BILL
SUBJECT
DATE
In its current form, The Business Council opposes A.10132-A (Otis), known as the “Connected Consumer Product End of Life Disclosure Act.” While we share the bill’s underlying goal of improving consumer transparency regarding the longevity of internet-connected products, the legislation as currently drafted is overbroad, operationally unworkable in key respects, and may inadvertently harm both consumers and the manufacturers the bill seeks to regulate.
The Definition of “Connected Consumer Product” Is Impermissibly Broad
Section 399-mm(1)(a) defines a “connected consumer product” as any product intended for consumer use that “depends for its functioning, in whole or in part, on connection to the internet.” This definition is sweeping to the point of ambiguity and would subject an enormous and ill-defined universe of products to the bill’s requirements.
As written, it is unclear whether the “in part” language captures any product that merely has an optional internet-connected feature—such as a refrigerator with a connected screen—or whether it is intended to cover only products for which internet connectivity is essential to core operation. It is similarly unclear whether a product that connects to another device which in turn connects to the internet (e.g., a peripheral device paired to a smartphone) qualifies. These are not edge cases; they represent entire categories of consumer electronics.
We recommend narrowing the definition to:
• Limit application to products that depend primarily or exclusively on internet connectivity for their core functioning, rather than products that merely incorporate an internet-connected feature;
• Establish a retail price threshold to exclude low-cost, low-complexity connected devices for which the bill’s compliance obligations would be disproportionate, and focus on high-end connected consumer products; and
• Enumerate specific product categories covered by the bill rather than relying on a functional definition that invites broad interpretation.
The Bill Imposes Obligations on Both Manufacturers and Sellers Without Sufficient Tailoring
A.10132-A places disclosure obligations simultaneously on manufacturers (to publish support timelines on product web pages) and on sellers (to disclose at the point of sale how to locate that information). This dual-obligation structure, applied across every connected consumer product, will prove burdensome—particularly for small retailers who carry large and constantly changing inventories of connected products from multiple manufacturers.
Without a narrower product scope, these obligations are likely unfeasible in practice. A retailer selling dozens or hundreds of connected product SKUs cannot reasonably be expected to maintain accurate, current point-of-sale disclosures for each one, particularly as manufacturers update or extend support timelines.
The Advanced Notice Requirement Is Operationally Problematic Without Scope Limitations
Section 399-mm(2)(f) requires manufacturers to post notice on product web pages six months before a product reaches end of life, disclosing the date on which support will cease. However, without narrowing the bill’s scope, this requirement would apply to every connected consumer product on the market, including products at the very low end of the price spectrum with short commercial lifecycles. For manufacturers managing dozens or hundreds of SKUs across multiple product lines, maintaining accurate six-month advance notice across all products simultaneously would impose significant administrative overhead. Therefore, we recommend tying this requirement to a more targeted product scope, as recommended above.
The “Detailed Account” Requirement Creates Unintended Disincentives for Feature Innovation
Section 399-mm(2)(e) requires that end-of-life disclosures include “a detailed account of the features and functionality that will be lost” when the product reaches end of life. This requirement, as drafted, creates a significant and likely unintended compliance risk for manufacturers who add new features and functionality to products over time through software or firmware updates.
If a manufacturer discloses at the time of sale that certain features will be lost at end of life but subsequently adds new features via an update—features that did not exist at the time of the initial disclosure—the manufacturer may be deemed non-compliant if those features are not adequately reflected in the original disclosure. Manufacturers facing this risk may rationally choose to limit or forgo post-sale feature additions to protect their compliance posture. This outcome would harm consumers, who benefit from ongoing product improvements.
We recommend amending this provision to require disclosure of features lost at end of life that are known at the time of disclosure, with a safe harbor for features added after the initial disclosure.
Conclusion
A.10132-A as currently drafted casts too wide a net, imposes infeasible compliance burdens that are not calibrated to the products best positioned to bear them, and risks discouraging the kind of ongoing product improvement that benefits consumers. For these reasons, The Business Council opposes A.10132-A (Otis) and strongly urges the Legislature to reject its passage.