John Deere agrees to landmark “right to repair” settlement driven by Colorado farmers 35%

By Michael Booth38%

7/15/2026, 10:08:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 12.4% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 473 faulty-reasoning hits from 468 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.8% and a BS Rank of 35% (13,761 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.00% of the article peer group.

Major farm equipment dealer John Deere has agreed to a “right to repair” that Colorado farm and consumer advocates were key in launching, settling with the federal government and five states to give access to diagnostics and fixes for crucial agricultural equipment. 
The farmers union and CoPIRG, consumer advocacy nonprofit Colorado Public Interest Research Group, helped lead the fight in the legislature. 
“We should be able to fix our own stuff,” said U.S. 
PIRG Right to Repair Campaign senior director Nathan Proctor. 
“This settlement from the Federal Trade Commission gives farmers more and better options to repair their equipment. 
It is a win for farmers and all of us who want a more fixable world.” 
The FTC said in announcing the deal in its antitrust case, “The settlement requires Deere—for the next 10 years and 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.” 
The deal also requires Deer to pay the five states $1 million for legal costs and for consumer protection enforcement. 
Right to repair in farming is similar to consumer and trade movements in other fields, from wheelchair repairs to consumer electronics, with advocacy groups claiming corporations keep expensive, illegal monopolies by locking off software or key repair tools and techniques. 
“The settlement with Deere will help lower costs for American farmers,” an FTC official said. 
The nationwide settlement stemmed from a 2025 antitrust case originally brought by the FTC and five states in U.S. 
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 
The state co-plaintiffs were Illinois, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. 
When the Colorado right to repair bill was passed in 2023, the Associated Press reported that manufacturers and dealerships voiced opposition that providing tools and information to farmers would allow equipment owners to illegally boost horsepower and bypass emissions controls. 
They said that could endanger equipment operators and harm the environment. 
Opponents also worried that compelling companies to share more detailed information necessary for repairs could expose proprietary information, the AP reported. 
“When farmers can’t access the proprietary software tools or critical information that are required to diagnose or complete repairs, it means they have to wait for an authorized technician before they can finish their work,” Proctor said. 
“The weather doesn’t wait on a dealership’s schedule  a delay could mean the loss of your harvest.” 
The Associated Press also noted Deere had settled a $99 million class-action case with farmers earlier this year. 
The FTC case is considered significant because it goes beyond individual compensation and orders Deere to let independent repair shops and farmers carry out fixes previously restricted by the company. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.8%Michael Booth: 2.9%The Colorado Sun: 1.3%Confirmation Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 1.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 2.6%The Colorado Sun: 2.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.5%Michael Booth: 1.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic8.5%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 3.2%The Colorado Sun: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Michael Booth: 8.0%The Colorado Sun: 3.8%Framing Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 1.1%The Colorado Sun: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.7%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.5%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Michael Booth: 10.9%The Colorado Sun: 4.5%Optimism Bias3.6%This article: 7.1%Michael Booth: 3.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.9%Pessimism Bias7.1%This article: 2.4%Michael Booth: 3.3%The Colorado Sun: 5.9%Negativity Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 1.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Michael Booth: 0.6%The Colorado Sun: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error7.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.2%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.8%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Michael Booth: 1.6%The Colorado Sun: 1.5%Halo Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Michael Booth: 0.8%The Colorado Sun: 0.8%Recency Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 3.6%The Colorado Sun: 3.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 1.1%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.9%The Colorado Sun: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 6.4%Michael Booth: 0.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Circular Reasoning6.4%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 2.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 1.1%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.4%Michael Booth: 4.5%The Colorado Sun: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion12.4%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.8%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.1%Michael Booth: 1.5%The Colorado Sun: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 1.8%The Colorado Sun: 1.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.1%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.9%Michael Booth: 1.3%The Colorado Sun: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.3%Michael Booth: 0.7%The Colorado Sun: 1.7%Unattributed Quote4.3%This article: 6.0%Michael Booth: 1.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection6.0%This article: 9.6%Michael Booth: 2.1%The Colorado Sun: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice9.6%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 3.5%The Colorado Sun: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Booth: 0.2%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

468 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers38%attributed speech292writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageNathan Proctor • 11 words • 100.0% coverageNathan Proctor • 9 words • 100.0% coverageNathan Proctor • 17 words • 100.0% coverageNathan Proctor • 16 words • 0.0% coverageFederal Trade Commission (FTC) • 53 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageFederal Trade Commission (FTC) • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageNathan Proctor • 37 words • 0.0% coverageNathan Proctor • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nathan Proctor

100%flagged-word coverage
108 attributed words61% of attributed speech40% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Quote-first Misdirection+25.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nathan Proctor: 25.9%25.9%Unattributed Quote+18.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nathan Proctor: 18.5%18.5%Biased Writer Voice-10.3 ptsWriter: 10.3%Nathan Proctor: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.