JDsettlement

Open Access to Technical Assistance Centers

As noted in the FTC order, Deere must provide farmers and independent service providers with access to Deere’s Customer Contact Center for support with respect to diagnostic and repair software issues, advice on applicable materials in technical manuals, and direction to potentially applicable DTAC, or Dealer Technical Assistance Center, Solutions.

Josh Waggener, president/CEO of the 25-store John Deere group Tellus Equipment Solutions, says the DTAC element was the most substantive part of the order. Schmeiser maintains DTAC language is the biggest concession Deere made, as it has historically been a dealer-only knowledge system. 

Waggener adds, however, that the diagnostic tooling itself was never the real “moat” protecting dealers. “The moat is trained technicians, parts availability and warranty/uptime accountability.” 

Opening the DTAC narrows the tooling gap, he says, but it doesn't replace the labor and inventory investment behind it. “Fault-code clearing, reprogramming, limp-mode resets, full technical manual and troubleshooting access are no longer gated behind dealer status,’ says Waggnerer.

Deere must make DTAC solutions available, says Schmeiser, but not DTAC itself. “Deere doesn’t have to provide dealer submission, dealer communications, dealer discussions with Deere or unpublished engineering investigations to third parties.” Schmeiser believes that makes it a good compromise.

Another 20-plus dealer group who asked not to be identified is unconcerned about the DTAC language. Instead, he says the highly frustrating layered system will frustrate the customer and cause more harm to Deere. 

The system is not without flaws, says a corporate service manager at a Deere group. “DTAC solutions are helpful for dealers, but they can also lead you to replace components that won't fix the problem if you don't do your own due diligence with diagnostic steps.”

Another large-store Deere group agreed, noting the DATC is mostly AI-driven and one cannot talk to a live body until well up the chain. “The product expert knowledge has been pushed back onto the dealership training their own guys. That is, taking a revenue-producing tech and saddling him as a ‘resource’ that is supposed to support other techs, instead of calling the factory.

“Our dealer technical communicator position is more valuable than DTAC at this point,” he says. “My concern is what it looks tomorrow when it catches on more – and how the OEMs will use it as a profit center.”

A dealer pondered what was next and if the customer will eventually be able to create DTAC cases with the Deere factories. “Currently, all dealer-created cases must go through a dealer-provided technical communicator and be worked on before Deere ever sees the case.”

Grinding to a Halt

Farmers are likely to get a clearer view into dealers’ worlds, says a large non-green dealer executive. Farmers might call this a win, but neither party should expect quicker action. It’s going to get even worse, say dealers, and extended wait time due to more volume within DTAC will affect dealers and farmers alike. That problem will come to roost with excessive waits during emergency situations. And, one could say, the farmer will now be part of the problem, too.

With high demand for free answers, dealers could encourage farmers to “go at it” by themselves via DTAC. Many won’t like it.

Another large-store dealer, who handles Case IH and New Holland, shares how he sees it playing out for the CNH brands. “This will severely slow down response time for technicians; the Tech Assistant group for CNH is already understaffed.”

Meanwhile, Anthony Mendoza, GM of single-store AGCO dealer Kalvesta (Kan.) Implement, sees a silver lining. “This may end up good for dealers struggling with the ever-present lack of technicians. A fair amount of our service calls are simple fixes, but because of the need for OEM software to recommission machines, customers need to wait on us. Our more complex jobs that require dealer-trained technicians then all suffer as we chase around ‘simple’ jobs. 

“On the other hand, we will obviously lose some business,” he says. Yet Mendoza adds his shop has been largely full since 1950, even during those eras where farmers could easily fix mechanical machines on their own

'Fair & Reasonable Costs' for Independents

Waggener notes the language to access tools and software at "fair and reasonable costs" is where the real fight will play out in coming years. “The order requires Deere to weigh multiple factors,” he says. “This includes what dealers themselves pay for comparable access due to Deere's own cost to prepare and distribute the resource, competitor pricing, ability of farmers/IRPs to pay, distribution method, usage and inflation.

