Thanks! That’s interesting to see, looks like this is an amendment? I’m not totally sure how that bit of the legal process works here.
I’d be surprised if this is intended to apply to mobile phones though - very few phones are used primarily in an environment of water immersion. They’re designed for incidental protection, but the regular day-to-day use case is pretty dry! I’d read that as intended for things like watersports & diving equipment.
It’s not an amendment, this is the actual law as it is adopted. The other document was just the proposal.
very few phones are used primarily in an environment of water immersion
They don’t have to be primarily used in that environment, they have to be designed to be used in that environment. The way this is worded is extremely broad and can basically mean anything you want it to mean. All current waterproof smartphones could fall under this exemption.
I love the EU and regulations like this but it always makes me sad when they make them broad and open to interpretation because that means corporations will find ways to get away with whatever they want.
Honestly, I’d be surprised. Fighting the EU on technicalities when the intention here is so clear is going to be hard work! To even get close to a good case, they’d have to change all the marketing for the device to show it’s clearly being intended as a primarily water-use product. The words “primarily” and “regularly” in there aren’t just decorative, they’d really have to demonstrate that to make it stick! Seems to have more downside than just making the battery removable in the first place.
The full quote also has this bit:
This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery.
Since real phones do already exist that are both waterproof and have removable batteries, I think it’s very hard to plausibly say “it’s impossible to design this in a way the user can safely remove the battery”.
Of course, to know for sure we’ll both just have to wait and see 😄
Thanks! That’s interesting to see, looks like this is an amendment? I’m not totally sure how that bit of the legal process works here.
I’d be surprised if this is intended to apply to mobile phones though - very few phones are used primarily in an environment of water immersion. They’re designed for incidental protection, but the regular day-to-day use case is pretty dry! I’d read that as intended for things like watersports & diving equipment.
It’s not an amendment, this is the actual law as it is adopted. The other document was just the proposal.
They don’t have to be primarily used in that environment, they have to be designed to be used in that environment. The way this is worded is extremely broad and can basically mean anything you want it to mean. All current waterproof smartphones could fall under this exemption.
I love the EU and regulations like this but it always makes me sad when they make them broad and open to interpretation because that means corporations will find ways to get away with whatever they want.
Honestly, I’d be surprised. Fighting the EU on technicalities when the intention here is so clear is going to be hard work! To even get close to a good case, they’d have to change all the marketing for the device to show it’s clearly being intended as a primarily water-use product. The words “primarily” and “regularly” in there aren’t just decorative, they’d really have to demonstrate that to make it stick! Seems to have more downside than just making the battery removable in the first place.
The full quote also has this bit:
Since real phones do already exist that are both waterproof and have removable batteries, I think it’s very hard to plausibly say “it’s impossible to design this in a way the user can safely remove the battery”.
Of course, to know for sure we’ll both just have to wait and see 😄