Resolution RES 26-1092 states that Ramsey County Elections verified 5,048 signatures. The city charter requires signatures from 8% of voters who cast first-choice votes for mayor in the preceding city election. Because the 2025 mayoral election produced 66,769 first-choice votes, the threshold for the petition was 5,342 signatures.

The petition was filed with the Saint Paul City Clerk on June 10. It proposed creating Chapter 34A of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, allowing qualifying tenants, after notifying a landlord and waiting through specified periods, to arrange certain repairs and deduct up to $500 or one-half month’s rent under the ordinance’s conditions.

The council’s action keeps the proposal off the November ballot unless organizers obtain judicial relief. Organizers have challenged the city’s handling of the initiative in court. As of Aug. 10, 2026, no court order resolving that challenge had been issued. The lawsuit is the next known step in determining whether the measure could still reach voters.

The case is FTC v. Deere & Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-50017, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The participating states are Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Michigan is represented by Attorney General Dana Nessel on behalf of the people of Michigan.

What the proposed order would require

If entered, the order would require Deere for 10 years to make repair resources equivalent to those available to authorized Deere dealers accessible to equipment owners and independent repair providers on fair and reasonable terms. The 10-year period would begin on the date the court enters the order.

The covered capabilities include reading, clearing and resetting electronic fault codes; reprogramming and pairing electronic components; restarting equipment after an emissions-related shutdown; and viewing technical manuals, troubleshooting solutions and other guidance useful for diagnosing, maintaining, repairing or upgrading equipment.

The resources would not necessarily be free. The court filing allows access through licenses, subscriptions, purchases or other arrangements. It defines fair and reasonable terms using factors that include Deere’s cost, comparable prices from other agricultural-equipment manufacturers, the ability of owners and independent repair providers to pay, distribution methods, expected use and inflation.

Farmers should not assume that every tool will be available immediately for every machine. The order includes a rollout schedule and provisions involving future resources, owner consent for some independent-provider uses and third-party approvals for certain equipment components.

How future tools would become available

Deere would have to offer future repair resources to owners and independent repair providers once those resources are available to more than 50 percent of Deere’s authorized dealer locations in the United States.

The provision is intended to prevent new dealer-level capabilities from remaining unavailable to independent repair providers after they become broadly established within Deere’s dealer network. The practical effect will depend on how quickly Deere makes each resource available, what it costs and how usable it is outside an authorized dealership.

Dealer obligations and protections

Under the proposed order, Deere would direct authorized dealers to promote, support and sell the repair resources to requesting owners and independent repair providers. Dealers would be expected to do so even when the customer does not purchase dealer repair services.

The order would also bar dealers from discriminating or retaliating against owners and independent repair providers who purchase the resources or repair Deere agricultural equipment. The filing preserves reasonable business judgment related to factors such as a customer’s geographic location, creditworthiness and compliance with the law. Deere may also require an independent repair provider to obtain the equipment owner’s express or implied consent for access tied to a particular machine, but it may not impose unreasonable barriers to obtaining that consent.

The agreement would require public, customer and dealer notices, compliance reports, federal and state oversight, and retention of supporting records. Deere would have to pay the five states collectively $1 million within 30 days after the court enters the order. The filing says the payment covers enforcement costs and attorneys’ fees and is not a penalty.

Why the government sued

The FTC and the states sued Deere in January 2025. Their complaint alleged that Deere restricted access to repair tools and information, increasing farmers’ dependence on authorized dealers and contributing to service delays and higher repair costs. Those claims remain allegations; the settlement does not establish that Deere was liable or that the claims were proven in court.

Deere neither admits nor denies the complaint’s allegations under the proposed stipulated order. Reuters reported that Deere said the agreement reinforces its commitment to customer access, transparency and repair flexibility.

What this does not mean

The agreement would not create a broad federal right-to-repair law for consumer electronics, vehicles or other connected products. It is a case-specific antitrust settlement focused on Deere agricultural equipment, including digitally enabled tractors, combines, planting and harvesting equipment, implements and other agricultural products covered by the order.

It also would not guarantee lower prices, immediate access to every diagnostic function or a particular repair outcome. The tools may be sold through licenses, subscriptions or purchases, and the effect on farmers and independent shops will depend on pricing, availability, machine coverage, technical support and enforcement.

What happens next

The parties have jointly asked the Northern District of Illinois to enter the stipulated order. The FTC says stipulated orders have the force of law only after the district court approves and signs them.

If the judge enters the order, the next points to watch will be Deere’s rollout schedule, dealer notices, prices and terms, access for specific machine models, compliance reports and complaints about dealer conduct. For farmers facing equipment problems during planting or harvest, the key question will be whether the promised access is available at a workable price and quickly enough to reduce reliance on the authorized dealer network.

Sources

• FTC settlement announcement
• Reuters settlement report
• Associated Press report

The practical question now for independent mechanics, small repair businesses, and farm owners is speed: the agreement is structured around a rollout schedule, and Deere’s obligation is paired with reporting and compliance oversight for the next decade.

