Planned Obsolescence Backlash: Strategy or Consumer Fraud?

Introduction
Reports reveal a growing backlash against “planned obsolescence” — the design of products with built‑in expiration dates, whether technical or psychological. From smartphones to printers and household appliances, consumers and regulators are asking a pointed question: is this just a shrewd business model for a fast-moving tech economy, or a sophisticated form of consumer fraud hiding in plain sight?

Chapter 1: How Products Got a Shorter Life — By Design

The Origins of a Controversial Strategy

The term “planned obsolescence” dates back at least to the early 20th century, but it entered the modern corporate playbook alongside mass production and consumer culture.

• Who: Major manufacturers in automobiles, lightbulbs, electronics and, later, tech companies.
• What: Deliberate design or marketing decisions that shorten a product’s useful, perceived or supported life.
• Where: Initially in the United States and Europe, now a global practice across supply chains.
• When: Systematically observed since at least the 1920s, accelerating with the post‑war consumer boom and the digital era.
• Why: To stimulate repeat purchases, stabilize demand and protect margins in saturated markets.

One of the earliest and most cited examples is the Phoebus cartel in the 1920s and 1930s, where major lightbulb manufacturers in Europe and the U.S. agreed to limit bulb lifespans to around 1,000 hours. Historical documents, uncovered by journalists and researchers, show cartel members testing bulbs and penalizing companies that exceeded the agreed lifespan. The alleged goal: create predictable replacement cycles and increase sales.

While that cartel eventually collapsed and competition laws tightened, the logic survived. In the late 20th century, automakers were repeatedly accused by consumer advocates of skimping on corrosion protection or designing components that failed earlier than necessary, though proving intent in court has often been difficult.

Three Faces of Obsolescence

Experts generally distinguish three forms of obsolescence that appear in corporate strategies and legal battles:

1. Technical obsolescence: Components wear out faster than reasonably expected, or repairs are intentionally made difficult or uneconomical. Examples include sealed batteries, proprietary screws and non-standard parts.
2. Software obsolescence: Devices remain physically functional, but operating system updates, app support, or security patches stop, undermining usability or safety.
3. Psychological obsolescence: Marketing and design changes make older models feel outdated despite being fully functional — such as annual smartphone or fashion cycles.

Only the first two categories have directly triggered regulatory and legal scrutiny for possible fraud or unfair practices. Psychological obsolescence, while ethically debated, is harder to regulate because it hinges on consumer perception rather than explicit product failure.

Chapter 2: When Strategy Crosses the Legal Line

Smartphones in the Dock: Apple, Samsung and “Throttling” Controversies

The most high‑profile modern cases surround smartphones. In 2017, reports from users and independent developers highlighted that older iPhone models slowed noticeably after iOS updates. Investigations by journalists and technologists traced the slowdown to Apple’s power management feature, which reduced performance on devices with aging batteries to prevent unexpected shutdowns.

Under public pressure, Apple admitted to implementing performance throttling without clearly informing users in advance. While the company argued it was protecting device stability, regulators in several jurisdictions saw a disclosure problem — and a potential obsolescence issue.

• France: In 2020, France’s competition and fraud watchdog (DGCCRF) fined Apple €25 million for “misleading commercial practice by omission.” Regulators concluded users were not adequately informed that updates could slow devices and that battery replacement could solve the problem.
• United States: Apple agreed in 2020 to pay up to US$500 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over the slowdown controversy, while not admitting wrongdoing. The settlement alleged Apple’s actions led consumers to believe their phones were “worn out” and to purchase new devices.
• Italy: In 2018, Italy’s antitrust authority fined both Apple (€10 million) and Samsung (€5 million) for practices it said induced consumers to install updates that negatively affected device performance without adequate information, qualifying those actions as unfair commercial practices.

Samsung disputed that it engaged in planned obsolescence, asserting that updates were designed to improve performance or security. Apple emphasized that its intent was to extend, not shorten, device life by preventing shutdowns. Nevertheless, the penalties signaled a shift: regulators were willing to treat opaque update practices as potentially deceptive.

Printers, Chips and “Mystery” Error Messages

Printers have long faced accusations of planned obsolescence, particularly around ink cartridges and so‑called “page counters.” Over the last decade, investigations by consumer organizations and journalists in Europe, the U.S. and Japan have spotlighted several controversial practices:

• Printer models that stop printing when ink is “low,” even when some ink remains in the cartridge.
• Cartridges with chips preventing refilling or third‑party ink use.
• Error messages tied to pre‑set page counts, not actual mechanical failure.

