South Africa's consumer electronics market has no right-to-repair framework. There is no statutory obligation requiring manufacturers to supply spare parts, repair manuals, or diagnostic tools to independent technicians — and no prohibition on the software locks and contractual clauses that OEMs routinely use to funnel consumers into proprietary service channels. A TechCentral investigation published on 27 May 2026 found that the Competition Commission, the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC), and the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) have each taken no action on device repairability, even as binding legislation reshapes the market in Europe and the United States.
The Global Regulatory Floor Is Being Laid
The EU's Directive on the Repair of Goods (2024/1799), adopted on 13 June 2024, entered into force on 30 July 2024. EU member states must transpose it into national law by 31 July 2026 — this month. Under the directive, manufacturers of listed consumer electronics — smartphones, tablets, laptops, and electronic displays — cannot use software locks or contractual clauses to block independent repair, must supply spare parts at a reasonable price for a defined post-sale period, and may not void warranties solely because a consumer used an independent technician. Consumers who choose repair over replacement also receive an additional year of statutory guarantee coverage.
In the United States, six states have enacted consumer electronics right-to-repair laws now in force: New York (December 2023), California and Minnesota (July 2024), Oregon (January 2025), and Colorado and Washington (January 2026). Each requires manufacturers to provide parts, tools, and documentation to independent repairers on the same commercial terms as authorised service networks. Colorado and Oregon additionally ban "parts pairing" — the practice of serialising components so that only OEM-installed replacements are accepted by the device.
Defenders of the OEM model have genuine arguments worth taking seriously. Proprietary diagnostic systems can protect consumer safety by detecting hazardous battery conditions; firmware protections may guard legitimately proprietary intellectual property; and unqualified repairs on high-density lithium cells carry real fire risks. The EU directive concedes these points, permitting restrictions where manufacturers can demonstrate objective safety or IP justifications. The debate is not about eliminating all restrictions — it is about whether restrictions should require justification rather than being the default.
South Africa's current position produces neither proportionate regulation nor calibrated trade-offs. It simply delivers an unregulated OEM monopoly over the aftermarket.
South Africa Has Already Solved This — For Cars
The electronics gap is made conspicuous by what South Africa's Competition Commission achieved in the automotive sector. In December 2020, the Commission issued its Guidelines for Competition in the South African Automotive Aftermarket, which entered into effect on 1 July 2021. The guidelines barred OEMs from contractually preventing vehicle owners from using independent workshops, required that genuine parts be made available to independent service providers, and confirmed that consumers could fit non-original spare parts without losing their warranty. The automotive aftermarket did not collapse; independent workshops gained meaningful access to a market that OEMs had effectively ring-fenced.
Consumer electronics present an analytically identical structure: OEMs control the supply of parts, manuals, and diagnostic tools, leveraging that control to capture aftermarket revenues at above-competitive prices. The Commission used its existing guideline-issuing powers to act in 2021 without waiting for new primary legislation. Those same powers are available today for smartphones, laptops, and tablets. There is no principled competition-law distinction between a vehicle's ECU diagnostic port and a smartphone's repair mode.
832 Repairers, No Legal Standing
A 2025 study published in the South African Geographical Journal surveyed 832 informal repairers and refurbishers of electrical and electronic products operating across 11 South African cities and towns. These technicians — most working within township economies and serving consumers who cannot afford OEM service-centre pricing — perform valuable circular-economy work. They are also entirely legally unprotected. Without mandated access to parts or documentation, they depend on grey-market components of uncertain provenance. Any OEM invoking intellectual property or warranty terms can exclude them from the market at will, with no statutory framework to contest it.
The environmental stakes compound the urgency. South Africa generates approximately 360,000 tonnes of electronic waste annually — roughly 6.2 kg per person per year — growing at three times the rate of any other waste stream. Only around 12% is formally recycled. Every device whose owner is compelled to replace rather than repair adds to that total. ERA NPC, the extended producer responsibility body, has demonstrated that community-based repair and refurbishment is scalable — its network includes over 100 collection and processing points nationwide — but the legislative infrastructure to formalise and professionalise the sector simply does not exist.
A Two-Track Reform Path
South Africa does not need to adopt the EU directive wholesale. A proportionate intervention has two components.
First, the Competition Commission should extend its automotive model to consumer electronics: prohibit contractual or technical barriers — including software locks — that prevent independent repairers from accessing parts, tools, and documentation on fair commercial terms. This is within existing powers and requires no new legislation.
Second, the DTIC and DCDT should consult on minimum spare-parts availability windows for high-volume categories — batteries, screens, charging components — mirroring the Ecodesign-linked obligations in the EU framework. Section 56 of South Africa's Consumer Protection Act already creates an implied warranty for defective goods within six months of purchase; the gap is the total absence of any access obligation beyond that narrow post-sale window.
The major electronics manufacturers — Apple, Samsung, and their peers — have already adjusted their repair programmes for EU and US markets. South Africa's consumer base is large enough to warrant the same treatment. The Competition Commission, the DTIC, and the DCDT each hold the tools to act. The question is whether any of them will.