Planned obsolescence: widely criticized, long-debated

The Nanterre public prosecutor, near Paris, opened on November 24, 2017, a preliminary investigation against the Japanese electronics company and printers manufacturer Epson for "planned obsolescence" and "fraud". (Roslan Rahman/AFP)

From nylon stockings to smartphones and inkjet printers, the practice known as "planned obsolescence" -- designing products that wear out sooner than necessary -- has inspired controversy and debate for years.

Controversial concept

The term "planned obsolescence" dates back from 1932 in the United States during the economic crisis, when developer Bernard London defended legally imposing obsolescence on consumer goods in an effort to stimulate industry and growth.

Today, certain manufacturers have been accused of hastening the expiry of their products by programming their end of life or setting up quality defects of some components -- which would cause waste and unrecyclable waste build-up.

But some experts argue no scientific evidence proves the existence of such commercial practices.

In a report released in June in France, the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) did not make a determination on the existence of planned obsolescence, but rather questioned the notion of "perceived obsolescence".

The agency highlighted the "chosen" obsolescence of consumers who "say they are against planned obsolescence but replace phones that are still in working condition without causing them moral issues."

And a 2013 study by the University of Bonn in Germany with the Federal Environment Agency on a dozen electrical appliances (TVs, electric kettles, vacuum cleaners) could not prove a strategy of what it called "deliberate vulnerability".

Classic examples

Legislative responses

The European Parliament has asked the European Commission to specifically legislate over planned obsolescence, through the mid-July plenary vote of a non-binding resolution.

France is an exception, as it passed landmark legislation in summer 2015 which made the practice illegal and -- in theory -- obliged retailers to say whether replacement parts were available.

The law stipulates that a company found to be deliberately shortening the life of its products can be fined up to five percent of its annual sales while executives can face up to two years in jail.

The Epson case -- if the initial legal inquiry finds enough evidence for a trial -- could lead to the first prosecution for the crime, which some lawyers have warned will be difficult to prove in court.

Apple could also be liable for a fine in line with the value of all of its iPhone sales in France since August 2015.