[Draft] Regulation of Planned Obsolescence

[Kenmoria]

“Your definition clauses don’t really flow for me. I suggest putting ‘as’ before ‘where’, but it still doesn’t feel right.”

[Zenkarra]

OOC: Is toilet paper (and other things that you don't actually eat-consume) a consumable? My toilet has had to consume an awful lot of it this past week. And if yes, couldn't you call basically everything a consumable? This was probably raised before, but I'm not sure it was properly addressed?

Also, I really recommend splitting warranties off onto their own main clause (from 2.a.), because you could basically write an entire resolution on warranties. Bundling them up with this one would likely make all producers of basically anything go "the predicted lifetime is a week, your product's lifetime warranty is therefore a week", while it could last you several decades. Like take computers for example. Most component parts (the "innards") have guarantees of 1-3 years, power source (still an innard) might have more - my newest computer's got a 5 year guarantee (and a recommendation to not touch its settings as, according to the expert, "it could power up a small village, and then burn down your house"), for example - but will usually keep on working for... well, a long time. My oldest still working computer (I swear I'm not a computer hoarder, but some really good games don't work on new computers!) was put together early 2003. Or 2002. Thereabouts anyway. So clearly many (most?) computer parts waaaaay outlive their guaranteed lifespans.

You could call anything a consumable and get away with it, yes. I'm not sure if this is a problem though, as I doubt that most people would want to buy disposable versions of expensive products at full price. If I do decide to tackle this potential loophole, then it has to be done carefully enough that sandwiches and toilet paper don't get caught in this bill.

I think that if a product is able to outlive it's intended or stated lifespan, that this isn't an issue to be worried about in this bill. The intent is to inform consumers about, and reduce, planned obsolescence. Underestimating the lifespan of your own product discourages having planned obsolescence in them. If your product is designed to die in 3 years, and you have to under-shoot the warranty, it guarantees that you are at a competitive disadvantage against any business without planned obsolescence, as they can put any warranty length that they wish while you cannot. It also ensures that the consumer is getting at least the minimum of product that they agreed upon. Less than that is bad, but more than that is good.

“Your definition clauses don’t really flow for me. I suggest putting ‘as’ before ‘where’, but it still doesn’t feel right.”

I'll put "planned obsolescence" right after "defines" for the next draft. That clause probably needs to be re-worded since I got rid of definition 1c.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Let's talk about disposability.

You could call anything a consumable and get away with it, yes. I'm not sure if this is a problem though, as I doubt that most people would want to buy disposable versions of expensive products at full price. If I do decide to tackle this potential loophole, then it has to be done carefully enough that sandwiches and toilet paper don't get caught in this bill.

This is honestly a pretty contrived "loophole". Your bill would require that producers admit to their customers that their products are disposable. That has direct negative impacts to their ability to sell the product. If Apple told us explicitly that iPhones were not meant to work for more than a year, far fewer people would to themselves justify purchasing them.

[Araraukar]

If Apple told us explicitly that iPhones were not meant to work for more than a year, far fewer people would to themselves justify purchasing them.

OOC: ...wanna bet? Brand fanatics can be, well, fanatical. And that's basically what the warranty says already. All insurance is you betting that something bad will happen to you, and your insurer that it won't. And warranty is a kind of an insurance (don't get Legalese out, I'm talking of the very basics here), where the manufacturer is betting that the device will keep working for the given time and is willing to repair/replace at their own cost if they lose the bet, but completely washes their hands off of it when the warranty expires. Most smartphones come with 1, rarely 2 year warranties. That means the manufacturers daren't bet they'll keep working afterwards. If they were totally confident of making good quality things, they'd extend the warranties to 3 years or even more, since according to you (well, not necessarily you personally, but the point of view) that'd be a competition advantage. Given that they don't, that clearly signals that they don't expect the product to live much longer than that, or at least that the problems that would crop up would cost more to repair than the device is worth, and the production model going out of production meaning they'd have to replace with a better/newer model, so they'd rather wash their hands of it, say "not our problem anymore" and wish you good luck finding some craftsman able to repair or replace individual components later on. While trying to sell you their newest model.

