The “Right to Repair”: E-Waste and the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993
By Emilia Sullivan
When you fork out over $1000 for a new electronic device, how long do you expect it to last? While the ‘life-span’ of a brand-new iPhone is stated to be four years and three months, the Wall Street Journal has found that the average age of a mobile phone at the time of trade-in is less than three years. Is there a reason that people choose to upgrade, rather than repair, their devices? Or rather, do electronics manufacturers place barriers to make it harder for consumers to get their products repaired?
The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 aims to protect consumers by allowing repairs, replacements or refunds when goods are faulty, as well as setting minimum guarantees for all products and services. This means that when you buy a product for personal, domestic or household use, you are guaranteed protection and the ability to repair the product within a reasonable period of time after purchase. While the Act’s main goal is to safeguard consumers from unreasonable business practices, it also plays a very important supplementary role - reducing e-waste. E-Waste is essentially anything with a plug or battery. New Zealanders produce 20.1kg of e-waste per person, per year, with the figure set to rise to 26.9kg by 2030. By giving consumers an accessible and adequate path to repair their goods, the amount of electronic waste produced could be greatly decreased.
However, the right to repair has been stifled by shady practices by the tech giants that make our favourite electronics. The biggest barrier to the right to repair is planned obsolescence, which is when a manufacturer intentionally changes product design - slowing down older devices or makes it difficult to get repairs - as a way of forcing a consumer to buy the newest model. Planned obsolescence has become such a standard practice in the tech world that many don’t even consider repairing their devices, as it is much more straight forward to fork out thousands for a new one. This practice is one of the biggest contributors to our planet’s e-waste problem, as electronic waste contains dangerous chemical substances and materials which pose a serious threat to the environment, including the humans that live nearby.
In a 2019 Consumer NZ study, it was found that 53% of respondents only got their electronic devices repaired ‘sometimes’. 6% responded saying they never did, instead choosing to purchase brand new products instead of getting them repaired. Though this may seem wasteful, it is not helped by the reluctance of electronics manufacturers to repair products. A key word in the Consumer Guarantees Act is ‘reasonable’. Section 12 states:
“there is a guarantee that the manufacturer will take reasonable action to ensure that facilities for repair of the goods and supply of parts for the goods are reasonably available for a reasonable period after the goods are so supplied.”
However, who dictates what ‘reasonable’ is? If one doesn’t meet the reasonableness threshold to get their device repaired free of charge, what next?
The Consumer Guarantees Act places a broad obligation on manufacturers and retailers to ensure that spare parts and repair facilities are accessible for a ‘reasonable’ period of time after a product has been purchased. However, this is undermined by Section 42 of the Act, which states:
“Section 12 does not apply where reasonable action is taken to notify the consumer who first acquires the goods from a supplier in New Zealand, at or before the time the goods are supplied, that the manufacturer does not undertake that repair facilities and parts will be available for those goods.”
Essentially, this allows for manufacturers and retailers to exploit this loophole to restrict accessibility to free repairs, further coercing consumers to buy a brand-new device. Some retailers even require an exorbitant fee from the consumer before sending the product back to the manufacturer for assessment and repair. Although the fee is refundable should it be found that your device meets the criteria for a free repair, it can be off-putting for consumers when making a claim under the Consumer Guarantees Act.
In 2019, Apple was taken to court in Australia, after they came under fire for refusing to repair devices that have been previously touched by third-party repairers. This was an issue as many people who could not get their devices repaired directly by the manufacturer (due to the exploitation of the aforementioned loopholes) chose to save costs by going to a third-party repairer. By refusing to repair these devices, it objectively shut out a broad group of people from getting their devices repaired simply for making a financial decision. While Apple’s stance on third party repairs has since been reversed, it has already sent a message about the industry’s lack of respect for both consumers and the environment, as they would rather have a person dispose of their easily repairable device than service a device that had previously had a non-authorised repair.
WasteMINZ has outlined the significant changes they wish to be adopted in regards to the right to repair. They believe that the most important step is to entrench right to repair principles into the Consumer Guarantees Act by closing the section 42 loophole, as well as educating consumers on their rights under the Act. The organisation are also advocating for an overhaul of the Waste Management Act, by embedding the principles of the waste hierarchy (reduce; reuse; recycle; recover; dispose) into the interpretation section of the Act, requiring manufacturers and retailers to abide by it.
As New Zealanders are becoming more conscious of the waste we produce, it is necessary for legislation to be overhauled, loopholes to be closed, and tech giants to be held responsible for the irreversible damage they cause to our environment.
The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.
Featured image source: Bruno/Germany on Pixabay