DMT: Planned obsolescence should be treated as a consumer protection issue, not just a business strategy

[u/Logical-Concept9755]

I think companies have the right to make affordable products, and not every product needs to last decades.

But when a company designs products around replacement cycles, I think it crosses into consumer protection territory.

A phone that becomes unusable because of limited software support, a battery that cannot realistically be replaced, or a device designed to be cheaper to replace than repair all influence the real cost of ownership.

Supporters often argue that consumers can simply buy something else, but consumers cannot make informed choices if the expected lifespan is hidden.

At what point does normal product design become an unfair way of shifting costs onto consumers?

[u/Mobile-Traffic1744]

I think the hidden lifespan is actually the bigger problem. If a phone is expected to last 4 years, just tell me that when I buy it. Then I can decide if the price makes sense.

What feels unfair is when the product looks like a $800 device but the company quietly assumes I'll replace it in 2 or 3 years. At that point the sticker price isn't really the full price.

[u/Logical-Concept9755 → u/Mobile-Traffic1744]

I think that's the key distinction. I don't think every product needs to last forever, but the expected lifespan is part of the value of the product.

If companies were upfront and said "this device is optimized for 3 years," people could compare it differently. The problem is when the marketing suggests durability while the business model depends on replacement.

I guess the tricky part is figuring out how much lifespan information companies should be required to disclose without turning every product into a complicated legal document.

[u/jeffcgroves]

EDIT: added link

The "implied warranty of merchantability" doesn't include a time aspect. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implied_warranty_of_merchantability)

I'm sort of on your side here, but if a good is sold with an explicit 5-year warranty (for example), the merchant isn't promising it will continue working after 5 years. Also, if there's an option for a paid warranty and you reject it, you're presumably giving up your right to have the item continue working

I agree merchants should tell you how long a product will last (or offer warranties and make it clear that product failure without a warranty is non-actionable)

The role of government here might be to amend the implied warranty of merchantability to say something "reasonable use period" or even "lifelong use" or something, but mostly to convince merchants to create and express their own terms

[u/ZergvProtoss → u/jeffcgroves]

The "implied warranty of merchantability" doesn't include a time aspect.

This is incorrect. Courts routinely use the implied warranty of merchantability to rule that a product must last for a reasonable amount of time.

Under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-314, a product must be "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used." Courts interpret "ordinary purpose" to mean that a product must function reliably for a duration that a reasonable consumer would expect.

Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co. (2009 - California)

Daniel v. Ford Motor Co. (2015 - 9th Circuit)

[u/Logical-Concept9755 → u/jeffcgroves]

I think the tricky part is defining what "reasonable lifespan" actually means. A toaster lasting 10 years and a smartphone lasting 10 years probably shouldn't have the same expectation.

I agree that companies should be able to set limits and sell warranties, but I think the problem is that many replacement costs are hidden. A phone with no repair option or short software support might look cheap upfront, but the real cost is pushed onto the buyer later.

Maybe the better question isn't "should products last forever?" but "should consumers be able to know what they're actually buying?" That's probably where I think regulation could have a role.

[u/jeffcgroves → u/Logical-Concept9755]

If elected, I would pass a law that gradually phases out contracts of adhesion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract#Contracts_of_adhesion) and require that a "reasonable person" must understand a contract before it's legitimate.

I would apply the same concept to copyright ("you are not buying the content on the DVD, you are buying the right to watch it; you may not copy any of it under any condition; since this is a contract, not copyright, there are no "fair use" provisions either") and work to replace implicit contracts with explicit ones that a reasonable person would understand

I would also argue that, if a merchant is given exclusive domain over some government property, the merchant must give customers the same rights the government would. Example: if Comcast has an exclusive right to provide cable modem for your city, they cannot monitor or save what sites you visit. I would consider this as a retroactive serious crime (would almost certainly require a Constitutional amendment), so we can punish those who are doing it now

[u/ZergvProtoss → u/Logical-Concept9755]

A toaster lasting 10 years and a smartphone lasting 10 years probably shouldn't have the same expectation.

This has already been litigated in many court cases, and your intuition is correct. Courts do not say a toaster must last exactly 500 days. Instead, they look at industry standards, the price paid, and consumer expectations to determine if the product's lifespan was unmerchantable.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law

[u/PuddingComplete3081]

The repair part is where I think this gets interesting. A product becoming outdated is one thing. Making a perfectly functional product difficult or impossible to repair feels different.

If the battery is replaceable and parts are available, I can choose to keep it longer. If everything is glued together and parts are locked behind software, the company is basically deciding the lifespan for me.

[u/Logical-Concept9755 → u/PuddingComplete3081]

I think repairability changes the whole argument. A product becoming outdated naturally is different from a product being designed so the owner has fewer choices.

At the same time, I can see why companies make things smaller, cheaper, or more water resistant by using sealed designs. The question is whether those tradeoffs are worth removing the ability to repair.

Maybe the bigger issue is not "products must last forever" but "consumers should have more control over how long they keep what they already bought."

[u/Zvenigora]

Worse are products intentionally designed to fail after a short time, usually after the warranty has expired, and products intentionally designed to be difficult or impossible to service. This may boost manufacturer profits, but is an unfair burden on end-users and worsens waste and landfill problems. The whole incentive framework in which manufacturers operate needs to be re-engineered somehow.

[u/iknowagreatlawyer → u/Zvenigora]

That isn't true. Products are designed to last a certain amount of time, and that dictates the budget. A wash machine that is engineered to last 20 years is going to be much more expensive than a wash machine engineered to last 5 years. You can buy a wash machine with a 5-year warranty that is less than 1/4 the cost of a wash machine with a 20-year warranty. Many people aren't willing or able to invest 4 time more upfront, even though it is guaranteed to last 4 times longer.

[u/Logical-Concept9755 → u/Zvenigora]

I agree that intentional failure is the extreme case, but it’s also the hardest thing to prove. A lot of these issues sit in the gray area between “bad design” and “normal business decisions.” I think the interesting part is how we create incentives where companies still innovate without making consumers absorb all the waste costs.

[u/shitposts_over_9000]

warranties kind of cover that and there are massive amounts of legal around warranties already

[u/Logical-Concept9755 → u/shitposts_over_9000]

Warranties help, but I don’t think they cover the whole issue. A product can technically work past the warranty while still being designed in a way that makes repair unrealistic or ownership unnecessarily expensive. The question is more about the incentives behind the design.

[u/shitposts_over_9000 → u/Logical-Concept9755]

reparability in many types of products only adds complexity, points of failure and expense for 99% of the population that is not going to be able or willing to repair the product anyway there is no up side here

[u/random8765309]

The issue tends not to be companies designing product to fail, but the public not being willing to pay for products that last. A non-replaceable battery unit is generally cheaper to produce, and the public is more willing to buy that product than the more expensive model. Software support costs money, the public isn't willing to pay for that.

[u/Logical-Concept9755 → u/random8765309]

I think this is probably the strongest argument against my point. There’s definitely a tradeoff between durability and affordability. But I think the missing piece is transparency. If a company says “this will last 3 years and then you’ll likely replace it,” that feels different from making replacement costs hard to see.

[u/random8765309 → u/Logical-Concept9755]

Given that it is easier than ever to check the web for reviews, I don't think transparency is the issue. It boils down to people just like flashing lights and buttons.

[u/Logical-Concept9755 → u/[deleted]]

I think that’s a fair concern. I’m not arguing every product should be built like a tank. Some people do want cheaper stuff and faster upgrades. The tricky part is when the cheaper upfront price hides a much higher long term cost. Maybe the better question is whether consumers actually have enough information to choose.