The right to repair our printers, is it just an illusion?

Other topics
1

When I came across this thread, I found it deeply concerning and wanted to raise a broader discussion about the right to repair. One of the main reasons I supported Bambu early on was their strong replacement parts program. For anyone in the maker community, this is fundamental - the right to tinker, modify, and repair what we own. In fact, part of Bambu’s early appeal with the P1P was that users could print their own enclosures, and the company still provides those files today - limited only by one’s imagination. Based on the post below, it sounds like that principle now comes with strings attached.

Let me get this straight: a customer buys a replacement electronic component and must request activation from Bambu’s servers before it works? If so, that undermines the very foundation of the right-to-repair ethos. What’s to prevent Bambu Labs from unilaterally discontinuing support for products already on the market? What about the used parts market? Does this mean that even if a printer is fully repairable, Bambu could still force it into the e-waste category simply by denying activation? These are disturbing questions.

The law is on the consumer’s side

Out of curiosity, I posted this question to Google about laws protecting consumers against such practices - and there’s no shortage of examples. Legislators and courts have clearly taken a dim view of similar tactics and have begun to put guardrails in place to protect consumers. Does Bambu even care? In the case of California, those rights only extend to seven years, what happens next, my repairable devices goes to the landfill?:

• Australia – Apple fined A$9M (≈$6.7M USD) on 06/19/18 for “Error 53,” which disabled iPhones repaired with third-party screens:
iPhone and iPad misrepresentations cost Apple Inc $9 million in penalties | ACCC

• New York – Digital Fair Repair Act (GBS §399-nn), enacted 12/28/22, requires OEMs to provide parts, tools, and documentation; applies to devices sold or used in NY on/after 07/01/23:

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GBS/399-NN

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S1320

• California – SB-244 Right to Repair Act, effective 07/01/24, mandates part/tool/document availability for up to 7 years depending on product price:
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB244/id/2832427

https://bhgs.dca.ca.gov/forms_pubs/sb_244_industry_advisory_english.pdf

• European Union – Right-to-Repair framework adopted 04/23/24 and new ecodesign rules taking effect 06/20/25, expanding spare-part and repair access across the EU:

Right to repair: Making repair easier and more appealing to consumers | News | European Parliament

New EU rules for durable, energy-efficient and repairable smartphones and tablets start applying - Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs

3 Likes
The Icon, Redefined — Meet the P2S
2

I am currently considering the purchase of a fully spec’ed H2D BUT… I am holding off pressing the button as I am worried about exactly this type of issue…

1 Like
3

I think that unless someone is filling a formal complaint against Bambu, either with the national or the EU Ombudsman (for the EU) or brings legal proceedings against Bambu in a court of law, and as result Bambu being forced to comply the EU Right-to-Repair legal framework (I suppose that a similar approach would be required for the rest of the world), Bambu won’t stop pushing the boundaries as far as it can.

4

I believe you are aware BL doesn’t comply with local laws (those per territory or county).

  • GDPR
  • Distance selling
  • Delivery to door
  • Consumer protections
  • Right to cancel
  • The list goes on

I know you are smart enough to realise they are unlikely to willingly follow the right to repair laws as well.

I assume this is to highlight to people, like myself, that didn’t even know they had an Apple-esq “we must authorise your repair” rule and this is yet another law they flout with seeming abandon.

This.

The only way to force a company that doesn’t care is in the wallet. Potentially, also the shame of being told they are a bad business.

How hard is it to follow the law?

5

I can confirm. It was already like that, that form just creates a special ticket to speed things up. I had to replace an AP board close to two years ago and when I opened a ticket they asked me for the same things that form is asking for, pictures of both boards, serial number etc… then I had to wait for me them to activate it on their end.

6

Bambu labs eco system requires registration of the printer, its as simple as that (serial number) and may i remind you , i along with others already fixed/replaced heat beds.

7

Yeah, you guys are (willingly, or not…:wink:) reinforcing the arguments I have been making about Bambu’s increased control over our machines, since the January 16th security patch firmware scandal … and tbh, i feel no joy that i was -still am- right, nor do I feel the need to say "I’ve told you so "…

1 Like
8

@Ukdavewood recently posted a youtube video the title reads the real x1 ( no more bambu lab ) again it really is that simple , if you dont want to be part of the eco system remove yourself from it

9

I’ve known about this being part of the repair procedure before I purchased my X1C and I’ve always thought it was a silly thing. Online activation seems like such and odd requirement. The software on the board is already protected, so why the online activation requirement? Is it only a requirement if you plan on connecting it to their servers and add to your account? If you run your printer air gapped, will the activation even matter and will the printer function normally?

