The Right to Repair: The Debate, the Law, and Why the Framework Laptop Matters (If You Can Get One)

TL;DR

Right to repair is the simple idea that when you buy something, you should be able to fix it, or choose who fixes it, instead of being forced to bin it and buy new. Manufacturers have spent years making repair hard with glue, unavailable parts, and software locks. The movement is now winning: the EU and a fast-growing list of US states legally require repairability, and even Apple has been dragged into selling parts and tools. The Framework Laptop, made by a company called Framework whose laptops are designed to be opened, upgraded, and repaired, is the proof it can be done well. The frustrating catch: Framework still does not sell directly in a lot of the world, New Zealand included, so getting one there means importing.

• The core idea: access to spare parts, tools, manuals, and the software needed to repair, without the maker deliberately blocking you.
• Why it matters: less e-waste, lower cost, longer-lasting devices, and genuine ownership of what you paid for.
• The law is shifting fast: the EU right-to-repair rules and multiple US state laws now mandate it, and are starting to ban “parts pairing.”
• The Framework Laptop proves it works, but the company’s limited country availability (no direct sales to NZ as of 2026) undercuts the very accessibility the movement is about.

Now for the more technical explanation

What “right to repair” actually means

It is not a demand that everything be trivially easy to fix. It is the principle that a manufacturer should not deliberately obstruct repair, and that owners and independent shops should have fair access to what a repair needs:

• Spare parts, sold at a reasonable price, for a reasonable number of years.
• Tools, including any special ones the design requires.
• Manuals and diagnostics, so a fault can actually be found and fixed.
• The software side, so a legitimate replacement part works instead of being software-disabled.

The opposite is a device engineered so that only the maker (or nobody) can repair it, which quietly turns “I bought this” into “I am renting this until it breaks.”

The case for it

• Cost and waste. Repairing is usually far cheaper than replacing, and electronics are one of the fastest-growing waste streams on the planet. A device kept alive another few years is a device not in landfill and not remanufactured from scratch.
• Ownership and autonomy. If you own something, deciding who repairs it (you, a local shop, or the maker) should be your call, not something the maker gets to veto.
• A healthy repair economy. Independent repair shops keep prices down and serve places the manufacturer’s own service network never reaches. Locking them out concentrates power and cost with the maker.
• Longevity. Repairable, upgradeable devices simply last longer, which is better for your wallet and the environment at the same time.

The case manufacturers make (steel-manned)

It is only fair to put their side properly, because some of it is legitimate:

• Safety. Lithium batteries and high-voltage components can be genuinely dangerous to handle badly, and a botched repair can hurt someone.
• Security and counterfeits. An unverified replacement part could be a poor-quality or even malicious counterfeit, and biometric hardware (fingerprint, face sensors) raises real security questions when swapped.
• Engineering trade-offs. Some non-repairable choices are not pure villainy: making a device thin, light, or water-resistant can genuinely fight against easy disassembly.
• Liability and IP. Makers worry about being blamed for repairs they did not do, and about protecting designs.

The honest position is that these are real considerations, but they have also been used as cover for practices whose main effect is to force replacement and funnel repairs through the maker. The debate is about where the line sits, not about pretending there is no line.

The dark patterns to watch for

This is where the movement earns its anger:

• Parts pairing (serialisation). The big current battleground. A part is cryptographically tied to the specific device, so even a genuine replacement (a screen, a battery) is software-disabled or degraded unless the maker authorises it. It defeats independent repair even when you have the right part in your hand.
• No parts for sale, so the only “repair” is a whole-unit swap.
• Glue over screws, batteries and components bonded in so that replacing one destroys others.
• Software locks and DRM that block diagnostics or refuse to run without a blessed part.

Parts pairing in particular is what the newest laws are taking direct aim at.

