The Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure heard competing testimony on House Bill 433 and Senate Bill 189, a proposal to expand consumers’ and independent repairers’ access to parts, tools and documentation for electronic devices.

Consumer advocates, environmental groups and independent repair shop owners testified in favor of the bill, saying it would reduce electronic waste, lower household replacement costs and support local repair businesses. Industry groups, trade associations and some businesses opposed the draft, arguing it could create cybersecurity and privacy risks and conflict with federal mandates for certain equipment.

Janet Dominitz of the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group said the bill would help ‘‘reduce the most polluting kinds of waste’’ by making repairs feasible and preventing otherwise functional devices from being discarded. Jack Frimitt (MassPIRG) said consumer spending on electronics could be reduced if repair options are more widely available, and repair shops would see increased local business.

Independent repair shop owners gave personal examples. Daniel Adams, owner of a repair shop in Greenfield, described routine situations where parts and documentation are not available, recounting repairs for a MacBook with a lost final, a Samsung phone with family photos and other data loss scenarios he says could have been prevented with broader repair rights.

Industry witnesses — including the Consumer Technology Association, CTIA (wireless industry), Xerox and representatives of HVAC and imaging equipment manufacturers — urged caution. Katie Riley of CTA opposed a private right of action in the bill and asked that enforcement be limited to the attorney general, noting that an inconsistent patchwork of state rules would hamper compliance and invite litigation. CTIA and wireless carriers described voluntary programs and certification initiatives intended to broaden repair options while maintaining quality and security. Jane and others expressed concern about state‑by‑state divergence from the model language already adopted in several states.

Other opponents raised specialized concerns. The Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute urged an explicit exemption for HVAC and water‑heating systems, citing federal refrigerant‑handling and technician certification requirements. Xerox asked for technical corrections to reconcile federal law enforcement and anti‑counterfeiting mandates for certain imaging devices.

Supporters emphasized e‑waste statistics and consumer cost impacts. Testimony cited a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection estimate that the state generates about 90,000 tons of electronic waste each year, with roughly 27,000 tons collected for proper disposal. Witnesses argued that repair access would reduce waste and save consumers.

No formal committee vote was taken. Committee members asked for precise legislative language fixes to address federal compliance and security concerns, copies of model legislation used in other states, and additional data from both proponents and industry describing real‑world impacts, enforcement concerns and any safety or security incidents tied to repair access. Several industry groups offered model language and technical edits for staff review.