SB5464 – Broadening access to the information and tools needed to repair digital electronic equipment. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Hasegawa, Nguyen, Keiser, and Conway – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 31st. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1392 is a companion bill in the House.

Summary –
The bill  says it would require manufacturers of digital electronic equipment that is sold or used in the state, (and parts for it) to make any parts, tools, and documentation required for the diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of those available to any independent repair provider or owner, on fair and reasonable terms. (They could be available directly from the manufacturer or through an authorized repair provider.)  (However, a later section seems to limit this requirement to what’s available to authorized repair providers.) If equipment contained an electronic security lock or other security-related function, then any special parts, tools, and documentation needed to access and reset those when they were disabled during diagnosis, maintenance, or repair would need to be available.

If manufacturers sold any documentation, parts, or tools to any independent repair provider in a format that was standardized with other original manufacturers, and on terms and conditions more favorable than those under which authorized repair providers obtained the same things, they’d be prohibited from requiring authorized providers to continue purchasing those in a proprietary format, unless that included documentation or functionality that wasn’t available in a standardized format.

Manufacturers wouldn’t be required to sell service parts that were no longer available to authorized repair providers; or to divulge any trade secrets. They wouldn’t have any liability for services performed by independent repair providers, or provide any warranty for those. Stuff for modifying equipment and for working on public safety communications equipment would be excluded. Violations of the requirements would be considered unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce and unfair methods of competition for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act; they would only be enforceable by the Attorney General under that act.