The proposed legislation would mandate that companies indicate a “reasonable” support duration on product packaging and online sales platforms, informing consumers how long they can expect their devices to maintain access to connected features. It would also obligate businesses to alert customers as their devices near the end of their support periods, detailing which functionalities will no longer be available.
Additionally, a cybersecurity aspect would compel internet providers to replace company-issued broadband routers in consumer homes once they reach their end of life.
“The cybersecurity component is really centered around the expectation that internet service providers who lease or sell smart connected devices must take responsibility for managing obsolete devices on their networks,” explains Paul Roberts, president of the Secure Resilient Future Foundation (SRFF), a non-profit organization focused on cybersecurity advocacy.
If the stipulation about routers seems somewhat unexpected, Roberts clarifies that it is a intentional dual-purpose strategy. “These issues are somewhat separate, but they all link back to the broader challenge,” he states, “which is establishing guidelines and definitions within the smart-device market. It’s imperative to inform manufacturers that they must adhere to certain regulations to market smart connected products. It can’t be a free-for-all.”
Roberts is optimistic that if this law garners support from lawmakers and evolves into actual legislation, it could incentivize companies to develop more secure software, akin to how seatbelts and airbags became standard in automobiles.
However, the likelihood of such legislation gaining momentum at the federal level in the U.S. appears uncertain given the current political climate, which is heavily characterized by extensive deregulation. While the European Union has spearheaded efforts on regulations regarding product repairability and end-of-life protocols for vehicles and electronic waste recycling, the U.S. has not followed suit.
“We are in a situation where the FTC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are not taking any strong actions for consumer interests,” comments Anshel Sag, a principal analyst at Moor Insights and Strategies. “I don’t detect any significant willingness for regulation.”
Sag also warns that this type of legislation could stifle the innovative spirit that fuels startups, as companies might hesitate to take risks if they know they are required to support a product for a specified duration.
“I don’t necessarily view that as a negative,” Sag remarks. “I just believe many startups may shy away from assuming that kind of risk. Consequently, this could hinder innovation in certain aspects.”
Conversely, Higginbotham is notably less concerned about these implications. She reflects on her extensive collection of obsolete devices, which has turned into a significant amount of e-waste.
“I’m not convinced that really qualifies as innovation,” Higginbotham asserts. “We need to reassess our baseline expectations based on the learnings of the past fifteen years. There may be a better way than simply discarding a plethora of items into the market to see what gains traction.”
