John Deere Settles Right-to-Repair Lawsuit for $99 Million

Deere & Co. Has agreed to pay $99 million to settle a class action lawsuit that accused the agricultural equipment manufacturer of monopolizing repair services. The settlement, announced on April 6, 2026, aims to resolve long-standing litigation regarding the right to repair for farmers using the company’s machinery.

The Moline, Illinois-based company, which operates under the John Deere brand, faced allegations in a 2022 lawsuit that it withheld essential repair software. The plaintiffs claimed the company conspired with authorized dealers to force farmers to rely on official services for repairs, preventing them from fixing tractors and other equipment independently or using third-party alternatives.

Settlement Terms and Fund Allocation

Under the terms of the proposed agreement filed in federal court in Illinois, the $99 million will be placed into a settlement fund. This fund is designated for class members who paid Deere & Co. Or its authorized dealers for repairs on large agriculture equipment.

The eligibility period for these claims spans from January 10, 2018, through the date of the deal’s preliminary approval. The settlement still requires final approval from the court before the funds can be distributed.

Legal Arguments and Corporate Response

Court filings indicate that the plaintiffs alleged Deere and its authorized dealers used their market position to charge supracompetitive prices. The lawsuit argued that these actions created an unlawfully restrained market by limiting the options available to equipment owners.

Deere & Co. Has denied any wrongdoing as part of the agreement. The company maintained that it remains dedicated to providing customers with the necessary access and ability to repair their equipment.

to move forward and remain focused on what matters most — serving our customers

Denver Caldwell, vice president of aftermarket and customer support

Industry Context and Right-to-Repair

The litigation is part of a broader series of right to repair complaints the manufacturer has faced over several years. These disputes typically center on the accessibility of diagnostic software and parts, which critics argue are used by manufacturers to lock customers into expensive dealer networks.

While the company has agreed to the financial settlement and certain repair commitments, some repair technicians have suggested that the fundamental technical restrictions on equipment remain unchanged.

The resolution of this case is viewed by some advocacy groups as a sign of the ongoing need for federal right-to-repair protections to standardize access to equipment maintenance across the agricultural sector.