“That's a multi-factor standard – not a bright line – which means there's real room for repair access to be technically available, while being priced in a way that's practically out of reach for smaller independent shops. I'd expect ongoing scrutiny and probably complaints to the FTC on this exact point.”

Another CNH dealer agreed. “This is what likely ends up in court with the Repair Association; fighting for their definition of fair and reasonable means,” he says.

Dealers hope the case is made for what’s fair to all including their livelihoods. “Constant maintenance is needed to ensure the software stays up to date,” noted one dealer. 

Brad Bowman, vice president of Iowa construction equipment Star Equipment, cites ongoing maintenance of the operating systems, updates that require end users to update, computers, licenses and so on. It is expensive for dealers.

Stephanie Pharris, the machine technology manager of the 14-store multi-brand dealer Bingham Equipment, adds concern that new language will keep OEMs from pricing the software and diagnostic tools high enough, or to maintain “a barrier to entry for non-OEM shops and independent mechanics.”

Another 10-plus-store Deere dealer group manager vented his thoughts. “If independent repair providers can purchase parts and software at price, which leaves little distinction between dealer and non-dealer access. Where is the value of carrying large inventories, incentives to buy more and chase to hit metric numbers for performance pay out? Many dealers stock parts because it is the right thing to do for customers, not because every part generates an attractive return.”

Another senior exec of a major Deere group maintains fair and reasonable access “needs to be much higher than what we as a dealer have to pay. Dealers and individual farmers should not pay the same price. We cannot continue to make the needed investments with economies of scale over an independent repair shop.”

Mendoza believes all OEMs are "eating at the same dinner table,” and could in turn raise prices to slow or prevent operations from gaining access?

He wonders what will happen when independents “cry uncle” – over marked-up software and hardware costs that are already a large expense to dealerships.

Potential Loss to Independents

There’s a long litany of reasons the professional servicing equipment dealer should retain farmers’ trust and business vs., in Tim Brannon’s words, “the independent techs roaming the fields in search of machinery in need of repair.”

Even with access to software, the dealer is in the driver’s seat – if uptime is most important. Brannon notes dealers maintain histories of machine failures, possess tribal knowledge of failure symptoms, product support programs and history and offer collective brain picking among technicians. Most of all, he says, dealers have the escalatory ability to tap into engineering when all are stumped. Almost assuredly, some farmers test-driving the independents will recognize such great differences in expertise and service that they’ll come back to the equipment dealer a better customer.

“Software access alone doesn't replicate two decades of technician training on modern hydraulics and electronics, specialized tooling or capital tied up in parts inventory,” says Waggener. 

An executive from a large Deere dealer group noted that, in the short-term, some customers will question why dealers are needed at all. “But the first time these independent guys face a major failure and cannot stand behind it, opinions will change,” he says.

Interestingly, most dealers were less concerned about the loss of service hours in the intermediate term. A sentiment shared by many is that farmers will get what they pay for – and will feel the absence of fully trained technicians with a bevy of resources behind them. Another notes “double repairs” will be racked up due to inexperienced techs, and the loss of warranty coverage from the sunk dollars.

Many were far more concerned about losing – perhaps temporarily – technicians they’ve invested in heavily who are tempted to go the shadetree mechanic route. It could be “brain drain,” says Brannon. “Factory-trained techs and tools untethered to the dealership could be a temptation too strong for some to resist.”

Personnel is the paramount concern. “The experienced guys we invested all that training in now have the access to tools we use daily, outside the dealership,” says a Deere store sales manager. “Those $50-60/hour guys can try to go out on their own, set their own schedule and keep the full $150-200 billable hour rate.”

This was a major concern when R2R suits started in 2022 and still exists when the problem of developing, attracting and retaining qualified technicians has hit critical mass.

