Born to Die: Planned Obsolescence and the Lack of Legal Recourse

Born to Die: Planned Obsolescence and the Lack of Legal Recourse

By: Elena Overstreet

In 2024, technology was the largest category of consumer spending during the holiday season, and it was projected that the 2025 holiday season would be the same.[1] Spending in this area seems to increase each year, with people finding the latest phones, kindles, and Oura Rings under their Christmas trees.[2] The thrill of new devices does not come without a cost, however. By 2030, the annual volume of electronics placed on the market is estimated to have risen to 120 billion kilograms – approximately 264 billion pounds.  While some progress has been made in collecting and recycling the materials used, this progress barely makes a dent in the magnitude of electronic waste being generated.[4] Yet, the trouble does not stop there.

In the midst of this, consumers have noticed that their gadgets are breaking more quickly than they used to. One Reddit user observed, “My grandma’s fridge from the ‘60s still works fine, but my phone charger dies every six months. We had bomb-proof Nokia bricks, now we have glass slabs that crack if you breathe on them.”[5] This shortened lifespan is intentional; it is described by the term “planned obsolescence.”[6] In the U.S., approximately half the states have implemented legislation about recycling technology,[7] but there is no law in the United States, either federal or state, preventing planned obsolescence itself.

What Is Planned Obsolescence?

Planned obsolescence is one of the most profitable business schemes that has been developed. In 1932, Bernard London, a prominent American real estate broker, authored an essay popularizing the idea of planned obsolescence. He argued that the Great Depression caused people to keep and use their items for longer, destroying property values, employment opportunities, and overall social value.He encouraged the government to limit product lifespans in order to keep factories running and to generate consistent tax revenue, both of which would stimulate the economy.[9]

Falling within the principle of planned obsolescence is the idea of “perceived obsolescence,” where manufacturers frequently update their products to encourage consumers to replace their existing products, even if they function perfectly well.[10] Companies may use strategic marketing plans to “exploit consumer psychology and vulnerabilities,” to convince consumers that they must have these latest products.[11] Many big-name brands have cult-like followings of consumers who will upgrade at every new product launch, while more skeptical consumers notice that the new products may not be worth it. One Reddit user argued that the iPhone 16 would provide no noticeable differences, stating, “Your scrolling through TikTok won’t magically be a better experience, your messaging won’t massively improve, your pictures won’t suddenly be spectacular… [F]or most people, there is no need to scratch whatever ‘itch’ you have to upgrade… stop trying to convince yourself that you need it.”[12]

Planned Obsolescence in Action

One of the most famous entities to utilize planned obsolescence was the Phoebus Cartel. Starting in the 1920’s, several major businessmen in the lightbulb industry banded together to form a supervisory body, which came to be known as the Phoebus Cartel, and created a global monopoly over the incandescent lightbulb market.[13] The cartel placed a 1,000-burning-hour limit on their lightbulbs, which was a dramatic decrease from the average 2,000-burning-hour lifespan that lightbulbs on the market typically had.[14] When the issue of planned obsolescence was finally brought to court, it was in a suit brought by the Department of Justice against General Electric for violations of the Sherman Act.[15] However, the court held that General Electric was at fault not for designing its lightbulbs to fail, but for conspiring with other lightbulb producers to do so.[16] It is unclear what the outcome would have been if General Electric was acting alone, and this issue has still not been addressed.[17]

More recently, in the early 2000’s, consumers began noticing that Microsoft’s newer computers were lasting only a few years, in comparison to the older computers which could last up to a few decades. Microsoft began naming its products for the year they were released, priming consumers to “anticipate regular upgrades” as if they “were buying vintage wines.”[19] Even if consumers chose to keep their current products for as long as possible, companies like Microsoft could outdate their older products by making new software updates compatible only with newer products.[20]

Further, in 2006, Epson America, one of the country’s largest providers of inkjet printers, settled a class action lawsuit when it suspended printer functions before the printer’s ink cartridges were empty.[21] Then, in 2017, both Apple and Samsung were hit with fines imposed by the Italian Competition Authority for failing to inform consumers about software updates that would slow down older phones, although both companies denied the allegations of planned obsolescence.[22] Apple has been party to multiple lawsuits in France, Portugal, Belgium, Italy, and Spain, each alleging the company was engaging in a planned obsolescence scheme.[23]