In France, the environmental NGO Halte à l’Obsolescence Programmée (HOP) filed complaints against multiple printer manufacturers, including Epson and HP, alleging deliberate obsolescence. French prosecutors opened investigations into Epson in 2017, probing whether some inkjet printers were programmed to stop functioning before the end of their technical life.

As of the latest publicly reported developments, French authorities have been cautious in characterizing the practice as “planned obsolescence” in the strict legal sense, which requires proof of intent. Some companies have defended their designs as necessary to prevent printhead damage or ensure print quality, rather than to force premature replacement.

Europe’s Unique Legal Definition

France stands out as one of the few countries with a specific criminal offense for planned obsolescence. A 2015 law defines it as “all techniques by which a marketer aims to deliberately reduce the life span of a product to increase its replacement rate.” The offense can lead to heavy fines and even prison terms, but the burden of proof is high: regulators must demonstrate deliberate intent and a direct link between design choices and shortened life.

Most other jurisdictions use broader consumer protection or competition laws that address deception, unfair practices, or antitrust issues, rather than naming “planned obsolescence” explicitly. This legal patchwork leaves room for both corporate defense and consumer frustration.

Chapter 3: Where Business Logic Meets Regulatory Red Lines

The Corporate Defense: Innovation, Safety and Economics

Companies publicly accused of planned obsolescence often share similar justifications:

• Rapid innovation cycles: In smartphones and consumer electronics, firms argue that annual or biannual product releases reflect intense competition and fast-moving technology, not a scheme to shorten lifespans.
• Safety and reliability: Some design constraints — such as sealed batteries or components — are said to protect water resistance, structural integrity or user safety.
• Cost-performance trade‑offs: Designing for very long life may significantly increase costs, reducing affordability and adoption.
• Software compatibility: Companies contend that maintaining support for very old hardware can be technically complex, costly and sometimes impossible without compromising security.

In earnings calls and policy papers, executives frequently frame obsolescence accusations as misunderstandings of modern product development, pointing to warranty terms, repair options and software support timelines as evidence of good faith.

Consumer Advocates: The Line Between Strategy and Fraud

Consumer groups and environmental NGOs counter that what appears as “strategy” can, in certain conditions, amount to unfair or deceptive conduct.

• Transparency: A core complaint is not just that products fail, but that consumers are not clearly informed about expected lifespans, repairability, or the effects of updates.
• Repair barriers: Proprietary tools, restricted spare parts and software locks are criticized as artificial obstacles that push users to replace rather than repair.
• Environmental cost: Early replacement of otherwise functional devices contributes to e‑waste, with significant environmental and social impacts in mining, manufacturing and disposal.

In response, regulators in the EU and U.S. are taking measured steps. The European Union’s “right to repair” initiatives and ecodesign rules encourage longer product lifespans and easier repair, without necessarily branding all short-lived products as fraudulent. Several U.S. states are enacting similar right‑to‑repair laws targeting agricultural equipment, electronics and appliances.

Financially, the stakes are high. Frequent upgrade cycles underpin revenue models for many tech and consumer-goods companies. Any regulatory move that extends product lifespans could force firms to re‑think pricing, services and profit structures — potentially shifting more revenue toward subscriptions, software and after‑sales services.

Investors, ESG, and Reputation Risk

Beyond fines and lawsuits, companies face emerging scrutiny from investors focused on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) metrics. Asset managers and pension funds are increasingly wary of business models that rely heavily on high turnover of physical goods.

In sustainability reports, some manufacturers now highlight durability, repairability and modularity as selling points. Analysts warn that firms publicly linked to deliberate obsolescence could face not only legal exposure but also reputational damage that affects valuation, particularly in markets where consumers and regulators prioritize sustainability.

While direct, proven cases of criminal “planned obsolescence” remain relatively rare, the perception that a brand undermines product longevity can be enough to spark social media campaigns, regulatory inquiries and shareholder questions, even without a court verdict.

Conclusion
New details continue to emerge as regulators test the limits of existing laws, from France’s criminal statute to EU right‑to‑repair rules and U.S. state legislation. Whether planned obsolescence is judged a smart strategy or a form of consumer fraud increasingly depends on transparency, intent and impact. As investigations evolve, consumers, lawmakers and investors will be watching closely — and holding companies to account.