So if "we make good stuff and believe it when we say that" (longer expected lifespan of device) was such a good competition advantage, why aren't we seeing that in RL with some of the most complex of modern devices, the smartphones? Or even computers (which are equally complex but usually differently so, plus most often components are more interchangeable)?

[Kenmoria]

“I suggest allowing for member nations to enforce a combination of options 2a and 2b, instead of forcing a dichotomous choice between them, with only flexibility provided for foreign imports.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ara— Because each generation has significant improvements which make older things obsolete? This would be compelling if innovation didn't exist, but oh, we aren't in a steady state economy.

Moreover, I get at least a two year warranty on my phone via multiple networks, the premise doesn't appear valid. AppleCare too is not expensive. The direct manufacturer warranty is built into the price, of people choose not to extend it, that is the choice they made.

Then, there's this idea called depreciation, and more broadly, there's this pretty basic consumer theory which implies that utility per unit currency under constrained optimisation determines consumption patterns. So if that utility ratio goes up: incredible, people make an optimal choice to replace their technology.

I mean seriously, ad arguendo, computer parts used to advance so rapidly there was no point to warranties of any sort beyond the release date of the next set of parts.

[Zenkarra]

The new draft has been made. Most notably, the choice between a requirement to completely ban these products or regulate them has been removed. It is now simply a requirement to regulate them, with an encouragement to ban them.

[Kenmoria]

“Your perambulator clauses are generally quite vague, with language such as ‘predatory practices’ and ‘these practices’, which leaves open a lot of room as to what these actually are.”

[Zenkarra]

"predatory practices" are specified in that same clause as being the "intentional sabotage of their product after sale". I'm not sure how it's vague. I could make predatory practices singular, but there's more than one way to sabotage a product.

"these practices" is referring to practices previously stated in the preamble. It still seems pretty clear to me.

[Petrolheadia]

Opposed due to:

"materials of insufficient strength"

What is "insufficient strength"? Virtually all products on the market could be stronger, but aren't due to cost and practicality concerns.

"A product which is made unusually difficult or expensive to restore to functionality without the assistance of the company or individuals responsible for the product's design or creation, if it is meant to be possible to repair."

Does this mean that products that are technologically innovative, and therefore irrepairable through known non-OEM methods, would be banned?

"All products must have their intended lifespan clearly stated in a way that is made obvious to the purchaser. Warranties must be provided to guarantee that the product lasts for it's entire lifespan as stated to the purchaser, or will be replaced without monetary cost to the purchaser in the event of failure."

There are many products, such as motor vehicles, in which the lifespan will highly vary from example to example, due to the varied nature of uses for those products.

[Zenkarra]

Opposed due to:

"materials of insufficient strength"

What is "insufficient strength"? Virtually all products on the market could be stronger, but aren't due to cost and practicality concerns.

It specifies that materials of insufficient strength must be connected to an intentional design flaw of the product. thus, it only applies to a product where materials are intentionally made insufficient in order to reduce the lifespan of the product.

"A product which is made unusually difficult or expensive to restore to functionality without the assistance of the company or individuals responsible for the product's design or creation, if it is meant to be possible to repair."

Does this mean that products that are technologically innovative, and therefore irrepairable through known non-OEM methods, would be banned?

This part was removed in the current draft as updated in the original post, so it no longer applies.

"All products must have their intended lifespan clearly stated in a way that is made obvious to the purchaser. Warranties must be provided to guarantee that the product lasts for it's entire lifespan as stated to the purchaser, or will be replaced without monetary cost to the purchaser in the event of failure."

There are many products, such as motor vehicles, in which the lifespan will highly vary from example to example, due to the varied nature of uses for those products.

Correct. Worth noting, is that this legislation only applies where intentional sabotage has occurred. If a motor vehicle, or vehicle part, is designed to break early, then the consumer must be given a guaranteed timeframe within which the part will continue to work. I don't see any way to make that convenient for manufacturers, and I don't think that it should be either. It is an incentive to not intentionally scam consumers.