Where the law now stands (the movement is winning)

This is no longer a fringe cause. The legal picture as of 2026:

• The EU Right to Repair Directive. Finalised in 2024, it must become national law across EU countries by 31 July 2026. It forces makers to supply spare parts (for smartphones and tablets, a long list of parts to professional repairers for seven years after a model is discontinued, and key parts like batteries and displays to consumers), to publish manuals, tools, and parts pricing, and crucially it prohibits using software or hardware tricks to obstruct repair, a direct shot at parts pairing.
• US state laws. Momentum is real: as of January 2026, more than a quarter of Americans live in a state with an enforceable right-to-repair law, rising further through 2026 as more states switch on. California, New York, Minnesota, Colorado, and Washington have laws, and Oregon went furthest by banning parts pairing outright.
• The makers are moving, under pressure. Apple, long a repair holdout, now runs a Self Service Repair programme selling parts, tools, and manuals across dozens of countries and many products. But watch the fine print: parts pairing is still active on recent iPhones, and unverified parts still trigger warnings or reduced functionality, which is exactly the practice the new laws are chasing.
• It is bigger than phones. The same fight rages over farm equipment (tractors whose software locks farmers out of their own machinery became a rallying cause), cars, medical devices, and appliances. Repair is becoming a mainstream consumer right, not a hobbyist niche.

The Framework Laptop: proof that repairable can also be good

If the argument against repairability is “you cannot build a thin, modern, desirable device that is also fixable,” Framework exists to disprove it. Framework is a computer company (its full name is Framework Computer) that makes laptops, the Framework Laptop 13 and the larger Framework Laptop 16, built entirely around repair and upgrade:

• Everything is meant to be opened. Memory, storage, battery, keyboard, screen, and even the mainboard are user-replaceable, with the DIY edition shipping as a kit you assemble yourself.
• Modular ports. The I/O is a set of swappable expansion cards, so you choose your own mix of USB-C, USB-A, HDMI, card readers, and so on, and change it whenever you like.
• Repair is designed in, not tolerated. QR codes point to step-by-step guides, parts are sold openly in a marketplace, and the machines score at or near the top on independent repairability ratings.
• Upgrade, do not replace. You can drop a newer mainboard into the same chassis, so the laptop evolves instead of being thrown away, which is the whole philosophy made concrete.

Framework matters because it turns “repairable” from a compromise into a selling point, and shows the rest of the industry there is a market for it.

The frustrating catch: you might not be able to buy one

Here is the honest wrinkle, and the one you have run into directly. Framework’s mission is accessibility and sustainability, but its geographic availability does not match that ambition. As of 2026, Framework sells directly in the United States, Canada, much of Western Europe, and a handful of other markets, but not New Zealand. Australia, pointedly, is served: there is a local storefront, prices in Australian dollars, and an Australian company behind it. Which makes the New Zealand gap sting rather more, given how routinely the two get lumped together as one market.

For New Zealand that means the realistic route is importing:

• Buy from a market Framework does ship to and use a freight forwarder to get it to NZ.
• Because of the lithium battery, it has to travel with a carrier that handles dangerous goods (DHL, FedEx and similar), which adds cost and complexity.
• Expect GST (15%) plus an import entry fee on anything over the threshold, so the landed price climbs above the sticker.
• And you partly lose the easy path to warranty, returns, and local support, which is a real downside on a product whose entire pitch is long-term ownership.

There is a genuine irony here: a company championing the right to keep and repair your device makes it awkward for people in places like NZ to get one in the first place. It is worth checking Framework’s current shipping list before assuming, because they do keep expanding, but as of now the frustration is well founded.

What you can actually do

• Buy for repairability. Check independent repairability scores before you buy, favour devices with available parts and manuals, and treat glued-in batteries and parts pairing as red flags.
• Use independent repair and keep devices longer; the greenest device is usually the one you already own.
• Support the parts ecosystem by buying genuine spares and backing makers (like Framework) who sell them.
• If you are in New Zealand and want a Framework today, plan for the import route and its costs, or keep an eye on their official regional availability. (Australians can just order from the local store.)

The short version

Right to repair is about not being blocked from fixing what you own, and after years as a niche cause it is now winning in law: the EU and a growing bloc of US states are mandating parts, manuals, and tools, and starting to outlaw parts pairing. Framework is the clearest proof that a device can be modern, premium, and genuinely repairable all at once. The catch is that its limited country availability, with no direct sales to New Zealand as of 2026, undercuts the accessibility it preaches, leaving importers to cover the gap. The direction of travel is good; the map is still incomplete.

Related

• Closed-loop ecosystems and the repairability trade-off
• Data destruction and responsibly disposing of old devices
• Avoiding ecosystem lock-in with portable tools

Written by Tom Langston, IT Infrastructure and Cybersecurity.