The introduction of the US Senate’s “Right to Repair” bill in early 2022 marked a significant moment in the long-running debate over consumer rights, electronics durability, and supply-chain transparency. For years, advocates had been calling for measures that would curb what they view as artificial barriers to product longevity—whether that means locked-down software, unavailable replacement parts, or prohibitively expensive authorized repair options. The proposed legislation, while still making its way through committee stages at the time of writing, sets out a framework that could, if enacted, impose direct obligations on electronics original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to make spare-parts catalogs publicly accessible. The implications for supply-chain design and data-sharing practices, though perhaps underestimated in the wider policy debate, are likely to be far-reaching.
At the core of the bill is the requirement for manufacturers to support a functional repair ecosystem. Specifically, it would mandate that OEMs provide independent repair shops and consumers with access to replacement parts, diagnostic tools, and service documentation on fair and reasonable terms. Importantly, this is not simply about selling parts over the counter or through proprietary platforms. It’s about establishing a level of openness—one that might require a shift in how parts data is structured, shared, and governed across supply chains. OEMs who have long relied on tight control over spare parts as a source of post-sale revenue will need to reassess their strategies if the bill progresses toward enactment.
For manufacturers contemplating how to prepare, the first logical step is to consider the role of open-data parts availability APIs. These interfaces would allow authorized and independent repair shops alike to query real-time information about part specifications, availability, pricing, and sourcing options. Creating such APIs is not purely a technical exercise—it demands careful mapping of the spare-parts supply chain, from upstream component suppliers to final assembly and distribution centers. The bill effectively envisions a system where such data is no longer hidden behind corporate firewalls or reserved solely for preferred service networks. Instead, third-party repairers would be able to access legitimate components, assured that they are sourcing parts consistent with the OEM’s quality and safety standards.
That said, the challenge lies in designing APIs that are both genuinely useful to repairers and manageable for manufacturers. Many OEMs may find their existing internal parts catalog systems fragmented, with data held in legacy enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, regional warehouses, or supplier databases that don’t communicate cleanly with each other. Building an open-data API layer requires normalizing this information—ensuring, for example, that part numbers, compatibility data, and technical specifications are consistent across regions and product lines. Furthermore, manufacturers will need to consider how to manage updates, ensuring that new part numbers, design revisions, or supply-chain disruptions are reflected in near-real-time within these public-facing systems.
It is easy to imagine hesitation on the part of manufacturers. There will be concerns about intellectual property, about counterfeiting, about liability when parts are sourced and fitted by third parties outside of the OEM’s direct oversight. And indeed, the bill itself leaves room for debate around what constitutes “fair and reasonable” terms of access. But those seeking to get ahead of potential regulation can use this as an opportunity to shape the standards. By proactively publishing clear, reliable, and secure APIs for parts availability, manufacturers can both meet emerging consumer-rights expectations and reinforce their own reputations as responsible, forward-thinking operators.
Integrating these APIs into e-commerce platforms presents another layer of complexity. It’s not sufficient merely to expose part numbers and stock levels to the world at large. The data needs to flow into systems that facilitate purchase, shipping, and potentially even installation guidance. One can envision a scenario where a repair shop, using an OEM’s API, identifies the correct part, verifies its compatibility with the specific serial number of a customer’s device, places the order, and receives confirmation and tracking data through an integrated portal. This is achievable—but it requires tight coupling between the API layer and the firm’s broader digital commerce infrastructure.
A practical roadmap for manufacturers might start with an audit. What parts data exists today? Where is it housed? In what formats? From there, firms can begin developing a data standardization plan, defining key fields and metadata that will form the backbone of the API offering. Pilot projects could focus on a limited subset of products—perhaps legacy devices already out of warranty, where the stakes are lower and the demand for independent repair is highest. These pilots would not only surface technical challenges but also help firms understand how repairers interact with the data, where further improvements might be needed, and how best to design support processes around the API.
Security and access control mechanisms should not be an afterthought. While the aim is openness, manufacturers will still want to implement safeguards—such as API keys, rate limits, and authentication protocols—to protect against misuse or data scraping. At the same time, excessive friction in accessing parts data would run counter to the spirit of the legislation and risk attracting scrutiny from regulators or advocacy groups.
What is perhaps most striking is how the Right to Repair debate intersects with broader trends in supply chain digitization and transparency. As consumers, regulators, and investors alike demand more visibility into how products are made, maintained, and disposed of, the ability to offer clear, accurate spare-parts data becomes not just a compliance issue but a competitive advantage. The bill may, in time, compel reluctant manufacturers to join this shift. Others, though, will see it as a chance to differentiate themselves in a marketplace increasingly attuned to sustainability, repairability, and trust.