Clearly, London’s ideas have gained popularity, and in today’s market, companies who do not utilize planned obsolescence in their technology and machinery are at a great disadvantage.[24]

One Potential Legal Issue

Planned obsolescence can be evaluated using American property law. Like the Phoebus Cartel, a manufacturer who uses a scheme of planned obsolescence is trying to create waste; the manufacturer intends that the purchaser will eventually lose the benefit of using the product and discard it.[25] In a Harvard Law Review article, Meredith Render recently argued that property law does not allow a manufacturer to sell a product “with a self-destruct function” and destroy a product that belongs to someone else.[26] Thus, she argues, that by intentionally creating a product with a limited lifespan, a manufacturer creates an inalienable reversionary interest in that product, beginning at the point of obsolescence.[27] The outcome is that the obsolete product belongs to the manufacturer, and it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to dispose of it.[28] She hypothesizes that even if the consumer disposes of the product irresponsibly, the manufacturer could be held responsible for whatever negative outcome happens.[29] In principle, this could greatly disincentivize manufacturers from using a planned obsolescence scheme.

Progress?

The closest that the United States has come to addressing planned obsolescence is by enacting Right to Repair laws. Many companies require consumers to use specific repair services, and in response, a global movement encouraging Right to Repair laws has been growing. This movement seeks to respect consumers’ expectation to exercise dominion over the products that they purchase.[30] For example, Australia has a significant history of independent repair,[31] and groups such as the Australian Earth Laws Alliance have been actively working to support consumer autonomy and combat planned obsolescence schemes.[32]

One example of a Right to Repair law in the United States is Section 117(c) of the Copyright Act, permitting an owner or lessee of a machine to copy a computer program, if necessary, but only for the purposes of repairing the machine.[33] Several recent bills addressing consumers’ right to repair have been introduced, but each have failed to pass.[34] On the state level, in 2012, Massachusetts became the first state to enact its own Right to Repair Law: the “Massachusetts Auto Repair Law.”[35] The effect of this law was small, but it encouraged policy-makers to draft a Model State Right-to-Repair Law.[36] Over forty states began working on legislation based on this model law. New York is the only state that was successful in enacting a law, but even then, it varied significantly from the model law and has been criticized as being ineffective in practice.[38]

From the manufacturer’s point of view, Right to Repair laws may come with a new set of concerns. Manufacturers can reasonably argue that they need to protect their intellectual property, which could be difficult to do if their products are simplistic enough to be repaired by any third-party vendor, or if they were required to disclose enough information to make repairs possible.[39] Manufacturers may also be reasonably concerned about privacy risks or corporate liability risks that could come from unsanctioned repairs.

Again, however, none of these laws directly address planned obsolescence itself.

Working Towards a Solution?

Right to Repair laws, while a sign of progress in the right direction, have been criticized as being insufficient. Some argue that these laws should be coupled with producer responsibility laws, extending past the point of sale.[40] Some suggest total bans on planned obsolescence schemes.[41] Other measures might include labeling standards, improved disclosures, minimum durability standards and durability benchmarks, upgradeability standards, eco-friendly design regulations, regulations requiring manufacturers to reclaim discarded products, and marketing regulations.[42]

Whatever the solution, competing factors across various disciplines must be considered, and it may require a larger cultural shift overall.[43] After all, almost a century after Bernard London’s essay, companies continue to utilize questionable tactics to keep consumers needing and wanting more, running into few legal barriers.

 

 

Link to Image Source: https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/variety-broken-home-electrical-appliances-flat-item-set-cartoon-damaged-stove-toaster-vacuum-cleaner-laptop-isolated-vector-illustration-collection-household-equipment-concept_11672034.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=1&uuid=4cf80c73-a6c4-40b9-935a-0dec88d324b1&query=broken+electronics

[1] Winter’s here – and so are the holiday retail trends, Adobe for Business, https://business.adobe.com/resources/holiday-shopping-report.html (last visited Nov. 29, 2025).