Mendoza agrees. “This opens the door wide open for technicians to leave and start their own business charge a lower hourly rate than dealers because of less overhead, leaving dealerships mainly with just parts and sales.”

Little Interest from Repair Shops to Date

Schmeiser notes some business gains by independent repair shops are probable, but he doesn’t think it will attain the level of any fundamental model changes. “In my experience, independent guys were never too interested in spending the money to buy the tools that are available.”

Two dealers of different colors agreed. “We have already sold Customer Service Advisor and now Customer Pro Service to independent locations around us, and we still have more work than we can handle,” says one. 

Another New Holland and Case IH dealer noted none of the independent repair shops near him asked to purchase what was made available through CNH. Most independent repair shops are using software from Europe, he says.

Another CNH dealer expects a short-run loss of business, but most of his customers, he believes, will demand uptime and the trained technicians needed for it.

Business Risk

Still, several dealers share concerns about the independents, including picking up what some called the “gravy jobs” work.

“These shops could easily pick up all of the high-margin billable hours for hooked-up diagnostics, clearing electronic fault codes and basic software resets -- even without the training and experience OEM dealers have,” says Pharris.

“They will have the software capability to repair newly installed electronic components and execute emissions-related shutdowns and restarts -- things that don't require advanced training to accomplish but are very billable and necessary for good service absorption.”

Brannon expects parts sales could soon suffer, too. “The van of the independent tech rolling up to a planter in need of a pinched harness and opener repair could see Shoup or other parts used in lieu of OEM items,” he says. 

One significant Deere dealer group executive is counting on a significant loss in the mid-term. He doesn’t think it will last as technology and equipment changes so fast, but even so, he says, “this will negatively impact the dealer.”

Warranty may be the independent operation’s Achilles Heel. “Warranty work typically has to be done by a dealership-employed technician,” says Mendoza. “This is work that will never go away. This is also many of the simple jobs as the emissions regulations state coverage are 5 years/3000 hours. This will cause customers who have access to a more affordable repair shop to weigh the options of having it covered under warranty or paying outright depending on wait time, travel, etc. It's going to muddy the waters.”

'Professional' Independent Repair

Through their comments about overhead, one could see a demand for pure-play repair businesses. Not much has been talked about to date about a potential new cottage industry model that could be well-staffed, well-trained and well-maintained with parts inventories.

Waggener can envision one that could capture the profitable aftermarket work without stocking wholegoods and investing in all the time, training and costs to sell them.

“I'd expect a bifurcated independent repair market to emerge, a smaller tier of well-capitalized independent repair providers that genuinely scale up, and a larger tier picking up marginal incremental repair volume without meaningfully denting dealer service revenue.”

Brannon noted the possibility of future “service wars,” where an aggressive Case IH or AGCO dealer could get in the door of area farmers who’ve been predominantly green.

Software Rollout Rules

According to the FTC language, Deere must “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% of its authorized U.S. dealer network.”

Farm Equipment inquired what impact, or unintended consequences, could arise when less than 49% of dealers are provided with the software.

This was considered inconsequential or counterproductive by some dealers (including Schmeiser and several others) but a potential red flag by a similar number of dealers. Several, like Bowman, say this language “will cause more problems than it will cure, at least in the short run.”

Pharris adds that “OEMs could intentionally slow down the rollout of advanced automated diagnostics to avoid triggering the mandatory public release threshold, hurting overall dealer competitiveness.”

Waggener agrees, calling it an unintended consequence worth monitoring. “This creates a real incentive for Deere to stagger and slow its own internal dealer rollout pace, since crossing that 50% line triggers the wider disclosure obligation. That's a strange dynamic: a rule meant to speed up outside access could end up slowing internal rollout.”

Another executive from a major Deere dealer group noted this will be the source of continued scrutiny and “potential games played by Deere in trying to stay under this requirement.”

