AP News53%

FTC secures right to repair settlement with farming equipment giant John Deere 11%

By Sarah Raza0%

7/8/2026, 10:24:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.8% saturation with 99 hits. Analysis detected 734 faulty-reasoning hits from 557 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 27.8% and a BS Rank of 11% (18,924 of 21,171 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.40% of the article peer group.

John Deere owners will get the right to repair their own equipment under a new FTC settlement 
A John Deer emblem is seen at the Husker Harvest Days farm show in Wood River, Neb., Sept. 
12, 2018. 
(AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File) 
John Deere tractors sit in Norfolk Southern’s Conway Yard in Conway, Pa., Dec. 
5, 2022. 
(AP Photo/Gene J. 
Puskar, File) 
It looks like John Deere owners can soon feel free to fix their own machines. 
The Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general from several states secured a right-to-repair settlement Wednesday with agriculture equipment giant Deere & Co .  commonly known as John Deere  that requires the company to let farmers and independent shops fix their own equipment. 
The Illinois-based manufacturer has faced complaints for years for withholding the software needed for repairs and forcing customers to use authorized dealers instead of independent ones. 
This marks the second right-to-repair settlement Deere has reached this year, following a separate $99 million class-action settlement with farmers in April. 
Though the class-action compensated consumers, the FTC’s settlement instead requires Deere to make its repair services available to equipment owners and independent shops. 
The FTC and attorneys general from Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin brought the antitrust lawsuit in January 2025, arguing that Deere had illegally restricted farmers and independent shops that might otherwise service them from repairing farm equipment such as tractors. 
Deere also makes engines and equipment for forestry, landscaping and construction. 
Under the order filed in Illinois, Deere will now be required to make diagnostic and repair tools available to equipment owners and independent repair shops, not only its own network of authorized dealers. 
It also prevents Deere dealers from retaliating against equipment owners or repair shops who choose to fix their own equipment instead of paying for Deere’s services. 
The order is headed to Judge Iain D. 
Johnston for his approval. 
“For too long, Arizona farmers and independent mechanics have been at the mercy of Deere’s monopoly over repair tools, forced to wait  and pay  for authorized dealers just to fix broken tractors and other equipment,” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said in a statement Wednesday. 
Deere must pay $1 million collectively to the five states for antitrust enforcement costs and will be subject to strict compliance oversight for the next 10 years. 
In the complaint, the FTC argued that Deere provides a service software tool to authorized dealers but does not provide the full version to equipment owners or independent shops. 
Deere had said the lawsuit was baseless, denied that its distribution of service tools was anticompetitive and argued that it could not monopolize services since it does not directly provide them. 
Deere maintained its commitment to independent repair in a statement Wednesday, adding that the agreement with the FTC reinforces its innovation of more flexible repair options. 
“This is good news for our customers and for the future of how Deere equipment is supported,” said Denver Caldwell, vice president of aftermarket and customer support. 
Right-to-repair has become an increasingly common issue over the years, especially for tech products, with consumers complaining that even simple repairs can only be done by company-authorized dealers. 
Raza covers South Dakota for The Associated Press. 
She is based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.4%AP News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Sarah Raza: 6.9%AP News: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 5.0%Sarah Raza: 2.1%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 2.7%AP News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.8%Sarah Raza: 5.2%AP News: 8.0%Framing Effect15.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 2.6%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.5%Sarah Raza: 3.7%AP News: 2.2%Optimism Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 2.7%AP News: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.8%Sarah Raza: 4.8%AP News: 9.6%Negativity Bias17.8%This article: 4.7%Sarah Raza: 2.6%AP News: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 1.8%AP News: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 1.2%AP News: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 1.1%AP News: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.8%Sarah Raza: 2.7%AP News: 1.3%Recency Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.8%AP News: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.3%AP News: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.4%AP News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.0%Sarah Raza: 7.1%AP News: 2.5%Hasty Generalization5.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.7%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.3%Sarah Raza: 5.9%AP News: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion13.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.4%AP News: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.9%AP News: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.6%Sarah Raza: 0.6%AP News: 0.4%Burden of Proof5.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 5.5%AP News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.4%AP News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.4%Sarah Raza: 1.8%AP News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.2%AP News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.4%Sarah Raza: 1.5%AP News: 2.0%Unattributed Quote8.4%This article: 8.4%Sarah Raza: 0.9%AP News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection8.4%This article: 8.4%Sarah Raza: 2.4%AP News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice8.4%This article: 4.7%Sarah Raza: 0.5%AP News: 0.6%Indoctrination4.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.3%AP News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Raza: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Sarah Raza: 0.5%AP News: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.8%

557 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers13%attributed speech483writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageKris Mayes • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageDenver Caldwell • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kris Mayes

100%flagged-word coverage
47 attributed words64% of attributed speech57% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kris Mayes: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kris Mayes: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kris Mayes: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-5.4 ptsWriter: 5.4%Kris Mayes: 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.