Google asserts the right to seize phones during repairs

Samsung Self-Repair Program Restrictions

Major smartphone manufacturers' self-repair programs have started to emerge in response to the passage of right to repair legislation. While these are marketed as expanding repair options, they often contain contractual requirements, pricing structures, and procedural limitations that discourage repairs, restrict competition, & compromise consumer privacy. This aligns with a broader industry trend where manufacturers attempt to preempt right-to-repair legislation by implementing repair programs that are technically available but practically unviable for consumers.

Samsung Data Collection and Reporting Requirements

As documented in 2024, Samsung's independent repair shop contracts require repair providers to:

• Submit detailed customer personal information to Samsung, including names, addresses, and device identifiers.
• Report customers who have used third-party parts to Samsung, creating a surveillance mechanism that discourages independent repair.
• "Immediately disassemble" devices containing non-Samsung parts, essentially confiscating consumer property.
• Upload repair details into Samsung's GSPN database on a daily basis, centralizing customer repair histories for potential use in warranty denials or other anti-consumer actions.

Similarly, Google's Service & Repair Program terms explicitly state that any device containing non-Google-authorized parts "will not be returned" to the customer.

"You will not send in a Device containing non-Google-authorized parts – if You do, Your Device will not be returned to you."

This means that if a consumer unknowingly sends in a device with an aftermarket part, Google claims the right to keep it. This policy raises concerns regarding ownership and property rights.

Economic Barriers

The pricing structure of manufacturer self-repair programs frequently makes repairs economically impractical. The high costs of official replacement parts, coupled with forced bundling of components, mean that purchasing a single replacement part is often more expensive than buying a working used device. Examples include:

• Samsung Galaxy S20 screen and battery assembly: $199.99 for parts only"Samsung Galaxy S20 5G Screen and Battery - Genuine". iFixit.
• Google Pixel 6 Pro screen:** $259.99 for parts only"Google Pixel 6 Pro Screen - Genuine". iFixit.

By comparison, working used replacement devices are often available at a lower price:

• Used Samsung Galaxy S20 (in working condition): $140–$185 on eBay"Galaxy S20 for Sale - eBay". eBay.
• Used Google Pixel 6 Pro: $152–$249 on eBay"Pixel 6 Pro for Sale - eBay". eBay.

Forcing consumers to purchase screens and batteries as a single unit rather than separately makes repair costs needlessly high. This:

• Artificially increases the cost of common repairs (e.g., battery replacements).
• Discourages users from repairing their devices and subtly nudges them toward purchasing new hardware instead.
• Incentivizes consumers to choose third-party parts, despite the manufacturer's attempt to suppress their use.

Restrictions on Independent Repair

Manufacturer repair programs typically impose severe limitations on independent repair shops, effectively preventing them from providing cost-effective, high-quality repair options. These restrictions include:

• Prohibitions on board-level repairs – Many authorized programs forbid repair technicians from replacing inexpensive individual components, forcing full board replacements that are costlier and generate more electronic waste.
• Mandates against using third-party parts, even when genuine parts are unavailable, discontinued, or excessively expensive.
• Contractual obligations preventing repair providers from servicing older devices, accelerating planned obsolescence.
• Extensive data collection requirements, forcing independent repair shops to act as corporate informants against their own customers.

These barriers prevent customers from having true choice in how they repair their devices, favoring a closed repair ecosystem where manufacturers maintain full control.

Impact

The limitations imposed by manufacturer self-repair programs result in:

• Punitive measures against third-party repairs – Programs that report independent repairs, refuse to return devices, or force costly part bundling act as de facto monopolies on repair services.
• Mandatory data collection – The requirement that repair shops report customer information to manufacturers violates basic privacy principles & raises concerns about how this data will be used in the future.
• Economic disincentives to repair – The artificially high cost of official parts makes repairing older devices less financially practical.

These tactics contradict manufacturers' public commitments to sustainability and consumer empowerment.