Yet another Deere dealer sales manager highlighted several reactions, including:

• Uneven customer experiences across regions
• Competitive advantages or disadvantages based solely on access status
• Increased cybersecurity risks associated with broader software distribution
• Reduced incentive for dealers to continue investing in technical capabilities
• Increased confusion regarding responsibility for repairs, calibrations and software-related issues

What-If Scenarios

Mendoza offered other deep thoughts. “Does Deere change their software packages enough or force current dealerships to split into separate entities so they can work around the 49% rule? For example, do they have one dealership split into one entity that is high horsepower (HHP) tractors and silage cutters, another entity that is combines and yet another that is 4WD tractors – and then provide them with 3 different software packages? The next dealer is split into silage cutters in one entity and combines/HHP tractors in another and those are 2 separate and different software packages. Minds are already finding workarounds for this … but I'm sure something will happen.”

Pharris also offered potential for how things could play out. “If an OEM tries to circumvent this by restricting advanced software to a limited ‘pilot’ group of 49% or less of its dealers, it could create a big issue, especially for small dealers.” 

She questioned how that percentage will ultimately be defined. Depending on how that shakes out, she says, small dealers could be most impacted. “Or will OEMs shift their strategy to wanting more dealer companies with a large territory because the more dealers you have, the harder it is to pass that 49% threshold? There are a lot of unknowns in how the dealer-OEM dynamics might change in the future.”

Brannon had similar reservations. “If Deere limited its software to less than half of the dealers, the diagnostic 'tools' might be reclassified. Then in a lawsuit to come, they would be sued to give the independent tech the good stuff.”

Unintended Byproducts of Limited Software Distribution

Jason R Hjartarson, Chief Financial Officer, Heartland Tractor Company, shared the results of his Artificial Intelligence Prompts on the question, which included citations.

If fewer than 49% of authorized Deere dealers are actively provided or utilizing specific versions of the repair software, it triggers distinct structural imbalances:

• Grey-Market Software Leaks: Artificially restricting software distribution within the dealer network naturally fuels the demand for illicit, un-vetted software modifications.
• Fragmented Service Standards: Regional independent shops might secure advanced diagnostic software before local tier-two dealers do, creating geographic pockets where independents outperform authorized franchises.
• Heightened FTC Scrutiny: Low adoption or distribution rates will likely trigger the FTC's 10-year monitoring claws, risking forced software rollouts and heavy compliance audits.
• Dealer Network Tiering: A sharp operational divide will emerge between top-tier "super-dealers" who absorb full software suites and smaller agricultural dealers who drop behind.

Business Valuation Impact

Changes to dealers’ current and future abilities to maintain margin on parts and service is of no small consequence. Dealers had a strong reaction to this question.

Waggener explains dealer enterprise valuations. “Service and parts provides the highest-margin, most annuity-like piece of a dealership's P&L,” he says. “It’s the biggest single driver of multiples in dealer M&A, even more than new or used equipment sales volume. Potential buyers tend to underwrite dealerships largely on the durability of aftermarket margin. 

“So even a modest structural erosion in service capture rate, sustained over time, moves valuation more than equipment sales cyclicality does. I feel like that's the number private equity and strategic buyers will be watching most closely as this plays out.”

Another large Deere dealer group executive called it a “huge impact” for a business whose profit comes via parts and service. “If we give up that profitability on service, the math doesn't work. Look at how Harley Davidson has been impacted and how they have reduced dealer numbers by over 50%. Their dealers that are surviving embraced non-OEM aftermarket companies and offer the same option that non-H-D repair shops offer. That would impact the Deere parts for sure.

Several dealers worry about what’s next with parts and the “net cost” dialog. Two said they’re certain that parts sold at dealer cost – as has been stated by R2R advocates – would dramatically reduce revenues and put dealers out of business. 