On another note, I plan to send this legislation proposal to the World Assembly this saturday unless a new draft needs to be created. Last call for feedback.

[Maowi]

'Here's a note with some feedback for you, ambassador.'

Regulation of Planned Obsolescence

Category: Regulation | Area of effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Observing that many businesses utilize predatory practices to increase sales through intentional sabotage of their product after sale;

Recognizing that large percentages of consumer populations are unaware of this practice, even after planned sabotage has occurred;

Further recognizing that businesses utilizing these practices will often intentionally make it impossible for the consumer to prevent or solve in ways that do not continue to benefit the business, at the consumer's expense; This sentence is incomplete; it is lacking a direct object. After "prevent or solve" I would recommend adding "the sabotage", or some such phrase

Concerned over the environmental impacts of large amounts of unnecessary consumer waste which does not break down for years, decades, or significantly longer;

Desiring to reduce this intentional sabotage, while informing consumers about its existence;

Hereby:

1. Defines “planned obsolescence”, for the purpose of this resolution, as a product that meets the following criteria: This definition is problematic. Defining "planned obsolescence", an abstract noun, as a "product" - very much not an abstract noun - doesn't work. Imagine putting it in a sentence. It's akin to saying "I went to pick up my planned obsolescence the other day" where you mean to say "I went to pick up my product that is designed and created ..." etc. I believe you could fix this by inserting "Defines "a product with planned obsolescence" as" and then continue on as you have it now.


a) A product that is designed and created, with the intent to be traded or sold.

b) A product that is designed to have a limited functioning lifespan, or is designed to degrade in function over time, through mechanical faults, materials of insufficient strength, or self-sabotaging software.

2. Encourages that all World Assembly member nations ban the creation, (remove this comma; it's a comma splice) and import of products with planned obsolescence.

3. Requires that all members of the World Assembly enforce the following solutions on all products that meet the definition of “planned obsolescence” as defined by this resolution: "Enforcing solutions" seems like an odd way of putting it. I would recommend changing that to "Requires that all members of the World Assembly implement the following provisions" - but that's just stylistic. If you take my advice regarding the definition of "planned obsolescence", you should replace "all products that meet the definition of "planned obsolescence" as defined by this resolution" with "all products with planned obsolescence". That would also be a lot tidier.


a) All products must have their intended lifespan clearly stated in a way that is made obvious to the purchaser; this must include a warning which states that it is intentionally limited.

b) Warranties must be provided to guarantee that the product lasts for its entire lifespan as stated to the purchaser, or will be replaced without monetary cost to the purchaser in the event of failure.

4. Furthermore requires that all products that meet the definition of “planned obsolescence” as defined by this resolution, must not be made intentionally difficult or expensive to repair by purchasers. Same here. You also have an erroneous comma after "resolution".

5. Exempts:


a) Products that are considered as consumable items, as long as the company or individuals responsible for their creation do not intentionally obfuscate their status as a consumable.

b) Products that bio-degrade naturally, and do not break down into toxic substances.

c) Products in which planned obsolescence does not impair the intended function of the product, as it was communicated to the purchaser.

d) Warranty requirements, where a consumer has intentionally attempted to damage, modify, or repair a product, or has used the product outside of its intended purpose, where its purpose is clearly stated to the purchaser.

[Pan-Asiatic States]

On behalf of the Pan-Asiatic State Development Directorate, I commend this draft resolution and urge other Member-States to support it as well. Perhaps in these minute ways, we can protect the welfare of consumers across the world?

[Zenkarra]

This sentence is incomplete; it is lacking a direct object. After "prevent or solve" I would recommend adding "the sabotage", or some such phrase

The object of this sentence is "These practices".

This definition is problematic. Defining "planned obsolescence", an abstract noun, as a "product" - very much not an abstract noun - doesn't work. Imagine putting it in a sentence. It's akin to saying "I went to pick up my planned obsolescence the other day" where you mean to say "I went to pick up my product that is designed and created ..." etc. I believe you could fix this by inserting "Defines "a product with planned obsolescence" as" and then continue on as you have it now.