What the settlement requires Deere to provide

The stipulated order requires Deere to make repair and diagnostic resources equivalent to what it provides authorized dealers available to “Owners” and “independent repair providers” on fair and reasonable terms for a 10-year term. Deere is required to offer access through a license, subscription, or purchase basis, and those obligations are subject to the rollout schedule. The order also directs Deere’s dealers to promote the availability of those resources and to avoid discrimination or retaliation when customers choose to buy or use the resources instead of dealer repair services.

In plain terms, the FTC and state attorneys general say the settlement is about access to the software and tools needed to diagnose and complete electronic repairs. Examples named in the public settlement documents include:

• Reading, clearing, and resetting electronic fault codes
• Reprogramming electronic components, including “pairing” newly installed electronic parts with equipment
• Restarting a machine after an emissions-related shutdown (often described as “limp mode”)
• Viewing and searching technical manuals and troubleshooting guidance, including “product improvement programs” and “DTAC solutions”

When changes happen: rollout milestones and ongoing oversight

Even though the settlement was announced on July 8, implementation is not treated as “instant for everyone.” The stipulated order builds a schedule for when specific capabilities must be made available and pairs that with regular compliance reporting.

Rollout schedule milestones spelled out in the stipulated order include:

• Some repair resources are required to be made available as of the date of the stipulated order for the covered capabilities listed in the document.
• Certain capabilities tied to the order’s rollout table have deadlines including August 1, 2026.
• “Offline mode” reprogramming and diagnostics are listed with a December 31, 2026 deadline in the rollout table.

Compliance reporting is also frequent. Deere must file verified compliance reports 30 days after the order is entered and then every 60 days until the rollout schedule is complete. It must also submit annual compliance reports for the next 9 years. And if Deere makes a new Repair Tool available after the order to more than 50 percent of its Deere Dealer locations in the United States without making (or planning to make) a Repair Tool with equivalent capabilities available to all Owners and IRPs, the order requires an interim compliance report no later than 10 days after that change.

Regulators also get audit-style access. For purposes of determining or securing compliance, the order allows duly authorized FTC and state representatives to inspect and copy records, or interview company personnel, after written request and 5 days’ notice.

Why this matters for Main Street farm repair

For small repair shops, the settlement’s significance is not just whether Deere “says” tools are available—it is whether independent providers can actually diagnose and complete electronic repairs without needing dealer-only software resources. The order’s focus on electronic fault-code functions, reprogramming/pairing, and “limp mode” restart-type capabilities targets areas where a modern tractor repair often depends on software access.

But the agreement also makes clear that real-world impact will depend on execution. Independent shops and farmers should treat the rollout milestones and compliance reports as the practical scoreboard for whether this becomes routine customer access—or remains a slow, partial availability.

What to watch next

• Deere’s rollout progress against the dates and capability categories in the stipulated order’s rollout schedule.
• Next compliance report deadlines and details, since the order requires frequent reporting while the rollout is underway.
• Whether new dealer-only tools trigger interim reporting under the order’s “more than 50 percent” dealer-network trigger.

The settlement also lasts for 10 years from the date the order is entered, creating a long compliance timeline in which enforcement actions and contempt remedies remain possible if Deere violates the order’s requirements.

For farmers and independent repair businesses, the key near-term question is simple: when a machine breaks down, how quickly will the required diagnostic and repair tools be available in practice—not just on paper?

Sources

• FTC press release on the Deere settlement (July 8, 2026)
• Michigan AG press release (July 8, 2026)

What EPA announced

EPA said the new guidance explains how it will view emissions-related repair access under the Clean Air Act. In practical terms, the agency says manufacturers should provide the information, diagnostic tools, and training needed for legal third-party repair work.

What the guidance is meant to change

For repair shops and owners, the point is access. EPA says the guidance is intended to support legitimate diagnosis and repair of emissions-control systems without forcing everyone back to a dealer for every problem. The agency framed the update as a clarification of expectations, not a rewrite of the underlying emissions rules.

Where repair ends and tampering begins

EPA says the key question is whether the work is being done for the purpose of repair and to return the vehicle or engine to proper functioning. Repairs that restore normal operation can stay on the legal side of the line. Changes that defeat or disable emissions controls can still be treated as tampering.

What EPA says is not changing

The agency says the guidance does not change emissions standards. EPA also says it is not creating a blanket warranty fix for non-certified parts. That means the guidance is about access and repair boundaries, not a promise that every aftermarket part will come with warranty protection.

Which categories are covered

EPA’s guidance letter, IACD-2026-08, is labeled for LDV, LDT, and HDE — light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty engines. EPA says readers can find the full Freedom to Fix materials on its hub page and review the guidance letter for the specific compliance language.

What to watch next

The practical question now is how EPA will apply the guidance in real cases. Shops, parts makers, and owners will likely focus on what information and tools are actually available, how EPA treats repair work that touches emissions controls, and how the agency distinguishes a lawful fix from prohibited tampering.

Sources

• EPA news release: Freedom to Fix memorandum
• EPA guidance letter PDF: IACD-2026-08