What can you do if your smartphone breaks down far too quickly?

The ink for your printer is no longer available anywhere. Your refrigerator breaks down because it contains parts that have a short lifespan. And your old smartphone still works fine, but your provider is discontinuing updates.

These are all examples of planned obsolescence. As a consumer, can you do anything about it legally? That is what lawyer Tim van Zuijlen (37) investigated, and he will be defending his PhD thesis on Monday 29 September.

How did you come up with this topic? Did something break at your house?

‘I had long been fascinated by the fact that manufacturers know exactly how long their products will last, but that the life span of some items is much shorter than it should be.

When I was looking for a topic for my thesis, I exchanged ideas with my colleague Rosalie. At the time, I didn't know that there was a legal term for the subject that I found so interesting, but she wrote the term “planned product obsolescence” on a napkin. That's when I found my topic. I must still have that napkin somewhere; when I find it, I'll frame it.’

Your thesis revolves around the question of how consumers can take legal action against the deliberate shortening of a product's lifespan. How often does this happen? And which products are most commonly affected?

‘It's partly an ingrained economic principle: our economy runs better when people buy new things more often. So a product shouldn't last too long.

You see this very clearly with smart products such as phones and computers. The latest model is more important than how long the old one lasts. Manufacturers can also tinker with the lifespan, for example by stopping software updates. That's not very sustainable.’

The term “planned obsolescence” dates back to the 1930s: by deliberately giving products a shorter lifespan, the economy was stimulated during the crisis years. If companies have been doing this for so long, then surely consumer protection has been well and truly sorted out in the Netherlands?

‘Unfortunately, that is not the case. There are more interests at stake than consumer and environmental protection. There are lobbyists who oppose regulation, and the importance of consumer protection and sustainability was only recognised in the 1960s. Moreover, the law is also “burdened” by the ideal of the liberal market economy.

It is sometimes forgotten that consumer confidence is essential for a strong economy. Effective protection against planned obsolescence can actually strengthen that confidence. So, in my opinion, it is in everyone's interest!’

One of the problems you point out is the question: what is a reasonable lifespan for a product? How do you determine that?

‘That can be very difficult, because this judgement depends on a comparison with similar products and consumer expectations. In the Netherlands, we do have some guidelines for this. For example, a number of major players, such as Mediamarkt, which have a very good understanding of the lifespan of products, have made agreements with each other. Depending on the price, consumers can assume that a washing machine will last 3, 5 or 7 years, for example. However, this period is a lot shorter than what the Consumentenbond, for example, considers realistic.

That is therefore one of the recommendations in my thesis: ensure that the market, together with consumer organisations, draws up lifespan lists for smart products. If that fails, the government must take care of it.’

What else needs to be done to better protect consumers?

‘What the Netherlands does well is that we have a more flexible warranty period. It is a minimum of two years, but can be longer if you can reasonably expect that from a product. However, if there is something wrong with the product, after one year the burden of proof lies with the consumer. This needs to change, because as a consumer you are then in limbo: you may be entitled to a remedy (refund, replacement, repair), but you cannot prove that you have purchased a defective product.

What I also recommend, and what will happen in a year's time, is that when companies release updates, they should not only indicate the positive consequences, but also the negative ones. Finally, I think it would be good if the market itself were to draw up codes of conduct.’

Do you already see any improvement among manufacturers? After all, there is constant talk about the circular economy.

‘When you buy walking boots or a tent, durability is definitely a selling point. But I don't see that yet with smart products. It's all about “faster, bigger, thinner”, but rarely: this phone lasts extra long!

In fact, if you look at the lifespan of consumer electronics, it has actually decreased in recent years, even though the technology has improved.’

There is also such a thing as psychological obsolescence: things that still work perfectly well, but which we throw away because we want the latest and greatest. Is there anything that can be done about this legally?

‘I think that largely falls outside consumer law, but it is relevant. Think of fast fashion or queuing for the latest iPhone. It's a dynamic between consumer and producer that needs to be broken. There are some very interesting things to say about this in terms of fundamental rights and labour law. I hope someone else will want to look into this.’

And you yourself?

‘I am one of the few specialists in this field in the Netherlands. So I want to continue with this. And I also want to focus on AI and the law again. I have been teaching this for about eight years. I found it extremely interesting twenty years ago, but at that time there were few opportunities. I am pleased that this “old love” is now so widely embraced. So, two tracks!’