You are correct. I have made a new draft with this minor change.

(remove this comma; it's a comma splice)

The two halves of the sentence do not stand on their own, and the comma precedes a conjunction. It appears grammatically correct to me.

"Enforcing solutions" seems like an odd way of putting it. I would recommend changing that to "Requires that all members of the World Assembly implement the following provisions" - but that's just stylistic. If you take my advice regarding the definition of "planned obsolescence", you should replace "all products that meet the definition of "planned obsolescence" as defined by this resolution" with "all products with planned obsolescence". That would also be a lot tidier.

Same here. You also have an erroneous comma after "resolution".

I have tidied up the mentions of planned obsolescence for this next draft, but I have kept the stylistic choice.

The new draft with these small edits has been posted.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

(remove this comma; it's a comma splice)

The two halves of the sentence do not stand on their own, and the comma precedes a conjunction. It appears grammatically correct to me.

Actually, if we are going to be gramatically, pedantic, it is not a second half of a sentence. It is part of the compound object of the verb "ban" meaning it does not need a comma. It also displays faulty parallelism as "creation" is a noun. If you wanted to be fully correct on prescriptive grammar, I believe the correct formulation would be

Encourages that all World Assembly member nations ban the creation and importation of products with planned obsolescence.

[Maowi]

The two halves of the sentence do not stand on their own, and the comma precedes a conjunction. It appears grammatically correct to me.

Actually, if we are going to be gramatically, pedantic, it is not a second half of a sentence. It is part of the compound object of the verb "ban" meaning it does not need a comma. It also displays faulty parallelism as "creation" is a noun. If you wanted to be fully correct on prescriptive grammar, I believe the correct formulation would be

Encourages that all World Assembly member nations ban the creation and importation of products with planned obsolescence.

OOC: That's correct, although it would also be correct to keep "import" instead of changing it to "importation". The former can mean the act of importing something, although it can also refer to the actual goods being imported, so perhaps the latter would be better as it does not have the same ambiguity.

[Kenmoria]

“In the ‘concerned’ clause, ‘or significantly longer’ sounds strange. I suggest replacing it with ‘or even longer’ instead.”

[Zenkarra]

“In the ‘concerned’ clause, ‘or significantly longer’ sounds strange. I suggest replacing it with ‘or even longer’ instead.”

Yeah it does, but longer than a decade doesn't as bad as it should. This is especially true with things like plastic waste in mind that can last for tens of thousands of years. I'll make this change, but first I'll replace "decades" with "centuries".

I've fixed the grammar of clause 2 as well. I've updated the current draft with these changes.

[Zenkarra]

The bill failed to get the full 6% of approvals needed to make it to voting. I will be taking suggestions for awhile longer before I make another attempt. I'll also give an update here in advance when I've decided to try this again.

[Zenkarra]

Now that a bit of time has passed, I'm going to give this bill another attempt to reach the general assembly voting floor.
First however, I'm curious to see if there's any new criticism to be given. I'll be submitting this again after a few days if no major changes need to be made.

(OOC: By the way, Is there a general rule for how long someone should wait before re-submitting a proposal that fails to reach GA voting? I couldn't find one.)

[Kenmoria]

“I think the ‘encourages’ clause would sound better as ‘Encourages all World Assembly member nations to’.”

Now that a bit of time has passed, I'm going to give this bill another attempt to reach the general assembly voting floor.
First however, I'm curious to see if there's any new criticism to be given. I'll be submitting this again after a few days if no major changes need to be made.

(OOC: By the way, Is there a general rule for how long someone should wait before re-submitting a proposal that fails to reach GA voting? I couldn't find one.)

(OOC: A few weeks is normally long enough, to avoid voting fatigue.)

