On a Fairphone 5, a damaged display can come away after the owner removes the battery, loosens eight Phillips screws and disconnects one cable. The maker’s instructions make the job look unusually visible. They also tell the owner to update the phone’s software first, warn that a fall or water damage may have harmed more than the display, and keep the core module out of individual repair. One part is designed to be replaced at home. That does not make every fault a home repair.1
This is the useful tension inside Europe’s new right to repair. From 31 July 2026, European Union countries had to apply a common repair directive through national law. Its manufacturer duty does not cover every product on a shop shelf. It attaches to product groups already governed by specific repair rules, and only to the parts and periods those rules name.2
So the right is neither an empty slogan nor a promise that every broken object will be cheap to save. It is a route through a series of practical questions: Is this product on the list? Is this part covered? Who may safely fit it? What will the whole repair cost? And will the repair add enough useful life to make it the better choice?
The new right begins with a list
The directive starts from a simple problem. European sales law already gave a consumer remedies. It applied when goods failed to conform to the contract. Yet outside that route, a product could be technically repairable. Its maker was not required to provide a repair. The newer law connects a consumer-facing duty to repair with earlier product-design rules. Those earlier rules already demanded certain spare parts, information and tools. For an owner, the broad promise becomes a model-and-part check: a listed product can still have an uncovered component.23
That connection creates a boundary. Annex II defines it through a list of legal acts. The list spans phones and tablets, large household appliances, electronic displays, servers and data storage, vacuum cleaners, welding gear and some batteries for light transport2. A delegated directive added local space heaters by pointing Annex II to their 2024 ecodesign rule. European Union countries had to apply that addition from 31 July 20264.
The list is not a promise that every component in those products must be repaired. Each entry points to a separate product rule. That rule decides which parts must be available, for how long, to whom, and under what conditions. The European Commission must update Annex II through delegated acts when new EU repairability rules appear2. The first useful move is therefore to leave the slogan behind. Then identify the exact product, model and failed component.
Smartphones show how much detail sits behind the broad right. EU rules require specified spare parts. They must remain available for at least seven years after a model stops being placed on the market. Display assemblies are among the parts for end-users. Batteries are too, except makers may reserve them for professional repairers when the battery and device meet all three durability and protection conditions in the rule. Makers must also provide repair information and indicative pre-tax part prices. They must give access to software needed for serialised parts—components that the phone must electronically recognise before they work fully. Some parts and information can still be reserved for registered professional repairers. For smartphone information, registration can require proof of technical competence and liability insurance; the maker has five working days to accept or refuse the request5.
That is why the Fairphone sequence matters. A common screwdriver and reusable fasteners make the part accessible. A replacement module, instructions and compatible software make the work possible. Diagnosis remains the hinge. Fairphone’s guidance says fall or water damage may reach several parts, and its core module is not offered for individual repair. The same model can therefore contain both a straightforward owner-replaceable display and a fault that needs a service centre.1
Free repair and paid repair are different routes
The phrase “right to repair” hides two routes that can lead to different bills. The first is the seller remedy for a lack of conformity. In plain words, the product did not meet the contract when supplied. EU rules make the seller liable when such a problem appears within two years of delivery. National law can provide longer periods. The consumer may choose repair or replacement unless that choice is impossible or disproportionate. The remedy must be free, timely and without significant inconvenience3.
The repair directive strengthens that route by extending the seller’s liability period once by 12 months when the consumer chooses repair2. National procedures still matter. Before paying, check the seller’s written remedy and your national consumer authority’s guidance.
The second route is the newer manufacturer duty outside that remedy. For products and components covered through Annex II, the manufacturer must repair. That duty ends when repair is impossible. The work may be free or may carry a reasonable price. The directive says parts and tools must carry a reasonable price that does not deter repair. It gives no single cash threshold, but it does require makers to publish indicative prices for typical repairs. It also restricts unjustified hardware, software and contractual barriers. It does not set one universal price cap, erase legitimate safety limits or make every tool available to every owner.2
A repair quote can therefore include more than a part. The directive requires makers to publish indicative prices for typical repairs6. The useful comparison for an owner is wider: diagnosis, part, labour, transport, data handling, downtime and the chance that another fault remains.
