Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →The Federal Trade Commission sued Deere & Company in January 2025, alleging that Deere kept the most complete repair software for its agricultural equipment available only to authorized dealers, which left farmers and independent repair shops unable to perform some repairs themselves. On July 8, 2026, the FTC, five states, and Deere jointly asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to enter a stipulated final order that would settle the case. If entered, the order would require Deere to make repair resources equivalent to those it gives authorized dealers available to owners and independent repairers for 10 years. As of the FTC case page last updated July 8, 2026, the case was still listed as pending.
What the FTC alleges
The FTC’s claims are allegations that a court has not decided. According to the FTC’s January 15, 2025 announcement and the amended complaint filed February 19, 2025, the agency contends that Deere:
- made the only fully functional software repair tool capable of performing all repairs on Deere equipment, and made it available only to authorized dealers;
- offered Customer Service ADVISOR, which the complaint describes as unable to perform all repairs;
- restricted repair resources in a way that limited self-repair and independent repair, raising costs and causing delays for farmers.
The amended complaint defines a market for “restricted repairs” on Deere large tractors and combines. These are repairs that the complaint says require a fully functional repair tool, such as some reprogramming and engine recalibration work. Because the market is defined by the plaintiffs, a repair that falls outside that definition is not covered by the complaint’s theory. The complaint brings claims for monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, an unfair method of competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act, and related state antitrust claims.
How the case has moved
| Date | Event | Status of the matter |
|---|---|---|
| January 15, 2025 | The FTC, Illinois, and Minnesota file the original complaint in the Northern District of Illinois. | Allegations only |
| February 19, 2025 | The amended complaint adds Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin and sets out the restricted-repair market and the claims described above. | Allegations only |
| July 8, 2026 | The FTC announces a settlement. The parties file a joint motion asking the court to enter a stipulated final order. Deere agrees to comply while the court considers entry or rejection. | Proposed; not yet confirmed as entered |
What the proposed order would require
According to the FTC’s July 8, 2026 release, the order would run for 10 years and be overseen by the FTC and the participating states. Deere would have to make repair resources equivalent to those given to authorized Deere dealers available to farmers and independent repair providers on fair and reasonable terms. The FTC’s summary describes the following elements:
#1 Best Overall
| Element | What the FTC says the order requires |
|---|---|
| Fault codes | Ability to read, clear, and reset electronic fault codes. |
| Electronic components | Ability to reprogram electronic components, including pairing replacement components. |
| Emissions-related shutdowns | Ability to restart equipment after an emissions-related shutdown. |
| Technical guidance | Access to technical manuals, troubleshooting solutions, and other repair guidance. |
| Future resources | Once Deere makes a new repair resource available to more than half of its authorized U.S. dealer network, the same access applies to it. |
| Dealer conduct | Dealers must promote and support use of the resources. |
| Anti-retaliation | Deere may not discriminate against or retaliate against people who use these resources instead of dealer services. |
| Reporting | Notice and compliance reporting to the FTC and states. |
The FTC summary does not describe specific price levels for these resources, so readers should not assume a fixed cost for access. The phrase “fair and reasonable terms” is the FTC’s description of the standard, and its application would be a matter for the order’s oversight.
FTC Bureau of Competition Director Daniel Guarnera said: “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.”
Is the order in effect now?
Not yet, as far as the FTC’s most recent materials show. A stipulated order has the force of law once the district judge approves and signs it. The FTC case page, last updated July 8, 2026, lists the matter as pending, and the agency’s materials do not confirm that the court has entered the order. Because the case status can change at any time, check the current docket before relying on the terms:
- Open the FTC case page for FTC v. Deere & Company and note the status and the “last updated” date.
- Search the Northern District of Illinois docket through the federal courts’ PACER system for the joint motion and any order entering the stipulated final order.
- If an order has been signed, read the entered version, not the July 2026 summary, because the court may have changed terms before entry.
Until the order is entered, the access described above is a settlement commitment, not a legal right that owners can enforce in court under the order.
What the case does not establish
Deere has neither admitted nor denied the allegations
The proposed order states that Deere neither admits nor denies the complaint’s allegations. Describing the settlement as a court finding that Deere violated antitrust law would be inaccurate. The settlement resolves the case by agreement; it is not a ruling on the merits.
The market-share figures are allegations tied to plaintiffs’ market definitions
The amended complaint alleges that Deere held a 100% share of the market for fully functional repair tools, and that Deere dealers collectively held a 100% share of the complaint’s restricted-repair market. These are plaintiffs’ allegations, and both figures depend on how the plaintiffs defined those markets. They are not measured market facts and should not be quoted as such.
Cost and delay claims are not measured price effects
The FTC alleges that the restrictions raised repair costs and caused delays. The materials do not provide measured price effects, repair-cost surveys, or downtime data tied to the restrictions. Readers should treat the cost claims as the agency’s position in the complaint.
The case is not a claim that every repair required Deere’s tool
The complaint’s theory is limited to the restricted-repair market for large tractors and combines. Routine maintenance and repairs outside that definition are not described as affected by the lawsuit, and readers should not assume that every repair on Deere equipment required the tool the FTC describes.
Practical steps for farm budgets
The order would matter most for owners who face fault-code, reprogramming, or emissions-shutdown repairs, because those are the tasks the FTC lists. Before a repair decision, most owners can use the following checklist to compare options once the order is in force:
- Equipment model, year, and whether it falls within the complaint’s “large tractors and combines” category.
- Whether the specific fault needs reprogramming, pairing of replacement components, or an emissions-related restart.
- Whether the independent shop or owner can obtain the same software functions and manuals that dealers use, and on what terms.
- Expected downtime if the repair goes to a dealer, compared with an independent provider or self-repair.
- Whether the order has been entered, so that the commitments are enforceable.
The same checklist works for comparing any other right-to-repair policy. Compare the covered equipment and eligible repairers, the software, manuals, parts, and tools covered, price and access terms, duration and oversight, and whether the terms are proposed, court-approved, or set by statute. Another case may cover different equipment or repairs, so one settlement’s terms should not be assumed to apply to another manufacturer.
Quick Recap
Sources
- FTC, “FTC, States Secure Settlement with Deere & Company, Advancing Farmers’ Right to Repair” (July 8, 2026), including the joint motion and stipulated order referenced in the release.
- FTC, Deere & Company, FTC v. case page (last updated July 8, 2026).
- FTC, “FTC, States Sue Deere & Company to Protect Farmers from Unfair Corporate Tactics, High Repair Costs” (January 15, 2025).
- FTC and plaintiff states, Amended Complaint (filed February 19, 2025).
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
