Pennsylvania House Bill HB386

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/28/25
• Refer: 1/28/25

Caption

Providing for an index relating to diagnosis, maintenance and repair of digital electronic equipment and for enforcement by Attorney General.

Impact

If enacted, HB 386 would significantly alter the landscape of consumer protection laws in Pennsylvania by introducing mandatory reporting requirements for OEMs. The repairability index aims to empower consumers with information to make informed decisions when purchasing electronics, promoting a culture of repair and reducing electronic waste. Consumers will have access to clear data regarding how easy it is to maintain and repair their devices, potentially leading to a decline in the prevalence of disposable electronic items and a shift towards more sustainable consumption patterns.

Summary

House Bill 386, known as the Repairability Index Act, aims to establish a framework for assessing and reporting the repairability of digital electronic equipment sold in Pennsylvania. The bill mandates that original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) provide a repairability score for their products, which will be determined based on several criteria including ease of repair, availability of parts, and the manufacturer’s commitment to support repairs through technical documentation. This score must be displayed on product packaging and reported to the Attorney General prior to sale. The goal of this legislation is to enhance consumer awareness and promote sustainability by encouraging manufacturers to produce more repairable devices.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 386 appears largely positive among consumer advocacy groups who see it as a big step towards holding manufacturers accountable and empowering consumers. Supporters argue that the bill addresses the growing concern regarding planned obsolescence in electronics and promotes environmental responsibility. However, there are concerns from some industry stakeholders who fear that implementing and maintaining such standards could lead to increased costs and regulatory burdens, potentially impacting the pricing and availability of digital devices.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the mechanisms of enforcement and the potential for increased costs to manufacturers and, ultimately, consumers. Critics argue that mandates requiring OEMs to disclose repairability scores could be viewed as heavy-handed regulation that disrupts market dynamics. The role of the Attorney General in enforcing compliance with these requirements may also lead to debates over the adequacy of penalties for non-compliance. Industry associations may argue against the bill on grounds that it imposes obligations that disproportionately affect smaller manufacturers or that could stifle innovation.