10

Not me - I can’t spare any X1Cs - still use them regularly - but not so much for multi colour printing - try to do most of it on the H2D.

Proper Printing released a video with a similar title to what you said

I did release a video though with the INDX on an H2D - so along similar lines I suppose.

1 Like
11

I like the look of the bondech indx ,but i was a little concerned about the use of the z axis gantry for nozzles, compared to bambu`s rack and pinion ? method ,both appear to be using a similar nozzle type , also bambu labs eco system seems to add a little more security for users like me, i dont want to buy a printer to rip into or question , that is best left to the engineers who can.

12

Agreed - I’m really looking forward to the Vortek solution - hope it isn’t too expensive and the tool change time is optimised as much as possible. But INDX a good solution for Non BL printers - I think it could even have a home on the snap maker U1 if you want more than 4 tools.

2 Likes
13

Thanks for posting the video also, with the red house across the road …

14

most all of the above conserserns or issues I agree with.
But,
the other side of the coin is Lets say you replace a component and some other part part fails. Who should be responsible? for example you replace the chamber light with a 3rd party light. that is not a problem. Simple tinker. But when the driver board goes out who pays for that? The replacement light drew a little more current. Pop.
(this is just an example of unintended consequences’.) There are lots of similar situations with a simple machine like a 3d printer.
With any product it is alway released with bugs. Some known, some unknown. If you wait for all the bugs to be solved a product is never done. With that in mind. It makes sense to have a way of notifying those with printers.
I am guilty of not registering products unless I have to.

15

The whole “AP Board ticket” thing is based on how bambu architected their cloud ball-and-chain. Also why your printer is tied to one account. That serial number is doing a lot of heavy lifting all over their spaghetti software

16

That scenario hasn’t been an issue in modern product liability. In virtually every developed country, the maker of a replacement part is responsible only for defects in their own product, not for collateral failures elsewhere. Those are considered consequential damages, and nearly every warranty I’ve seen, and several I’ve written myself during my years in manufacturing, explicitly exclude them. That’s why it’s called a “limited warranty.”

What Bambu is doing isn’t about liability at all. They’ve built digital controls that let them disable features, or in the case of the AP board, the entire printer, if a repair isn’t “authorized.” That’s a clawback mechanism, pure and simple. It’s corporate control masquerading as customer protection.

The disturbing part is how many users are shrugging this off, as if it’s normal or harmless. It isn’t. It’s a textbook case of a company training its customers to accept ownership that exists only at the company’s discretion, and people are walking right into it without realizing what they’re giving up.

3 Likes
17

Does the printer not work at all if the AP board isn’t registered or is it just the cloud piece that won’t work? Bambu doesn’t really document this piece very well and I don’t see any indication of what limitation you may or may not have if you don’t register the replacement board.

18

Good question. The link I shared in the first post showed a user who couldn’t get their device to initialize until it was activated by Bambu. So that indicates that the printer simply will not function without activation since the AP board is required. So no, the printer will not work until registered. What wasn’t clear is what happens afterward.

The real question is this: if I activate the printer, then disconnect it for LAN-only use, what happens if the system later resets itself and attempts to reconnect to Bambu’s servers? Does that give them the opportunity to modify or update my system without consent?

Bambu has publicly denied this before, but the real issue is whether their denials can be trusted given their control over the activation process.

19

FUD.
You all knew you were entering into a walled garden when you bought a Bambu printer.
How many of you have an iPhone in your pocket or a Mac on your desk?

(ps, I’m enjoying all the downvotes. People don’t seem to like simple truth and common sense.)

8 Likes
20

I have to disagree. When I purchased mine in May 2023, Bambu was promoting an open architecture and a modifiable product - hence my earlier reference to user-modded cases. Had I known the direction they’d take, I wouldn’t have entered this ecosystem at all.

More importantly, your point sidesteps the real issue: whether it’s ethical for a company to change the terms of ownership after the fact. Dismissing that with “oh well, nothing we can do” isn’t something I’m willing to accept.

5 Likes