Ownership without Access: Who Controls the Things We Own?
When Buying No Longer Means Owning
The purchase of a product has conventionally also meant acquiring a broad set of rights attached to it. Thus, control was incidental to ownership. However, the rise of access-based consumption and servitisation has separated ownership from the practical ability to control a product throughout its useful life. This tension is apparent in the right to repair. Under servitisation, product users lack formal titles and depend on manufacturers for repair. At present, manufacturers have tried to restrict access to essential tools or software required for repair, even for the owners of the goods. Therefore, this article deliberates whether ownership should remain the exclusive basis of repair rights.
From Ownership to Access: The Rise of Products-as-Services
Traditionally, the exchange of goods involved a simple link between purchase and ownership, wherein payment for a product led to the transfer of the product itself. Ownership ensured possession and a relatively broad set of rights, including the use, modification, sale, and disposal of the product.
However, the precondition of ownership meant payment of the entire “bundle of rights” attached to the goods – either in full or in installments. This could make ownership financially burdensome, especially for expensive goods.
Consequently, the access-based economy became significant. In this model, businesses would offer the use or performance of a product for a recurring fee. It is most suitable for expensive, rapidly evolving, or intermittently needed products. The process of acquisition covers a broader relationship with the product than mere purchase. Hence, under that umbrella term, both ownership and access are included. The process of obtaining a product may simply extend to possessing it and acquiring the right to use it.
This is the relationship servitization, or “products-as-services”, has with buyers and the product.
Manufacturers retain control over product maintenance even after sale. It continues to exercise control over the product. This arrangement may improve convenience and product performance, but it also complicates the underlying assumption that transfer of product necessarily entails decisional autonomy over it. Control over important aspects of product functioning may remain with the manufacturer. As a result, the consumer becomes dependent on manufacturers throughout the product’s useful life.
The Right to Repair and the Limits of Formal Ownership
This is where the right to repair becomes particularly important. Ownership has usually led to autonomy over the use and maintenance of goods. But repair concerns more than the owner’s freedom to fix a product. It determines who retains meaningful control over a durable good throughout its useful life. It provides a useful lens to examine whether ownership still translates into meaningful control, or whether servitisation is gradually separating the two.
The underlying assumption attached to the right to repair is that if you own a product, you should be able to repair it. As Anthony D. Rosborough highlights, the right to repair consists of two dimensions: positive and negative. The negative aspect ensures that legal, technical and market barriers don’t infringe the owner’s right. For instance, manufacturers may restrict access to independent repair shops for replaceable parts or tools, leaving even formal owners to rely on manufacturers to maintain their products. The positive aspect places an obligation on the manufacturer to actively create conditions that facilitate owners in exercising their rights.
This two-fold idea of the right to repair also reveals how ownership alone can’t adequately be considered equivalent to having control over a product. An owner, in theory, may be free to repair his product by virtue of his ownership; however, in reality, without access to necessary resources, he may be unable to do so. In servitization, this relationship between user and manufacturer is a bit different. The users are not accorded the same negative freedom to repair the products independently since the manufacturers continue to control the product’s lifecycle management.
Additionally, the extent to which manufacturers are compelled to facilitate repair also depends on the contractual relationship between them. Therefore, this framework highlights the distinction between access to the product and the conditions necessary to maintain it. This structural chasm is clearly demonstrated through John Deere. In that case, farmers owned the tractors, but their access to repair tools and software was restricted by the manufacturer, which hindered their ability to exercise effective control over the tractors.
Studies have found that although consumers do wish to participate, their participation in repairing products remains at 64%. This gap is attributable to their lack of knowledge about durability and repairability. Moreover, the efforts involved in repairing a product diminish the likelihood of repair.
John Deere: The Gap Between Owning and Controlling
In the John Deere case, Deere’s tractors and equipment became heavily computerised. This led the farmers to rely on Deere’s software for certain repairs. The FTC alleged that Deere restricted farmers from accessing its fully functional repair software. Moreover, they made it available only to certain authorised dealers, preventing farmers from seeking independent repair providers. The FTC and five state attorneys general consequently sued Deere in January 2025. They alleged that these restrictions limited farmers’ repair choices and increased their reliance on authorised dealers. Later, in the settlement, John Deere was compelled to provide diagnostic and repair tools to equipment owners. It was also prevented from retaliating against owners who choose independent repair shops instead of their authorised dealers.
This emphasises the stark contrast between holding title to the product and exercising effective control over it. Apart from the relegation of full ownership under servitization, even formal ownership, as in the John Deere case, can be subject to the same control. Similarly, this tension becomes apparent in many cases.
The FTC has identified manufacturing practices such as making diagnostic software and certain tools inaccessible that restrict customers, small businesses, and government entities from repairing their products. In response, it adopted a policy statement with enforcement against unlawful repair restrictions. This is why it is important to question whether ownership is a sufficient basis for repair rights or whether the right to repair should extend to protect consumer autonomy with a product’s continued use.
From a Property Right to Functional Autonomy
Due to limited avenues of repair, increased consumption, and depletion rates, global waste is predicted to double the 2014 statistics at 74.7 Mt by 2030. As demonstrated in previous sections, ownership is neither necessary for sufficient nor meaningful repair. Then, it is important to question whether it should remain the exclusive basis of the right to repair. This does not mean that users should acquire all the rights traditionally associated with ownership. A person who only accesses the goods for a specific time and purpose does not have the right to sell, alter, or dispose of them. However, repair raises a narrower consideration. Unlike disposal or transfer, repair is meant to preserve a product’s functioning and continued use.
Consumer autonomy is integral to the right to self-repair or receive assistance from independent dealers. Should this autonomy be limited to formal ownership? It can be argued that the interest of those who depend on goods for their continued functionality can be recognised in maintaining their use, even where ownership is absent.
If the right to repair is framed exclusively as an incident of ownership, it works well for the traditional conception of ownership. But in light of servitisation and other forms of manufacturer control, that conception is not practical. Neither ownership rights nor conditions necessary to exercise those rights are guaranteed to persons using a product. Consequently, the claim of the right to repair can be conceptualised as functional autonomy. Functional autonomy is the limited ability to access the conditions necessary to maintain a product’s continued life. While ownership remains an important basis for the right to repair, it need not be the exclusive principle.
Comparatively, the European Union has already advanced Directive (EU) 2024/1799, which is operable since 31st July, 2026, and aims at encouraging repair options both “within and outside the legal guarantees” to make consumption more sustainable. Similarly, India is also adopting this approach through its Right to Repair framework. The Department of Consumer Affairs’ Right to Repair Portal improves consumers' autonomy by providing access to repair manuals, warranty information, and third-party repairers.
However, India has not yet established a comprehensive, enforceable right for functional autonomy equivalent to the EU’s. This leaves room for Indian laws to adapt to the changing nature of product ownership and control.
To conclude, the right to repair should not depend on who has the title to the product but rather on who has the legitimate interest to keep it functional. Since access and ownership don’t possess the same legal rights, functional autonomy can help ensure that control over a product continues throughout its useful life.
Written By: Shambhavi Prakash Edited By: Madhavi Dev
Comments