GM’s Mary Barra grossly misjudged the demand for her electric vehicles. Barra’s vision of $25 billion in annual revenues soaking customers with subscription fees to enable her vehicles’ hardware might also have just vaporized. Worse, if regulators and courts break these software paywalls, GM may have to revisit profits it has already effectively booked.
In a landmark settlement, U.S. agriculture equipment maker Deere agreed to pay $99 million into a settlement fund for farms and farmers that are part of a class action over costs and access to repairs. Deere also agreed to make available to farmers for 10 years “the digital tools required for the maintenance, diagnosis, and repair” of large agricultural equipment, including tractors, combines, and sugarcane harvesters, according to a court filing.
Deere’s settlement relates to a growing controversy over manufacturers trying to drive up repair costs by gating access to the software that increasingly enables their products. The settlement follows a 2022 lawsuit that accused Deere of withholding repair software and conspiring with authorized dealers to force farmers to use their services, when farmers could otherwise fix equipment themselves or turn to independent alternatives.
Farmers didn’t just complain; they revolted. They began purchasing legacy vehicles, driving the price of 40-year-old “dumb” tractors to nearly $60,000 just to avoid Deere’s software trap. We are already seeing this play out in the auto market, as consumers cling to older models with knobs and physical controls, quietly resisting the screen-heavy, subscription-laden future Barra wants to impose.
The accompanying report details the damage Deere’s software restrictions inflicted on farmers.
That Deere chose to settle rather than risk a jury trial suggests a company that understands both regulators and customers are no longer willing to tolerate highly profitable software toll booths layered on top of already expensive machines. GM CFO Paul Jacobson recently told investors that GM’s subscription services carry margins approaching 70%.
By contrast, GM earns roughly 7% on the trucks and SUVs it sells.
Deere still faces an FTC lawsuit alleging “unfair practices” that have “driven up equipment repair costs for farmers while also depriving farmers of the ability to make timely repairs on critical farming equipment.”
The FTC, now under Trump appointee Andrew Ferguson, has maintained the Biden-era case and reframed it as an issue of national food security. That framing aligns with a December 2025 Executive Order directing regulators to treat anti-competitive behavior in the food supply chain as a national and economic security risk.
That framing should alarm GM. If software restrictions on tractors can be cast as a threat to food security, it’s not a stretch to imagine similar arguments applied to transportation.
Automakers have long planned to layer subscription revenue on top of vehicle sales, but Barra has been the most explicit in promising investors a software-driven windfall already embedded in GM’s financial outlook.
Not long ago, when GM sold a vehicle, ownership meant control. Customers could service their cars wherever they chose and modify them at will.
Under Barra’s “software-enabled” vision, that ownership increasingly resembles a digital lease. Access to features is controlled, modifications are restricted, and third-party intervention is tightly controlled or blocked.
Consider Apple CarPlay. GM removed it from new EVs despite considerable data showing strong consumer demand. Even Tesla, long the industry’s most rigid closed system, has begun moving toward CarPlay integration after recognizing that controlling the dashboard was costing it sales.
When LaFontaine Chevrolet in suburban Detroit began installing a third-party kit developed by White Automotive to restore CarPlay functionality, GM didn’t just disagree—they ordered the dealer to terminate the service immediately. GM claimed the “hack” could interfere with safety, which evidence suggests isn’t one of GM’s critical concerns.
GM faces mounting lawsuits alleging it knowingly sold vehicles with defective engines, transmissions, and brakes. Its Cruise autonomous unit paid a $500,000 fine to resolve a criminal probe into misleading regulators.
The company has disclosed it has already incurred $500 million in legal costs tied to investigations and litigation over its OnStar Smart Driver data practices, with virtually none of the cases yet resolved. Texas alone is seeking more than $1 billion in damages. GM has acknowledged it cannot yet estimate the full financial impact of lawsuits alleging privacy violations.
Deere’s settlement raises a potentially serious accounting issue for GM.
When a customer buys a $60,000 Tahoe, GM does not recognize all of that revenue immediately. A portion is deferred to cover software services such as OnStar and Super Cruise that are delivered over time and expected to convert into paid subscriptions.
As of early 2026, GM has about $7.5 billion in deferred revenue tied to these services, to be recognized gradually over roughly eight years. The structure smooths earnings and reinforces Barra’s effort to position GM as a high-margin technology company rather than a cyclical manufacturer.
But that $7.5 billion rests on a critical assumption: that GM can continue to control access to its software ecosystem.
If regulators or courts pry open that ecosystem, the economics change. Deferred revenue tied to proprietary control may no longer be realizable. What is currently treated as future profit could instead become a liability requiring a write-down. Barra has made a big bet that GM can enforce digital control over vehicles customers believe they own, even as the odds increasingly turn against the automaker.
If that control weakens, GM does not just lose future subscription growth. It risks undermining profits it has already signaled to investors.
Despite the potential implications, GM’s stock barely reacted to Deere’s settlement. That’s not a surprise: GM’s stock price is driven by Wall Street’s belief that Barra, in the short term, can continue selling enough high-margin gas-powered trucks and SUVs to finance billions more in stock buybacks that support the share price.
While the corporate media celebrates Barra as an automotive visionary, Wall Street values her financial engineering acumen — making GM’s numbers look stronger on paper rather than building the zero-emissions future she promised.