[Zenkarra]

A good suggestion. I have updated the current draft.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

"I only have minor criticism to offer, and none of it concerns the intent of the bill. If capitalism is going to exist in the world, it might as well be less oppressive to the common worker, and therefore we support this bill's intention.
I suggest rewriting clause 1b to remove the phrase 'materials of insufficient strength', as this would force companies to use the strongest possible materials if they do not want to advertise their products as having intentionally limited lifespan, which isn't exactly economical. Capitalism thrives on cost-cutting, and while I would love to crash these decadent bourgeois economies through legislation, those nations are likely to stop your proposal once they realize what the impacts are going to be. Further, using lower-quality materials isn't usually a symptom of planned obsolescence by itself, and when it does qualify, it could reasonably fall under the umbrella of 'mechanical defects'.
To use a specific example, the lifespan of plastic utensils is mostly limited by their material composition - plastic instead of metal. As written, Clause 1b would unnecessarily restrict such products, and Clause 2 would encourage nations to outright ban them."

[Araraukar]

Observing that many businesses utilize predatory practices to increase sales through intentional sabotage of their product after sale;

OOC: Would suggest replacing this with "some" instead - or just reword the whole thing as "a widespread business practice" to bypass the problem - as well as this with something that doesn't make it sound like they went around sabotaging their products after selling them, when you're referring to intentional manufacturing flaws instead.

Recognizing that large percentages of consumer populations are unaware of this practice, even after planned sabotage has occurred;

Fairly sure most people are aware of it but can't do anything about it, other than complain online... in RL at least. So I would instead make it something like "...are unable to avoid buying the products of such businesses, and often lack the legal recourse to do something about it".

Further recognizing that businesses utilizing these practices will often intentionally make it impossible for the consumer to prevent or solve in ways that do not continue to benefit the business, at the consumer's expense;

If you made my suggested changes, you could drop this entirely. Or at the very least you should merge this with the above two.

Concerned over the environmental impacts of large amounts of unnecessary consumer waste which does not break down for years, centuries, or longer;

Considering that you're literally complaining about stuff that breaks, with the whole proposal, that sounds unintentionally hilarious. It also sounds unnecessary, when your angle is customer protection, not environmental.

Desiring to reduce this intentional sabotage, while informing consumers about its existence;

You don't actually require a reduction of it, merely informing consumers, so you kinda fail this desire.

a) A product that is designed and created, with the intent to be traded or sold.

Or just "a non-consumable manufactured product intented to be traded or sold to a consumer". The "non-consumable" should be part of the definition, even with the exception below, to underline that you're not talking about toilet paper or foodstuffs. Also, your unnecessary drive to end all clauses and subclauses with a period, instead of making the whole thing read as one long sentence, really bites you here, as it makes these subclauses sound as an "or" list to me at least, rather than an "and" list. (At least any nation wanting to not follow this could read it as an "or" list. Given these are subclauses to the definition, you should probably make them run as a sentence anyway.

b) A product that is designed to have a limited functioning lifespan, or is designed to degrade in function over time, through mechanical faults, materials of insufficient strength, or self-sabotaging software.

Does DRM software count as self-sabotaging software? In any case that would seem to catch every single digital licence you buy for a certain period, like, say, the full versions of many antivirus programs for example.

2. Encourages all World Assembly member nations to ban the creation and importation of products with planned obsolescence.

Requires addition of "within their jurisdiction" at the end.

3. Requires that all members of the World Assembly enforce the following solutions on all products that meet the definition of “planned obsolescence”:

You could really drop the "solutions" from there, since they aren't actually solutions. Maybe "guidelines" instead.

a) All products must have their intended lifespan clearly stated in a way that is made obvious to the purchaser; this must include a warning which states that it is intentionally limited.

How small print in how manieth page of the user manual can that be printed in?

b) Warranties must be provided to guarantee that the product lasts for its entire lifespan as stated to the purchaser, or will be replaced without monetary cost to the purchaser in the event of failure.

The exceptions to the warranty should absolutely come right after this, not at the end of the proposal. Also, accidental damage that's not the manufacturer's fault (like, say, a flood damaging home electronics) should not be made the manufacturer's fault with this clause. Your exceptions only cover intentional damage. Though mind you, which instance must provide this warranty? Manufacturer? Seller? What if the manufacturer has marked the product's lifespan as 2 years, but the retailer sells it as something lasting 5 years or more simply to get more sales?