A washing machine draws the safety line
A washing machine that will not drain makes the distinction easier to see. Maintenance and technical repair are different jobs. For the German-market Bosch WGB244040/28, the maker provides a model-specific parts finder, instructions and repair tips. Its manual tells an owner to check the drain hose and release the water. It then explains how to clean the drain pump and reseat the cover. The same manual reserves technical repairs for trained people and calls for original spare parts.7
The EU product rule follows a similar division. Pumps and several other washing-machine parts must be available to professional repairers for 10 years. Certain door-related parts must be available to end-users. Listed parts have delivery requirements, and professional repair information must be accessible under the rule’s conditions.8
Now the sequence has a safer shape. A blocked pump may be cleared through the owner-maintenance steps in the manual. A failed pump is a different diagnosis and may require a professional repair. A spare part must exist. That does not make opening a water-and-electricity appliance an owner task, and the rule does not establish one fitted price for every model.
This boundary is not a weakness in the idea of repair. It is what makes a repair route usable without pretending that access, skill and risk are the same for every component. Before ordering a part, use the exact model number to find the maker’s procedure and required tools. Check the software steps and safety boundary too. Sometimes the instructions stop at trained personnel. Then the next useful fact is a complete quote rather than a more adventurous screwdriver.
This investigation continues below.
Want the next one in your inbox?
Repair helps when it adds useful life
The environmental case for repair turns on what happens after the work. A successful repair can delay the production and purchase of a replacement. A failed repair or a short remaining software-support period can erase that gain. So can repeated transport or another imminent fault.
A 2022 report from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre modelled smartphones against a particular baseline: replacement every two years across a 4.5-year reference period. In that scenario, keeping a phone for one extra year with a battery replacement reduced modelled greenhouse-gas emissions by 29 per cent; replacing the display reduced them by 23 per cent. Two extra years produced modelled reductions of 44 per cent for the battery case and 40 per cent for the display case.9 These figures describe those scenarios, not a guaranteed saving from every phone repair.
Washing machines add another variable. Electricity and water used over years can matter greatly. The European Environment Agency concludes that longer use often brings benefits, while preserving a counter-case: replacing a machine at least 10 years old may make sense when the new model is significantly more efficient.10 A safe repair that restores years of service and a costly repair that leaves an old, inefficient appliance near its next failure are not the same decision.
This is evidence that could change the conclusion for a particular product. If diagnosis shows that the repair will add little life, create unresolved safety risk or cost more than the owner can bear, the lower-impact case for that repair no longer holds. A large and evidenced efficiency improvement can also change the balance for an older appliance. That improvement must belong to the actual replacement being considered. The comparison should keep those facts visible rather than awarding repair an automatic win.
The final route still matters
Repair sits upstream of a much larger waste problem. The World Health Organization reports that the world produced 62 million tonnes of electronic waste in 2022 and that 22.3 per cent was documented as formally collected and recycled. At unsound waste sites, dumping, shredding, acid treatment and open burning can release toxic substances into air, soil, dust and water. Workers, children, pregnant women and nearby communities can then be exposed, and studies in such settings have linked exposure with adverse newborn outcomes, effects on children’s development and respiratory harm.11
That health pathway begins at unsound processing. It is not a claim that using a functioning phone or washing machine creates the same exposure, and the evidence does not follow either product in this report from a failed repair to an unsound site. Its practical value lies in showing two places where a household decision can interrupt the route: keep a product in useful service through a safe repair, or send it through formal collection when replacement becomes necessary.
Repair-first is therefore a direction with specifications, not a badge. A stronger product offers common replaceable parts, fasteners that can be removed and reused, model-specific instructions, long software support, fair access to necessary software tools and a safe professional route for hazardous work. The lower-regret direction is to prefer products whose mixed materials can be separated and whose materials have known recovery routes. The example products support particular repairs. They do not prove that every material in either product is separable and fully recyclable.
Before buying, the most revealing questions are concrete. What do a battery, display, pump or door assembly cost for this model? How long will they be supplied? Which jobs are for an owner, and which need a professional? Will software continue to recognise replacement parts? Is there a formal collection route when repair no longer makes sense? A repair score or label can point towards those answers. It cannot replace them.
Europe’s new rules make more of those answers obtainable. Their real achievement is not that every broken product must now be repaired. A covered repair can increasingly be traced from a legal duty to a part and a price. It can also be traced to a procedure and a responsible end-of-life choice. That is enough to turn “right to repair” from a hopeful phrase. It becomes something a person can check.