[2] Id.

[3] Cornelia P. Balde et.al., The Global E-Waste Monitor 2024, UNITAR Sustainable Cycles Programme 28 (2024), https://ewastemonitor.info/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/GEM_2024_18-03_web_page_per_page_web.pdf.

[4] Id.

[5] u/Common_Delivery_8413, Why was old tech built to last forever, but new stuff breaks in two years?, Reddit (Mar. 20, 2025), https://www.reddit.com/r/nostalgia/comments/1jffrf6/why_was_old_tech_built_to_last_forever_but_new/.

[6] Samuel Becher & Anne-Lise Sibony, The Law and Policy of Product Obsolescence, The Regulatory Review (Sept. 8, 2021), https://www.theregreview.org/2021/09/08/becher-sibony-law-policy-product-obsolescence/.

[7] Balde et.al., supra note 3, at 71.

[8] Bernard London, Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence (1932).

[9] Id.

[10] Lieselot Bisschop, Yogi Hendlin, & Jelle Jaspers, Designed to break: planned obsolescence as corporate environmental crime, 78 Crime, Law and Social Change 272, 274 (2022).

[11] Becher & Sibony, supra note 6.

[12] u/konradly, You don’t need to upgrade to the iPhone 16, Reddit (Sept. 23, 2024), https://www.reddit.com/r/iPhone13Pro/comments/1fngpks/you_dont_need_to_upgrade_to_the_iphone_16.

[13] Markus Krajewski, The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy, IEEE Spectrum (Sept. 24, 2014), https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-great-lightbulb-conspiracy.

[14] Id.

[15] United States v. Gen. Elect. Co., 115 F. Supp. 835 (D.N.J. 1953).

[16] Nicole Cullen, From Lightbulbs to #Sheinhauls: Considerations for Planned Obsolescence Regulation in the Modern Era, 99 Wash. L. Rev. 607, 609 (2024).

[17] Id.

[18] See Carol L. Schlein, Planned Obsolescence: Why There’s No Escape from Upgrade City 1 (2002), Westlaw 19 No. 17 Law. PC 1.

[19] Id.

[20] Id. at 3.

[21] Bisschop, Hendlin, & Jaspers, supra note 10, at 272.

[22] Id. at 273.

[23] Id. at 273-74.

[24] Alexander Joseph Gambino, Right to Repair: Whose Right is it Anyway?, 25 Trans. Tenn. J. Bus. L. 125, 130 (2023).

[25] Meredith M. Render, Waste, Property, and Useless Things, 138 Harv. L. Rev. 1260, 1304 (2025).

[26] Id. at 1305.

[27] Id. at 1306.

[28] Id. at 1308.

[29] Id. at 1314.

[30] Gambino, supra note 24, at 130.

[31] Matthew Rimmer, Shane Rattenbury, the Productivity Commission, and the Right to Repair: Intellectual Property, Consumer Rights, And Sustainable Development In Australia, 37 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 989, 992 (2022).

[32] Id. at 1044.

[33] David Garrison Golubock, Fixing Right-to-Repair Law: Why Efforts to Hold Manufacturers Accountable are Faltering, 7 Ariz. L. J. Emerging Technologies 1, 6 (2024).

[34] Id. at 13-14 (explaining how, for example, the Motor Vehicle Owners Right to Repair Act was abandoned in 2011). Additionally, the Critical Medical Infrastructure Right-to-Repair Act of 2020 failed to make it out of committee, even though it was extremely limited in scope and applied only during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Fair Repair Act was introduced in 2020 and again in 2021, but it also failed to make it out of committee. The Freedom to Repair Act was introduced in February 2022, but it has similarly failed.

[35] Id. at 2, 4.

[36] Id. at 4.

[37] Id.

[38] Id.

[39] See Gambino, supra note 24, at 137-39.

[40] Rimmer, supra note 31, at 1044.

[41] Becher & Sibony, supra note 6.

[42] Becher & Sibony, supra note 6; Bisschop, Hendlin, & Jaspers, supra note 10, at 285.

[43] Rimmer, supra note 31, at 1056.