Tech giants like IBM and Cisco are lobbying against Colorado’s SB-90, a bill designed to expand consumer repair rights. IBM argues the legislation risks compromising cybersecurity and intellectual property, while Cisco claims not all tech devices deserve equal treatment. Both companies emphasize the need for narrowly tailored laws, focusing on consumer electronics rather than enterprise systems. Critics, however, accuse lawmakers of using vague terms like “critical infrastructure” to justify restrictions, a phrase lifted from 2001 federal law to describe systems vital to national security.

The bill’s ambiguity has sparked fierce debate. Repair advocates, including Pirg and the Repair Association, argue the language could let corporations control who fixes devices, stifling independent technicians. YouTuber Louis Rossmann and others testified that terms like “information technology” — often interpreted as servers and routers — could exclude everyday gadgets. Gay Gordon-Byrne of the Repair Association criticized the bill’s “inadequate” definition of critical infrastructure, calling it a loophole for corporate overreach.

Opponents warn the legislation could set a dangerous precedent. By framing repairs as a threat to national security, lawmakers might enable companies to limit third-party fixes, raising costs and reducing device longevity. This aligns with broader industry efforts to monopolize repairs, as seen in past disputes over smartphone and tractor diagnostics.

The clash highlights a growing tension between consumer empowerment and corporate control. With no clear guidelines, SB-90 risks creating legal uncertainty, leaving users dependent on manufacturers for even basic fixes. As Proctor of Pirg notes, the bill’s vagueness “sounds scary to lawmakers but just means the internet” — a warning that overbroad definitions could silence grassroots repair movements.