[sqeaky]

If the previous comments are to be believed (I don't know I didn't read the law), then individual repairperson will need many certs in practice. If I put myself out there as able to repair phones and there are a dozen popular phone manufacturers and each requires a different cert then I need to make them all happy to be able accept whatever customers walk in the front door with.

[godelski]

> If the previous comments are to be believed (I don't know I didn't read the law)

It's probably worth doing so before taking a stance. I'd highly encourage this if you see people arguing about something in the comments. Especially when it is linked. Here, I'll save you the trouble

  (e) “Independent repair provider” means a person that:
    (A) Engages in the business of diagnosing, maintaining, repairing or updating consumer electronic equipment in this state but is not an authorized service provider; and
    (B) Possesses a valid and unexpired certification that demonstrates that the person has the technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment in accordance with widely accepted standards, such as a Wireless Industry Service Excellence Certification, an A+ certification from the Computing Technology Industry Association, a National Appliance Service Technician Certification or another certification that an original equipment manufacturer accepts as evidence that the person can perform safe, secure and reliable repairs to consumer electronic equipment that the original equipment manufacturer makes or sells.

We can see that it literally says what I indicated.

>> It's not a mountain of certificates, you just need one of many different options.

  Possesses __A__ valid and unexpired certification that demonstrates that the person has the technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely

Nowhere does it say that many are needed and the continued text makes a stronger indication that these are examples of such sufficient certifications rather than the specific ones needed. If you're willing to believe the other comments maybe you're willing to believe I googled the requirements and can find no such clear description in Oregon Law that one must have a mountain of certificates. All I can find is that you must be certified (with similar but not identical examples provided) and a specific requirement about the certification including discussion of pollution. Which those practice exams I showed even have such a question. But also IANAL, but neither are most of the commenters. Still, I did read the text before responding and tried to do due diligence before taking a position. I hope we can reduce the number of arguments by RTFMing.

[Kon-Peki]

I understand your argument. It is a good one. But there's a level of ridiculousness to the text that should give you pause.

The National Appliance Service Technician Certification shows that the holder knows how to repair ovens, refrigerators, and other major household appliances. Your interpretation of the text says that the Oregon legislature believes that this qualifies someone to repair anything covered by their wide-ranging right to repair law. That can't be right, can it?

No, a more logical interpretation is that the list of certifications is just a set of examples, but that manufacturers will have to decide what is applicable to whatever it is they manufacture.

[AaronM]

Sure, however, the bill also requires that a manufacturer does not "impose a substantial condition, obligation or restriction that is not reasonably necessary to enable an independent repair provider or an owner to diagnose, maintain, repair or update consumer electronic equipment that the original equipment manufacturer makes or sells"

My guess is there would be challenges in court if they made the certification process onerous.