4. Furthermore requires that all products that meet the definition of “planned obsolescence” must not be made intentionally difficult or expensive to repair by purchasers.

Why do you even need this? This continues to be bonkers when you think of some complicated and intricate things like most electronic devices or even mechanical wrist watches. They're difficult to repair because of the expertize needed, and expensive because of expertize and professional tools needed to do so!

a) Products that are considered as consumable items, as long as the company or individuals responsible for their creation do not intentionally obfuscate their status as a consumable.

So, once more, what prevents manufacturers from marking everything "consumable" and making things worse for the consumer with even shorter device lifespans?

c) Products in which planned obsolescence does not impair the intended function of the product, as it was communicated to the purchaser.

Which was communicated to the purchaser? The planned obsolenscence or the intended function?

d) Warranty requirements, where a consumer has intentionally attempted to damage, modify, or repair a product, or has used the product outside of its intended purpose, where its purpose is clearly stated to the purchaser.

Like I said before, this should come right after the warranty clause, and accidents after purchase should not be the seller's or manufacturer's fault. Additionally, normal use items should not require an "Americanism" (sorry, everyone from USA, but that's what the things like "don't dry pets in a microwave oven" in manuas are called...) lecture before purchase. User manuals exist for a reason.

[Zenkarra]

"I only have minor criticism to offer, and none of it concerns the intent of the bill. If capitalism is going to exist in the world, it might as well be less oppressive to the common worker, and therefore we support this bill's intention.
I suggest rewriting clause 1b to remove the phrase 'materials of insufficient strength', as this would force companies to use the strongest possible materials if they do not want to advertise their products as having intentionally limited lifespan, which isn't exactly economical. Capitalism thrives on cost-cutting, and while I would love to crash these decadent bourgeois economies through legislation, those nations are likely to stop your proposal once they realize what the impacts are going to be. Further, using lower-quality materials isn't usually a symptom of planned obsolescence by itself, and when it does qualify, it could reasonably fall under the umbrella of 'mechanical defects'.
To use a specific example, the lifespan of plastic utensils is mostly limited by their material composition - plastic instead of metal. As written, Clause 1b would unnecessarily restrict such products, and Clause 2 would encourage nations to outright ban them."

For materials of insufficient strength to be affected by this bill, this condition must first be met:

A product that is designed to have a limited functioning lifespan, or is designed to degrade in function over time, through...

The bill does not require that the strongest materials are used, only that they may not intentionally be designed to break by choice of material.
In the case of plastic utensils, they could simply exempt themselves by being labeled as consumables. Non-disposeable plastic utensils would be unaffected so long as their material thickness and quality was enough to not require regular replacement.

OOC: Would suggest replacing this with "some" instead - or just reword the whole thing as "a widespread business practice" to bypass the problem - as well as this with something that doesn't make it sound like they went around sabotaging their products after selling them, when you're referring to intentional manufacturing flaws instead.

Many vs some is nuanced and debatable. I think that it's fine. I feel that it is necessary to specify that the manufacturing defects are a problem because of their effects after sale. The wording here could be better, but I don't think that it is a problem either.

Fairly sure most people are aware of it but can't do anything about it, other than complain online... in RL at least. So I would instead make it something like "...are unable to avoid buying the products of such businesses, and often lack the legal recourse to do something about it".

I think that most people are aware of it to some degree, but few are aware of the extent of it. I'll change the wording slightly.

If you made my suggested changes, you could drop this entirely. Or at the very least you should merge this with the above two.

I feel like this part remains useful, as it directly related to clause #4. Keeping this separate also makes things clearer, as It isn't trying to make too many points at once.

Considering that you're literally complaining about stuff that breaks, with the whole proposal, that sounds unintentionally hilarious. It also sounds unnecessary, when your angle is customer protection, not environmental.

Environmental concerns are a secondary goal of this bill. Bio-degradable products are even exempted by this bill. Trying to regulate the same thing for two separate reasons with separate bills would be very redundant, and unnecessarily difficult.

