On January 15, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Minnesota, and Illinois filed a lawsuit against Deere & Company (Deere). The complaint, which Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona have since joined, accuses Deere of creating and maintaining a repair services monopoly and engaging in anticompetitive business practices that interfere with farmers’ rights to repair their Deere agricultural equipment in violation of federal and state antitrust laws.

The complaint centers on Deere’s diagnostic and calibration tool, Service ADVISOR, which is only fully functional for Deere authorized dealers and repair facilities. According to the complaint, while a version of Service ADVISOR is available to farmers and independent repair facilities, it is neither robust nor effective. The lawsuit alleges that this version cannot diagnose, test, or calibrate for “restricted” repairs, creating unfair market conditions.

The complaint highlights “unfair steering practices,” claiming that these practices funnel farmers to Deere’s service, repair, and parts business lines. It asserts that farmers and independent repair facilities are unable to perform “restricted” repairs to their Deere equipment. “Restricted” repairs typically require access to the underlying software and/or coding. Consequently, farmers must rely on Deere’s network of authorized dealers to complete an ever-expanding list of “restricted” repairs, as the internal components of complex agricultural equipment are integrated through software.

According to the plaintiffs, authorized repair shops are not ideal for farmers who need to plant and harvest crops within short windows of opportunity. These authorized repair facilities are often slower, located farther distances from the farmers, and more expensive than independent repair facilities. The plaintiffs allege that Deere’s practices lead to inefficiencies for farmers who would prefer to repair their equipment themselves or use local independent repair shops and aftermarket parts.

In 2023, Deere and the farming industry attempted to resolve the issue of access to the Service ADVISOR tool by entering into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the American Farm Bureau Federation. The MOU aimed to benefit farmers and independent repair facilities across the U.S. and Puerto Rico by providing them with access to repair Deere equipment. Since the MOU, some states such as Colorado have enacted legislation requiring agricultural equipment manufacturers to provide repair tools and software to owners and independent repair facilities. However, according to the complaint, Deere has not made the fully functional Service ADVISOR tool available to farmers or independent repair providers since entering into the MOU.

The complaint also alleges several ways in which Deere’s practices create an anticompetitive repair environment, including:

• Requirement to use Deere authorized dealerships and repair facilities: Customers are restricted from using their own labor or the labor of their preferred repair service provider. This prevents farmers from planning a reliable planting, spraying, and harvesting schedule that would allow them to maximize their crop yields. Due to Deere’s monopoly on sales and services, farmers must spend more money on repairs and parts. Farmers also are forced to sacrifice efficiency and convenience due to this requirement.
• Control over the Large Tractor and Combine market in the U.S.: Deere is alleged to possess monopoly power over this market. As alleged by the plaintiffs, this is demonstrated directly through the company’s ability to “raise prices, reduce output, and degrade quality in [the Large Tractor and Combine market],” and indirectly by the company’s “dominant market shares…, as to which the barriers to entry are substantial.”
• Use of Deere Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) parts: Deere tractors require the usage of Deere “genuine” or “OEM” parts for repairs. These parts are only available through authorized dealers and repair centers, which forces farmers to use these authorized repair providers. The OEM parts allegedly are more expensive than aftermarket alternatives. This purportedly harms the secondary market and aftermarket manufacturers, restricts competition, reduces the availability of parts, and increases profits for Deere.

The complaint further alleges that these practices are intentional and strategic, approved by company executives, and designed to steer service and parts business away from equipment owners and independent repair facilities and toward Deere’s own dealers, thereby increasing the company’s parts and services revenue.

The causes of action in the complaint include violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 5 of the FTC Act, and five state antitrust laws. The plaintiffs are requesting the court to: (a) declare that Deere’s conduct violates antitrust laws; (b) issue an injunction preventing Deere from engaging in similar conduct; (c) order Deere to make the full version of Service ADVISOR diagnostic software available to owners and independent repair facilities, including access to a helpdesk; and (d) impose civil penalties, fees, and costs.

Why It Matters

This lawsuit underscores the ongoing struggle between large equipment manufacturers and independent repair facilities and owners in the context of the broader “right to repair” movement.

It’s important to note that the FTC voted 3-2 along party lines to file the complaint against Deere in the last days of the Biden administration. One of the dissenting votes came from then-Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson, who now serves as the chairman of the FTC. Ferguson authored a dissent critical of the decision to file the complaint, noting that it is premature due to ongoing negotiations between various government officials and Deere. Ferguson cannot withdraw the case without a majority vote of the commissioners, which presumably may occur if Republican Mark Meador is confirmed by the Senate. Even if the FTC settles or withdraws from the case, it will not affect the states’ decision to continue the litigation. The states involved have publicly acknowledged their commitment to proceed independently. This lawsuit is one to watch!

Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team

	Ashley Taylor – Co-leader and Firm Vice Chair Ashley is co-leader of the firm’s nationally ranked State Attorneys General practice, vice chair of the firm, and a partner in its Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group. He helps his clients navigate the complexities involved with multistate attorneys general investigations and enforcement actions, federal agency actions, and accompanying litigation.
	Clay Friedman – Co-leader Clay co-leads the firm’s State Attorneys General practice and is nationally ranked by Chambers USA for AG Government Relations and in Best Lawyers for Advertising Law. He has dedicated his entire career to state attorney general and federal work, serving for nearly a decade in a senior role and more than 25+ years in private practice. Clay focuses his practice on helping industry-leading companies mitigate the risks associated with state and federal regulatory investigations and associated litigation.
	Chris Carlson Chris advises clients on regulatory, civil, and criminal investigations and litigation. With a background as an assistant attorney general, he provides practical guidance to clients with matters involving state attorneys general and federal regulatory agencies.
	Lauren Fincher Lauren has vast experience handling state attorneys general investigations, navigating complex regulatory compliance matters, and providing strategic counsel in enforcement actions across various industries. She helps clients manage high-stakes regulatory matters and guides them through complex legal landscapes.
	Stephen Piepgrass Stephen leads the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, representing clients in single and multistate enforcement actions, including inquiries and investigations, as well as litigation involving state attorneys general and other state and federal governmental enforcement bodies. He has significant experience handling actions with federal agencies, including the CFPB and FTC, as well as single plaintiff and class action litigation for clients in highly regulated sectors such as financial services, health care, pharmaceutical, and education.
	Michael Yaghi Mike handles high-profile state attorneys general, FTC, and CFPB investigations by advising clients through these complex government inquiries. He assists clients through the entire life cycle of investigations, from regulatory enforcement through formal litigation.
	Samuel E. “Gene” Fishel Gene is a former regulator with two decades of experience who has overseen state privacy and cybersecurity regulation enforcement, led national, multistate attorneys general privacy investigations, and prosecuted computer crimes at the state and federal levels. He has served at the forefront of state attorney general and federal enforcement, and utilizes this experience to proficiently represent client interests.
	Jay Myers Jay assists clients in heavily regulated industries, including health care, energy, insurance, emerging industries, and data privacy. He provides both regulatory legal advice and government relations strategies. Jay’s past and current clients include Fortune 10 companies, startups, nonprofits, industry associations, and advocacy groups. Recognizing that state government matters are often complex and multifaceted, he utilizes regulatory guidance, government advocacy, or both in tandem to deliver tailored solutions for each client’s unique needs.
	Chuck Slemp Chuck advises clients on a wide range of complex issues that frequently involve government actions, including investigations, inquiries, regulatory matters, and litigation. With a distinguished background in the law and public service, he served as chief deputy attorney general of Virginia before joining the firm. In addition to overseeing the Department of Law and Division of Debt Collection, Chuck managed a team of attorneys who handle complex litigation and investigations. He also directed the attorney general’s legislative affairs and represented the attorney general in various capacities.
	Tim Bado Tim is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, where he represents corporations and individuals facing potential civil and criminal exposure. Tim’s experience in government investigations, enforcement actions, and white-collar litigation spans a number of industries, including financial services, pharmaceutical, health care, and government contracting, among others.
	Jessica Birdsong Jessica is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from the University of Richmond School of Law, magna cum laude, where she served as associate articles editor of the Journal of Law & Technology.
	Blake R. Christopher Blake collaborates with clients on matters related to government contracting, investigations, and disputes. His senior-level government experience generates valuable insights and strategies for clients across a variety of industries.
	Nick Gouverneur Nick is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. He received his J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law, where he served as a member of the Journal of Law, Technology & Policy.
	Troy Homesley Troy is an accomplished litigator who has represented and defended clients across a wide range of complex, high-stakes disputes at both the trial and appellate levels. He has represented technology companies, business executives, law firms, investment funds, high-ranking federal officials, international non-profits, and asylum seekers. Troy draws on his broad litigation experience to advise clients before litigation arises, while claims are pending or threatened, and leading up to and through trial and appeals.
	Natalia Jacobo Natalia is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy and Enforcement (RISE) practice, based on the West Coast. She routinely counsels clients on a variety of state and federal regulatory matters, with a particular emphasis on consumer protection and data privacy matters.
	Namrata Kang Namrata (Nam) is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, based in the Washington, D.C. office. She routinely advises clients on a wide variety of state and federal regulatory matters, with a particular emphasis on state consumer protection laws relating to consumer financial services and marketing and advertising. Nam’s experience transcends multiple industries, including financial services, telecommunications, media, and sports betting.
	Michael Lafleur Michael is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy, and Enforcement Practice Group. Based out of the firm’s Boston office, Mike has deep experience in litigation, investigations, and other regulatory matters involving state-level regulators and state attorneys general.
	Lane Page Lane specializes in federal and state regulatory investigations and complex civil litigation. He focuses on representing financial institutions and other businesses, with a particular emphasis on consumer protection and fair lending issues.
	Dascher Pasco Dascher is an attorney within the Regulatory Investigations, Strategy, and Enforcement practice, based in the Richmond office. She joined our firm after working in personal injury and medical malpractice for a Virginia trial law firm. Dascher brings varied legal experience to the firm with strong litigation and regulatory strategy capabilities.
	Kyara Rivera Rivera Kyara is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from the University of Richmond School of Law, cum laude, where she served as publications and online editor of the Public Interest Law Review.
	Trey Smith Trey focuses his practice on representing and advising regulated utilities before state public utility commissions. He routinely helps clients obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity for transmission infrastructure. In this role, Trey works with his clients’ subject-matter experts to manage administrative proceedings, including by preparing initial filings; responding to discovery requests; drafting rebuttal testimony; and litigating any disputed issues.
	Daniel Waltz Dan helps clients navigate all aspects highly regulated relationships between industry participants and federal, state and local governments. Whether engaging with regulators, negotiating transactions or representing clients in the courtroom, he delivers solutions that help his clients achieve their strategic goals.
	Cole White Cole is a member of the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy and Enforcement (RISE) group. He has a decade of experience working in the attorney general community, having joined the firm from the Wyoming Office of the Attorney General, where he was assistant attorney general.
	Stephanie Kozol Stephanie is Troutman Pepper Locke’s senior government relations manager in the state attorneys general department.