Mendoza says if the service business were to suffer significantly, borrowing power could be hurt but little risk to established dealerships. “Some of the newer and smaller dealerships could absolutely suffer and potentially close doors,” he says. 

Pharris cited the challenge of maintaining good rates of absorption (the percentage of a dealer’s total operating expenses covered by gross profits from parts, service and rental) with this open access. “Any drop in shop volume could cause aftersales within the dealer network to fail in covering overhead,” she says. “I wonder how dealers may plan to cover this loss by increasing wholegoods and parts pricing for higher margins to offset some of the service loss.”

Brannon also wonders how the OEMs value the less important or stepchild dealers in the network vs. their favored groups in all of this. “In the past, when a dealership of many stores failed or the dealer board of directors wanted out, carnivorous bordering dealers were ready to snatch them up. But now, in these times and with reduced value.... will they still have boardwalk value in the Farm Equipment Monopoly game?

Additional Concerns Raised

Dealers were also asked about other items weighing on their mind.

Waggener questioned how the FTC ruling would mesh with state R2R statutes already in place in California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Washington. “Also, whether dealer networks respond by leaning harder into value-added subscription/maintenance service products rather than repair gatekeeping, since that's a more durable competitive response than tooling exclusivity.”

He also questioned how floor-plan financing and warranty administration will be handled once non-dealer technicians are performing covered repairs. “That's an operational question I assume will eventually get way more attention.”

Pharris believes profitability and aftersales absorption challenges may require dealers to rely less on service capacity and place more emphasis on parts infrastructure, e-commerce parts business, logistical speed and precision ag market share to offset the service revenue loss. 

“Dealers who aren't prepared to quickly pivot to other aftersales opportunities will likely feel a severe financial crunch from this industry change,” she says. “I hope OEMs will begin to pay dealers at a higher rate for warranty parts and warranty labor since this will be the only ‘guaranteed’ dealer service business in this new right to repair dynamic.”

Bowman adds “All aspects of business have continued to change over time; this is just another one. He is more concerned with illegally modified machines traded in by poor understanding of repair procedures by owners. 

“The gravity of making a dealer responsible for something an owner does can be catastrophic, and more importantly the dealer-customer relationship.”

OEM-Dealer Dynamics, Other Colors

Another thought-provoking comment was raised by a large CNH dealer executive. “Dealers will need to move to protect information used to keep customers running – and which isn’t the OEM's info. We may need to stop sharing work order info with OEMs if it's in turn going to be given to independent repair shops.”

One Deere group executive noted his major OEM has provided stand-alone Customer Service Advisor and then Customer Pro Service through Operations Center since 2015. He also sold any special tool offered by ServiceGard to any customer who wanted to buy it. “What is CNH, AGCO, Fendt, & Kubota dealers offering their customers for repair solutions? I don't see the FTC holding them accountable for R2R regulation.”

Brannon agreed there are questions about other brands, too, including his own (AGCO). If this takes off in the age of AI, what could it do to the value of our dealership value in the eyes of our own OEM management? Manufacturers are always sales driven – market share is the god they worship. So, what if one could go online and buy equipment at dealer net?

“Maps are full of service truck icons. These independents could be contracted with and then fulfill the product support where brick and mortar facilities do not exist. Look at the direction some big players in the market are already moving.”

Mendoza's concern with the slippery slope that’s now been accepted is where it stops. 

“Most manufacturers already have field reps to typically assist with new machines. They obviously have access to the parts and a way to distribute them. The only thing holding most OEMs back from getting rid of the dealer completely is used machine inventory.”

He points to the Claas-run dealerships, such as FarmPoint, Nebraska Harvest Center, Canada West Harvest Center, and Delta Harvest Center. 

“I don't necessarily believe they are playing by the same rules we are as independent dealerships,” he says. “With this ruling, OEM service coverage can potentially spread exponentially without having to pay a dime. We need to be diligent in keeping an eye on the OEMs and not believing all the hype that they are completely and totally against this.”