HB1801 – Requiring ratings of the repairability of digital electronic equipment on its packaging, and creating a commission on its repairability.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Gregerson (D; 33rd District; SeaTac) (Co-Sponsors Representatives Ryu, Fitzgibbon, and Berry – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Consumer Protection and Business January 19th; replaced by a substitute weakening the bill dramatically and voted out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Appropriations. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments-
The bill’s not very clear about exactly where and how each sort of information has to be available; this is my best guess about its intent. I’m also not clear whether the requirement for displaying the scores and the information in the second list below for a product for sale on a website applies to a manufacturer who sells over 1,000 digital equipment products of all kinds in the state, or only to a manufacturer who sells over 1,000 of that particular item.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute would drop everything in the bill about the creation and enforcement of repairability score labeling requirements, and replace the Commission with a three year task force making annual reports and recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature.

Original bill –
The bill would require original equipment manufacturers of digital electronic equipment sold or used in the State to provide average repairability scores, for purposes of diagnosis and consumer information, on a label on the front and rear of its packaging. Each piece of equipment’s scores would range from one to ten, and they would cover:
(a) The duration and availability of technical documents and related advice on its use and maintenance;
(b) The ease of dismantling it, tools required, and other characteristics of the fasteners used or other parts;
(c) The manufacturer’s estimate of the duration of its parts;
(d) How long the manufacturer plans to continue manufacturing replacement parts;
(e) The ratio of the price of replacement parts to the price of new equipment;
(f) The potential to recycle or dispose of it;
(g) The expertise required to safely repair it; and,
(h) Any other information deemed necessary by Commerce.
(The manufacturer would average these to create the average repairability score for the packaging.) The Department of Commerce would create specific standards for equipment, and manufacturers would have to meet them for each criterion before they could assign a repairability score higher than five for it. Commerce might also create additional standards for any or all score values for each criterion.

Manufacturers would also have to “include the following information with the repairability scores.” [It isn’t clear to me whether this and the ratings for each criterion (or quick response codes, other codes, or a web address to guide a consumer to full information on a website) would also have to be on the packaging, or whether that’s optional.]
(a) The model number and manufacturer’s suggested retail price;
(b) Information on the software updates provided by the manufacturer;
(c) Potential for a factory reset of the equipment;
(d) Whether or not remote assistance is available from the manufacturer and the price charged for providing that; and
(e) Other information deemed necessary by the department.

Ninety days before selling digital equipment in the state, a manufacturer would have to submit the numeric score for each criterion and the average repairability score for the packaging label; reasons for how the equipment meets the scores chosen; and any other required information to Commerce. The Department would post that on a public website, and might publish its own comments alongside the manufacturer’s information if it determined that or the scores were materially incomplete, inaccurate, unsupported, or misleading. (It would have to try to notify manufacturers of any problems in their submissions and give them up to 30
days to make changes.) The bill would make violations of the requirements an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition under the Consumer Protection Act, and would allow an individual who brought a successful action under the Act for a violation to recover all the remedies it establishes and an additional $1,000 in statutory damages for each violation.

Parties selling 1,000 or more pieces of digital equipment annually and listing equipment for sale on a website would be required to display all this information there.

The bill would also create a commission on digital electronic equipment repairability to study, analyze, and prepare reports on local, national, and global repairability standards for digital electronic equipment; and provide recommendations to the Legislature on repairability standards for digital electronic equipment in Washington. Members would be appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, and consist of a Democrat and a Republican from each chamber (one of whom would be elected as the chair by the members), and a member from Commerce, Ecology, the Attorney General’s office, an advocacy group focused on sustainability of digital electronic equipment; an organization representing the interests of local technology companies; a distributor or marketplace platform for digital electronic equipment; and an original equipment manufacturer. The commission might invite any number of others to participate in an advisory, non-voting capacity. It would report to the Legislature every two years, beginning in October 2024, on the development of local, national, and global repairability standards, and provide recommendations on the creation, implementation, management, and enforcement of State standards, with a focus on achieving compatibility with emerging national and global standards. It would be authorized to issue and enforce subpoenas to obtain documents or testimony from any entity or individual to gather information that would assist in the execution of its duties.