On April 6, 2026, John Deere (Deere) agreed to a proposed settlement that would significantly change how it handles repairs and require it to pay $99 million to eligible individuals. The settlement follows nearly four years of litigation, which started when a group of farmers sued the company over its repair restrictions. This article will discuss the suit, the proposed settlement, and what it could mean for Deere customers.

Background

In October 2022, a group of farmers filed suit against Deere and its affiliated dealerships in a federal court in Illinois. The suit was brought as an antitrust class action with the class including any persons or entities who purchased repair services for Deere tractors from January 10, 2018 to the present from Deere and its authorized dealerships. The farmers claimed Deere violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1,2.

At its core, antitrust law is intended to keep markets fair and competitive by blocking anticompetitive behavior. Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits any contract or agreement that unfairly restricts trade. Section 2 prohibits any monopolies or attempts to create a monopoly. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defines monopolization as occurring when a firm possesses “significant and durable market power” and exercises “exclusionary or predatory” behavior in that market to prevent competition. For example, a firm could be exercising monopoly power when it has created high barriers to entry for other competitors. A firm could accomplish this by creating high startup costs for similar products, by possessing exclusive patents on technology and processes, or by relying on government regulations.

Here, the plaintiffs assert that Deere and its affiliated dealerships have used exclusionary tactics to control the repair services market. At the center of the dispute is a Deere diagnostic tool called Service ADVISOR (ADVISOR). Modern Deere equipment relies heavily on software and onboard computers. The ADVISOR is necessary to interface with those systems and diagnose malfunctions to begin the repair process. Another key resource is the Dealer Technical Assistance Center (DTAC), which provides repair instructions and troubleshooting guidance. Historically, both tools have only been available to authorized Deere dealerships.

This exclusivity forms the core of the plaintiffs’ complaint. The farmers argue that by restricting access to ADVISOR and DTAC, Deere has effectively controlled the repair market. They claim that this forces farmers to rely on authorized dealerships for key repairs. As a result, farmers can’t easily fix their own equipment or turn to cheaper independent mechanics. The complaint also claims Deere and its dealerships work together to keep these tools away from competitors. According to the plaintiffs, this has limited competition in the U.S. market for Deere tractor repairs.

Based on that conduct, the farmers raised three main claims. First, they allege Deere violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by entering into agreements with its dealerships which withhold its repair tools from farmers and independent repair shops. Second, they argue Deere effectively forces owners to use authorized dealerships after buying expensive equipment via its ownership agreements. According to the complaint, forcing farmers towards authorized dealerships through ownership agreements inflates repair prices and promotes anticompetitive behavior. Third, the plaintiffs claim Deere violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing the repair market, reducing choice, and driving prices above competitive levels. Overall, the farmers claim this conduct has led to much higher repair costs than would exist in a competitive market. To resolve their claims, the plaintiffs have asked the court to award them financial damages and to order Deere to cease enforcement of its repair restrictions. Now, the proposed settlement seems to be addressing both of those requests.

The Settlement

Deere and the plaintiffs have now agreed to a proposed settlement, but it still requires court approval before the case is dismissed. Even so, farmers may still be looking for answers to certain questions. How does a settlement function legally? What exactly did Deere agree to? And how will the affected farmers benefit?

A good way to think about a settlement is as a contract between the parties in a lawsuit. Like any contract, both sides must agree on the terms and exchange something of value. Usually, one side pays money or agrees to take certain actions, while the other side agrees to drop the lawsuit and release their opponent from all claims. After the settlement is reached, it must be approved by the court. In class actions, a settlement can not be finalized without court approval and notice to all class members. The judge must review the settlement and decide whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate for all members of the class. This protects class members from being bound by a suit and settlement in which they did not personally participate. Once approved, the settlement becomes legally binding and enforceable.

In this case, Deere agreed to monetary damages for members of the class as well as a shift in its overall repair practices for a future term of years. The changes represent a major change in how Deere handles repairs.

Repair Terms

The settlement agreement uses specific language to define and describe its key terms. First, the settlement covers “Deere Large Agricultural Equipment.” This includes tractors, combines, cotton and sugarcane harvesters, sprayers, and similar farm equipment. More specifically, the settlement applies to equipment which depends on Deere’s electronic control units and all 6000, 7000, 8000, and 9000 series models. “Repair Resources” refers broadly to the tools and functions needed to maintain, diagnose, and repair Deere equipment so it can operate as intended. “Future Repair Resources” means future updates, upgrades, or new versions of those tools and capabilities.

Under the proposed settlement, Deere has agreed to the following. First, it will provide access to its digital diagnostic and repair resources, not only to its customers, but also to independent repair providers (IRPs). The settlement does not state whether the ADVISOR will be provided to farmers and IRPS. These resources will be offered through a license or subscription model, though the exact structure is still unclear. Future repair resources must also be made available to consumers and IRPs once they are accessible to more than 50% of licensed Deere dealerships.

Deere has also agreed to provide access to its DTAC system. This gives consumers and IRPs access to repair guides and troubleshooting information. Access to these services will be conditioned on the consent of the equipment’s owner or lessor. Deere claims that it will not impose unreasonable barriers to obtaining that consent. Additionally, Deere will allow consumers to report product defects to the company through its Customer Contact Center and perform reprogramming and diagnostics through the Deere Operations Center PRO Service. These terms will be in effect for a period of ten years.

Monetary Damages

In terms of monetary damages, Deere has agreed to pay $99 million, plus interest. Interest will accrue at 3.95% per year starting January 15, 2026. The full amount will be placed into a settlement fund within 15 business days of the court’s approval order. That fund will be held in escrow by class counsel and monitored by the court.

The settlement amount is available only for eligible class-members. Eligible class-members include all persons and entities who purchased repair services for Deere Large Agricultural Equipment from Deere or its authorized dealers in the U.S. between January 10, 2018 and the date of preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Note, the settlement does not require that an individual or entity currently own the equipment which received repairs. The only condition for eligibility is the above-mentioned purchase of repair services.

The settlement is still awaiting final court approval before it becomes enforceable. If it is approved, a claims website will be set up where claims may be filed.  Further, an administrator for the settlement may contact eligible claims members that have been identified by dealer records.  If you believe you are eligible, keep an eye on your “junk” email box, and go through your mail to confirm that unexpected communications are not overlooked or discarded.

Whether you’ve been officially notified by the claims administrator or you have discovered service receipts that may make you eligible for a claim, it is important to file as soon as possible.  There are typically deadlines in class action settlements.  If you miss that deadline to file a claim, you are no longer able to do so. Ag media publications (including the NALC’s “The Feed”) should highlight these deadlines, so it is important to pay attention to various sources in case there is new and time sensitive information.

Conclusion

This settlement marks a dramatic shift in Deere’s repair restrictions. If approved and implemented, this settlement would allow farmers and independent repair providers unprecedented access to Deere technology. However, it is important to note that this settlement has no effect on the ongoing lawsuit between the FTC and Deere. The FTC, Minnesota, and Illinois filed suit in January 2025 alleging violations of both federal and state antitrust laws. To learn more about the FTC’s suit, click here.