You don't actually require a reduction of it, merely informing consumers, so you kinda fail this desire.

Informing consumers itself can be a deterrent. A more important deterrent though is the potential expenses of the warranty requirements. The bill also encourages banning products with planned obsolescence entirely, even if that is not made an absolute requirement.

Or just "a non-consumable manufactured product intented to be traded or sold to a consumer". The "non-consumable" should be part of the definition, even with the exception below, to underline that you're not talking about toilet paper or foodstuffs. Also, your unnecessary drive to end all clauses and subclauses with a period, instead of making the whole thing read as one long sentence, really bites you here, as it makes these subclauses sound as an "or" list to me at least, rather than an "and" list. (At least any nation wanting to not follow this could read it as an "or" list. Given these are subclauses to the definition, you should probably make them run as a sentence anyway.

By specifying non-consumable here, it would also require that I specify the entire length of exception 5a. Otherwise, a consumable item would not need to meet the requirements of the exemption. It's my personal opinion that separating it as an exemption makes it simpler to read and understand. If manufacturers could simply hide the fact that something is a consumable, then your other concern about all items becoming consumables would be undeniably valid.
I will also replace the periods.

Does DRM software count as self-sabotaging software? In any case that would seem to catch every single digital licence you buy for a certain period, like, say, the full versions of many antivirus programs for example.

That's a good point. However, a lot of software will exempt itself by being labeled as a service rather than a product, which many already do. Further exemptions can be made where the conditions for 5c are met.
This could pose an issue for products that include trial software however, so I will add an exemption for them in the definition itself.

Requires addition of "within their jurisdiction" at the end.

Added.

You could really drop the "solutions" from there, since they aren't actually solutions. Maybe "guidelines" instead.

Done.

How small print in how manieth page of the user manual can that be printed in?

I think that this can be left up to the individual nations to determine for themselves. Any business that attempts to use an extremely small font is putting itself at even greater risk if it sells products internationally.

The exceptions to the warranty should absolutely come right after this, not at the end of the proposal. Also, accidental damage that's not the manufacturer's fault (like, say, a flood damaging home electronics) should not be made the manufacturer's fault with this clause. Your exceptions only cover intentional damage. Though mind you, which instance must provide this warranty? Manufacturer? Seller? What if the manufacturer has marked the product's lifespan as 2 years, but the retailer sells it as something lasting 5 years or more simply to get more sales?

I'll specify that this is referring to manufacturers, and that warranty requirements do not have to cover acts of God. In fact while I'm at it, I'll move the warranty exemptions directly into the warranty requirement.

Why do you even need this? This continues to be bonkers when you think of some complicated and intricate things like most electronic devices or even mechanical wrist watches. They're difficult to repair because of the expertize needed, and expensive because of expertize and professional tools needed to do so!

The key word is "intentionally". This bill was not made to identify exactly when planned sabotage has occurred, and makes minimal attempt to do so. A watch is not affected by this bill unless elements of that complexity are specifically designed to monopolize it's repair. A company attempting to monopolize the repair of it's own product while similar products exist in the market is an example of why this clause is needed. A customer should not need to rely on one specific manufacturer for repair unless there is a specific reason why third party parts or repair shops cannot be used. This is an aspect of planned obsolescence.

So, once more, what prevents manufacturers from marking everything "consumable" and making things worse for the consumer with even shorter device lifespans?

It might be naive of me, but I highly doubt that people would buy consumable phones and cars. This might be used as a workaround for some items, but not the majority of them, and not the worst cases.

Which was communicated to the purchaser? The planned obsolenscence or the intended function?

Yes. Choosing only one of these will satisfy the bill's requirements either way. Regardless, I'll specify that it is referring to the intended function.

Like I said before, this should come right after the warranty clause, and accidents after purchase should not be the seller's or manufacturer's fault. Additionally, normal use items should not require an "Americanism" (sorry, everyone from USA, but that's what the things like "don't dry pets in a microwave oven" in manuas are called...) lecture before purchase. User manuals exist for a reason.

It has been moved into the warranty requirement itself now.