Apple customers would have access to parts and tools for three years after the date of manufacture for most of Apple鈥檚 product lineup.

Apple聽is now backing a California right-to-repair bill, a major shift in the company鈥檚聽聽and a potential boon for the environment, according to a letter obtained by CNBC.

California Senate Bill 244 would require manufacturers such as Apple to allow customers to fix their broken or damaged devices. It was introduced by state Sen. Susan Talamantes Eggman in March. Eggman has put forward other right-to-repair bills in the past, saying that expanded right-to-repair legislation would 鈥済ive consumers the choice to save some money.鈥�

In a Tuesday letter to Eggman鈥檚 staff, Apple鈥檚 policy team concurred but said the company would not support the bill if it allowed repair shops to turn off Apple鈥檚 anti-theft remote locks, which often make it impossible to repair or activate old computers that have been sold.

鈥淲e support SB 244 because it includes requirements that protect individual users鈥� safety and security, as well as product manufacturers鈥� intellectual property. We will continue to support the bill, so long as it continues to provide protections for customers and innovators,鈥� the company鈥檚 lobbyists wrote in the letter seen by CNBC.

Apple also said that it would continue to support the bill as long as repair shops were required to disclose 鈥渢he use of non-genuine or used parts.鈥�

Source:

Virtually anyone 鈥� producer, distributor, trade group, transporter, consumer, and laborer were named in the bill 鈥� would be empowered to challenge such regulatory infringement in court and seek financial compensation.

鈥淭his is a matter of states鈥� rights,鈥� said Sen. Roger Marshall, Kansas Republican and lead sponsor of the bill. 鈥淚f California wants to regulate agriculture in its own state, that鈥檚 fine, but California鈥檚 rules should not apply to Kansas, whose legislature never approved of these regulations.鈥�

Farm groups and meatpackers began looking for a congressional rescue within days of the Supreme Court decision on May 11 that Proposition 12 was constitutional. Prop 12 requires California farmers to give egg-laying hens, veal calves, and breeding sows more floor space, and it bars the sale of pork, veal, and eggs produced on farms outside the state that do not meet California鈥檚 standards.

The pork industry says it will be unduly expensive to modify barns and processing systems to satisfy the demand of one state, albeit it’s the country鈥檚 most populous.

Beyond banning state/ local governments from imposing 鈥渁 standard or condition on the preharvest production of any agricultural products sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce if 鈥� the production occurs in another state,鈥� the bill, filed by the seven Republicans, would authorize lawsuits by individuals and government units 鈥渢o invalidate that regulation and seek damages for economic loss resulting from that regulation.鈥�

California has set a six-month transition period, until Jan. 1, for compliance with the rule on meat sales. At the Supreme Court, it argued that because Prop 12 applies only to meat sold in the state, it was not an impediment to interstate trade.

Source: