HB1392 – Broadening access to the information and tools needed to repair digital electronic equipment.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Gregerson (D; 33rd District; SeaTac) (Co-Sponsors Ryu – D; Kretz and Dent – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology March 22nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5464 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Consumer Protection & Business February 1st. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 8th. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 20th. Amended to require repair providers to make various information about security and privacy available to customers and passed out of committee February 23rd. Referred to Rules, amended to specify that the requirements don’t apply to vehicles, vehicle equipment or charging infrastructure, and passed by the House March 4th.

Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the changes in the substitute, which reduced the requirements significantly, at the beginning of it. (The amendment just exempted medical devices explicitly.)

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.