The iPhone has been identified as the least fixable smartphone currently available on the consumer market, according to the latest repairability ratings released by prominent consumer advocacy groups. In its annual report titled “Failing the Fix,” the United States Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG) revealed that despite public-facing concessions regarding parts availability, Apple continues to trail its competitors in overall device longevity and ease of repair. The report, which evaluates the world’s leading technology manufacturers, indicates that while some brands like Motorola are making significant strides toward sustainable design, industry giants such as Samsung and Google remain significantly behind the curve, with Apple occupying the lowest tier.

The 2026 edition of “Failing the Fix” marks a critical juncture in the global Right to Repair movement, utilizing data generated by recent international transparency mandates. Since the implementation of a landmark 2021 French law requiring manufacturers to label electronic products with repairability scores, consumer advocates have gained unprecedented access to technical data regarding how devices are built and maintained. US PIRG’s latest findings suggest that while the industry is progressing, the pace of change is uneven, often hampered by proprietary software locks and aggressive corporate lobbying.

The Grading Scale: Winners and Losers in the Mobile Market

The US PIRG report utilizes a letter-grade system to rank manufacturers based on a combination of hardware design, parts availability, and corporate transparency. In the smartphone category, Motorola emerged as the industry leader, earning a B+ grade for its relatively accessible designs and the availability of replacement components. Motorola’s performance stands in stark contrast to other major players in the Android ecosystem. Google’s Pixel lineup received a C-, a middling score that reflects a balance between decent parts availability and complex internal architectures.

Samsung, the world’s largest manufacturer of Android devices, received a D, narrowly avoiding the bottom of the list. The report highlighted that while Samsung has introduced "Self-Repair" programs in partnership with third-party entities, the actual process of disassembling high-end Galaxy devices remains prohibitively difficult for the average consumer due to the heavy use of adhesives and integrated components.

Apple, however, received the lowest marks among major smartphone manufacturers, earning a D-. This ranking follows a brief period of improvement; the company had previously moved from an F in 2022 to a C- in 2025. The regression in 2026 is attributed to several factors, including the increasing complexity of "parts pairing"—a software-based restriction that prevents the use of third-party or salvaged components without Apple’s proprietary authorization tools.

The report also extended its analysis to the laptop market, where results were similarly polarized. Asus took the top spot with a B+ grade, praised for its modular designs that allow for easier RAM and storage upgrades. Conversely, Apple’s MacBook line was ranked at the bottom of the laptop category with a C-, as the company continues to solder most internal components directly to the logic board, rendering repairs and upgrades nearly impossible for end-users.

Methodology: Beyond Hardware Disassembly

The "Failing the Fix" report does not rely solely on how many screws are inside a device. To arrive at its conclusions, US PIRG collates data from the European Product Registry for Energy Labelling (EPREL) and France’s national repair index. These European standards grade products based on five key pillars:

1. Documentation: The availability of free, high-quality repair manuals.
2. Disassembly: The ease with which a device can be opened without specialized or destructive tools.
3. Spare Parts Availability: How long parts remain in production and how quickly they can be shipped.
4. Spare Parts Pricing: Whether the cost of a repair part is reasonable compared to the price of a new device.
5. Software and Support: The duration of security updates and the presence of software locks that hinder repair.

In addition to these technical metrics, US PIRG includes a "lobbying penalty" in its scoring. Points are deducted if a company is found to be actively lobbying against Right to Repair legislation in the United States or if they are members of trade associations—such as the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) or TechNet—that work to defeat such bills in state legislatures.

“If you’re buying your equipment from a company that’s spending their money to lobby against your right to repair that thing, that doesn’t speak well for their support for your ability to fix it,” said Nathan Proctor, senior director of the US PIRG campaign for the Right to Repair. “So we also dock points for some of those legislative activities.”

