A phone still works perfectly, apart from its charging port. A washing machine stops because of a failed pump. On paper, these devices deserve a second life. At the service counter, things get complicated: an unavailable part, a diagnostic fee, a quote approaching the price of a new product. By September 2026, the right to repair must face its real test: the bill. European legislation sets out a significant shift. But between a repair that is legally possible and one that consumers actually choose, an entire chain still needs to be unlocked.
What Europe is really changing
Adopted in 2024, the European directive on the repair of goods must be transposed into national law by 31 July 2026. In particular, for product categories covered by European repairability requirements, it requires manufacturers to provide repairs under specified conditions, including outside the warranty period. It is therefore not a universal right applying indiscriminately to all electronic products.
It also provides for an extension of at least twelve months to the seller’s liability period when a consumer chooses repair rather than replacement under the legal guarantee. Another crucial principle is that the manufacturers concerned must not obstruct repairs through hardware or software measures, unless there is a legitimate and objective justification. Its effectiveness will, however, depend on national rules and their enforcement.
Another initiative has a more direct bearing on manufacturing. Since 20 June 2025, new European ecodesign requirements have applied to the smartphones and tablets covered by the rules. These govern durability, batteries, updates and access to certain spare parts, among other things. Those parts must remain available for up to seven years after the model is withdrawn from the market. The European energy label also includes a repairability rating.
However, the state of play in September 2026 cannot be inferred from the regulatory timetable. The obligations described here are based on adopted legislation; their anticipated market effects are a matter of forward-looking analysis. Without a survey of stocks, quotes and practices at that point, it is impossible to claim that all consumers are already benefiting from the promised transformation.
First test: is the part actually available?
A part number listed in a catalogue does not necessarily mean the part is accessible. Consumers still need to be able to identify the correct version, find out its price, order it and receive it within a timeframe compatible with everyday life. For a broken refrigerator, a wait of several weeks can be enough to make replacement almost inevitable.
Availability must therefore be assessed all the way through to the shopping cart. A battery may be advertised but reserved for certain professionals. A connector may only be sold with an entire circuit board. An inexpensive part may require the replacement of a much more expensive assembly. The level of detail at which parts are offered matters as much as how long they remain available.
It is also important to consider the accessories essential to the repair: adhesives, seals, specialised screws and fasteners. Replacing a battery without being able to reassemble the device properly risks leaving it in a compromised state. The right measure is not simply “battery available”, but “complete repair possible”, with the necessary instructions and consumables.
Second test: who holds the keys to diagnostics?
Before replacing a part, it is necessary to establish which one is faulty. This is where independent repair shops can hit a wall: poorly documented error codes, software restricted to authorised service networks, calibration procedures that are difficult to access. A device that can be taken apart is not fully repairable if its diagnostics remain locked behind an inaccessible professional account.
Software pairing illustrates this tension. Some components are electronically linked to a device; replacing them may require validation or configuration. Checks can serve genuine security purposes, particularly for biometric functions. But they become problematic when they prevent a compatible or salvaged part from working without proportionate justification.
The practical test is to follow a repair through to completion: does the device restart? Are all its functions restored? Does a warning message persist? Is the calibration tool available at a price a small workshop can afford? The directive targets certain barriers, but distinguishing legitimate protection from commercial lock-in will remain a source of dispute.
Third test: does the price offer a real choice?
A repair quote includes far more than the component itself. It must cover diagnostics, labour, logistics, workshop overheads and the risk of a follow-up repair. An honest comparison cannot therefore set the basic price of a part against the final bill and present every difference as excessive.
However, the price of genuine parts directly affects the economics of repair. If a screen costs almost as much as a comparable refurbished phone, opening up the catalogue does little to change the decision. The European framework includes reasonable-pricing requirements in the situations it covers, but it does not set a uniform pricing schedule that automatically guarantees an attractive quote.
Consumers also weigh the device’s age, overall condition and future software support. Repairing a phone that will receive support for several more years is not the same proposition as restoring a model nearing the end of its software support. For household appliances, an isolated failure is different from accumulated wear and tear. A good quote explains what will be repaired and what uncertainties remain.
In France, subsidies are no substitute for transparency
The repair bonus, introduced in late 2022 for eligible electrical and electronic equipment, reduces certain bills at QualiRépar-certified repair shops. It is a practical incentive for out-of-warranty repairs. Its effectiveness nevertheless depends on how close repair shops are, how well the conditions are understood and the amount actually saved.
Ratings provide another source of information before purchase. In France, the durability index began replacing the repairability index for televisions in January 2025, followed by washing machines in April. But a summary score does not tell the whole story: two highly rated devices can have very different repair costs for the fault that actually occurs.
The missing check: tracking a basket of common faults
To test the promises, a selection of typical repairs should be compared regularly across devices of different ages: batteries, screens, charging ports and drain pumps. The protocol should record actual stock, quoted lead times, delivered prices, access to manuals and total costs at several repair shops. It should then check that the device works after the repair. Such monitoring would reveal progress more clearly than simply counting the available part numbers.
What next? The favourable scenario after 2026 would be one in which repairs have become predictable: an identifiable part, accessible diagnostics, a short turnaround and a clear quote. The opposite scenario would see catalogues opened up without bills coming down. The challenge in the coming years will therefore be less about adding another promise than about scrutinising the entire chain. The right to repair will succeed when keeping a device is no longer an obstacle course.
