What the Commission did
On 25 September 2026 the European Commission sent letters of formal notice to 18 member states that had not notified full transposition of the Right to Repair Directive, Directive (EU) 2024/1799. Eunews reports that the same package also covered Delegated Directive (EU) 2026/74, which extends repair rights to indoor domestic heating appliances such as fireplaces, portable electric heaters and underfloor heating. The deadline for both was 31 July 2026. The states now have two months to respond, and without a satisfactory answer the Commission may issue a reasoned opinion, the next formal step before a referral to the Court of Justice.
The Brussels Times puts the figure at 18 states for the main directive and 18 for the delegated one. Eunews names Italy among the states on the main directive and lists 18 states on the delegated act, among them Belgium, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. Neither source gives a full country list for the main directive, so readers should treat country-level claims with care. Italian press has reported ministry sources disputing the characterisation, which is a reminder that "not notified" and "not transposed" are different things.
The strongest case for the mandate
The case for the directive deserves a fair statement. Consumers who find a defect after the legal guarantee expires currently face a market in which the manufacturer can refuse service, withhold parts, or make third-party repair practically impossible. The European Parliament's legislative summary describes the directive as obliging manufacturers to repair goods that are covered by reparability requirements in EU law. Manufacturers also may not use contractual clauses, hardware or software techniques that impede repair unless justified by legitimate and objective factors. The Commission's own description, quoted by Eunews, says manufacturers must offer repairs at a reasonable price and within a reasonable timeframe. The Commission's Circular Cities and Regions page adds that member states must also facilitate access to repair information and set up or integrate a European online platform to help consumers find repair services.
For digital devices this matters most. A phone with a serialised battery or a screen that rejects a non-authorised replacement is functionally unrepairable even when the part is cheap. Repair can also keep devices in use longer, and that serves consumers and the environment.
Why the design is better than it looks
There is a pro-innovation reading of this directive, and it is more favourable than the usual objection that repair mandates freeze design. The legal prohibition targets impediments to repair, not product architecture. The operative test is whether a manufacturer can show "legitimate and objective factors" for a barrier. That is a burden-of-justification rule, not a design code. A manufacturer who can show a real safety, security or integrity reason for a software pairing check keeps it. One who uses the same check to protect a service monopoly does not.
This matters for competition and speech-adjacent concerns alike. Independent repairers are small businesses and often the only local option for consumers outside major cities. A rule that keeps the door open for them without dictating how a phone is built preserves room for innovation in materials, waterproofing, security hardware and form factor.
Where the risk lies
The danger is not the directive. It is fragmented implementation. A single market for repair only works if 27 national laws define "legitimate and objective factors" in broadly compatible ways. Eighteen late transposition notices on the main directive mean most member states are still drafting, and the interpretive choices they make now will be hard to reverse. Three failure modes deserve attention:
- Gold-plating. National lawmakers adding design mandates, such as modularity quotas, that the directive did not require. That would raise compliance costs for device makers and fall hardest on smaller hardware firms.
- Security carve-outs read too widely. If "legitimate" becomes a catch-all for manufacturer preference, the directive's core prohibition is hollowed out and independent repairers lose.
- Delegated scope creep. Delegated Directive 2026/74 shows the list of covered products can grow by delegated act. Each extension should come with an evidence-based assessment of repair demand and costs, rather than a presumption that more categories is better.
What proportionate enforcement looks like
Infringement proceedings are the correct tool for late transposition: they are procedural, predictable and aimed at governments rather than companies. The Commission should pair them with guidance on how it expects "legitimate and objective factors" to be assessed for software-locked parts, so that firms are not left to guess and so that national regulators converge. A published, example-led interpretation would do more for legal certainty than any further product-category expansion.
The Commission should also resist treating the two-month response window as a trigger for escalation by default. A state that has transposed late but accurately has delivered the outcome the directive wants. The priority is clear, interoperable national rules, not penalties for their own sake.
Bottom line
The repair directive is one of the better-calibrated pieces of recent EU consumer law because it regulates barriers rather than blueprints. The September letters show that implementation, not drafting, is now the weak point. If member states keep the national rules narrow and the Commission publishes clear guidance on justified restrictions, repair rights can strengthen independent repairers and consumer choice without constraining hardware innovation.