FTC settlement: John Deere allows DIY equipment repair - Indianapolis News 10%

By Vaughn Jacobson0%

7/9/2026, 3:13:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Self-Serving Bias as the most egregious example at 17.5% saturation with 84 hits. Analysis detected 685 faulty-reasoning hits from 481 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 26.7% and a BS Rank of 10% (19,806 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 90.50% of the article peer group.

(AP)  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. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Vaughn Jacobson: 1.5%Indianapolis News: 1.5%Availability Heuristic5.8%This article: 5.8%Vaughn Jacobson: 1.5%Indianapolis News: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic5.8%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.8%Vaughn Jacobson: 6.7%Indianapolis News: 6.7%Framing Effect16.8%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.9%Vaughn Jacobson: 1.7%Indianapolis News: 1.7%Status Quo Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.6%Vaughn Jacobson: 5.9%Indianapolis News: 5.9%Optimism Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%Vaughn Jacobson: 10.0%Indianapolis News: 10.0%Negativity Bias15.2%This article: 17.5%Vaughn Jacobson: 4.4%Indianapolis News: 4.4%Self-Serving Bias17.5%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 1.4%Indianapolis News: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.6%Vaughn Jacobson: 2.6%Indianapolis News: 2.6%Recency Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.2%Vaughn Jacobson: 1.6%Indianapolis News: 1.6%Appeal to Authority6.2%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.8%Vaughn Jacobson: 2.9%Indianapolis News: 2.9%Hasty Generalization5.8%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.8%Vaughn Jacobson: 7.3%Indianapolis News: 7.3%Appeal to Emotion9.8%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.6%Vaughn Jacobson: 1.1%Indianapolis News: 1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.6%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.8%Vaughn Jacobson: 1.5%Indianapolis News: 1.5%Anecdotal5.8%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.8%Vaughn Jacobson: 2.4%Indianapolis News: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.8%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 9.8%Vaughn Jacobson: 2.4%Indianapolis News: 2.4%Quote-first Misdirection9.8%This article: 3.5%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.9%Indianapolis News: 0.9%Biased Writer Voice3.5%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Jacobson: 0.0%Indianapolis News: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

481 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers51%attributed speech236writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageFederal Trade Commission • 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% coverageFederal Trade Commission • 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% coverageFederal Trade Commission • 29 words • 0.0% coverageDeere & Co . • 31 words • 0.0% coverageDeere & Co . • 26 words • 0.0% coverageDenver Caldwell • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kris Mayes

100%flagged-word coverage
47 attributed words19% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kris Mayes: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%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.