Committee adopts substitute for digital product repair bill, hears wide testimony on security and access

On March 19 the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee adopted the committee substitute for HB162 (digital product repair), then heard invited and public testimony from repair advocates, environmental groups, independent technicians, recyclers and industry representatives.

Representative Maxine Divert, the bill sponsor, said HB162 would require manufacturers to provide the same parts, tools and documentation they give to authorized repair providers to independent repairers and consumers, while protecting trade secrets and excluding certain categories. "House Bill 162 seeks to address this issue by requiring manufacturers to provide the parts, the tools, and documentation," Divert said, framing the measure as a way to reduce waste and support Alaskan repair shops and communities.

Staff and interns presented data showing large distances between many Alaskan communities and authorized repair centers and argued expanded repair access would reduce electronic waste and keep money local. Donnie Chapman of Alaska Environment described environmental and economic benefits, saying repair could save the average Alaskan family roughly $382 per year on consumer products and help reduce e‑waste burned in rural landfills.

Independent repair technicians and small-business owners from Alaska and out of state said they support the bill. Justin Castle, owner of Eagle River Electronics, recounted local repair successes and failures caused by manufacturers' refusal to sell parts or provide software access. Joe Torma of Green Star, an electronics recycler in Fairbanks, said his organization increasingly encounters devices that cannot be repaired because manufacturers limit parts access.

Industry groups and some trade associations strongly opposed the bill in its current form or urged targeted exemptions. The Alarm Industry Communications Committee, the Electronic Security Association, Vivint/NRG and other security and life-safety companies warned that the broad definition of "digital product" could require disclosure of sensitive schematics, access codes and cybersecurity information for alarm and life‑safety systems, creating public-safety risks. "That information is not just technical — it's an effective map for how to disable security systems," the AICC said in testimony.

Several industry witnesses also raised concerns about a private right of action in the bill, arguing enforcement should remain with the Alaska attorney general as in other states' laws. The Consumer Technology Association and NEMA recommended clarifying scope, adding carve-outs for products regulated by codes (such as certain lighting equipment), and aligning enforcement mechanisms with other states.

The committee adopted the CS as the working document after sponsor and staff explained additions: explicit exemptions for medical devices and motor vehicles; a clause to ban parts pairing and similar serialized parts practices; a provision allowing agricultural and power-sports industries to supply parts on reasonable terms given dealership business models; and an updated effective date of Jan. 1, 2027. The committee then took invited and public testimony and limited public-comment time to two minutes per caller because of volume.

No final vote on the bill was recorded; the committee set HB162 aside after testimony and adjourned at 10:05 a.m.