The Role of Software in Hardware Longevity

A significant portion of the report focuses on the "dystopian" trend of software-limited hardware. Proctor noted that while Apple engineers are highly skilled at solving complex hardware problems, the company’s business model often prioritizes controlled ecosystems over user autonomy. The report criticizes the industry’s pivot toward Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a primary marketing tool, arguing that these innovations often come at the expense of durability.

“Instead of coming up with new ways to jam AI down our throats, you can make stuff that lasts and that we can fix,” Proctor stated. The report emphasizes that even if a phone is physically robust, it becomes "electronic waste" the moment a manufacturer stops providing software updates or uses software locks to prevent a screen or battery replacement.

The phenomenon of "parts pairing" has become a central point of contention. In many modern iPhones, components like the FaceID sensor, the battery, and the screen are digitally "serialized" to the motherboard. If a repairer swaps a broken screen with a genuine screen from another iPhone, certain features may be disabled by the software unless the repair is "validated" through Apple’s cloud servers. This practice effectively grants the manufacturer a monopoly over the repair process, even when the hardware is technically capable of being fixed by independent shops.

Chronology of the Right to Repair Movement

The current landscape of repairability has been shaped by a decade of escalating legal and social pressure:

• 2012-2018: Early advocacy begins as farmers and consumer groups protest "locked" software in John Deere tractors and Apple iPhones.
• 2021: France implements the first national Repairability Index, forcing tech giants to disclose how difficult their products are to fix at the point of sale.
• 2022: Under pressure from the Biden administration and state-level bills, Apple launches its "Self Service Repair" program, though critics label it overly complex.
• 2023: The European Union passes the EPREL law, establishing a central registry for energy and repair labeling, further increasing transparency.
• 2024-2025: Several US states, including California, New York, and Minnesota, pass comprehensive Right to Repair laws, forcing manufacturers to provide the same tools and parts to independent shops that they provide to their authorized providers.
• 2026: US PIRG’s report indicates that while legislation is helping, manufacturers are finding new ways—primarily through software—to maintain control over the secondary repair market.

Economic and Environmental Implications

The lack of repairability has profound consequences for both the environment and consumer finances. According to United Nations data, the world generates more than 50 million metric tons of electronic waste annually, a figure that is expected to grow as devices become more integrated and difficult to refurbish. By making repairs difficult or expensive, manufacturers encourage a "churn" cycle where consumers replace devices every 24 to 36 months.

From an economic perspective, the US PIRG report argues that the inability to repair devices costs American households approximately $40 billion per year. When a $1,000 smartphone cannot be fixed for a reasonable price—often because the manufacturer charges 50-60% of the device’s value for a simple screen or battery swap—consumers are forced into debt or unnecessary upgrades.

“This is an emerging, vitally important issue that we need better leadership on from companies and from other public policy officials,” Proctor said. “We should not be trashing all of our internet-connected stuff every couple of years because it’s impossible to use it with the software. It’s totally unsustainable. It’s crazy.”

Industry Response and Future Outlook

Apple and Samsung did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding their low scores in the 2026 report. In the past, these companies have argued that restrictive repair policies are necessary to protect consumer privacy, data security, and physical safety, particularly regarding the handling of lithium-ion batteries.

However, the report suggests that these arguments are losing ground as more transparent data becomes available. The success of Motorola and Asus demonstrates that it is possible to create high-performing, modern electronics that do not sacrifice repairability.

The authors of the "Failing the Fix" report remain optimistic that public pressure and grading systems will eventually force a design revolution. Proctor noted that Apple’s engineering prowess could easily be redirected toward sustainability if the incentives are aligned correctly. “I’m actually pretty confident that some of that stuff’s going to get addressed,” he added. “Apple engineers are good at making stuff. They’re good at solving problems.”

As more jurisdictions consider mandatory repair labeling and "anti-parts-pairing" legislation, the tech industry faces a clear choice: embrace a circular economy where products are built to last, or continue to face declining scores and increasing regulatory scrutiny. For now, the iPhone remains a symbol of the "unfixable" era, a status that consumer advocates hope to change through continued transparency and legislative advocacy.