New Legislation Targets Software Abandonment
Legislation in Massachusetts and New York would require connected product makers to say how long they will support software. Also: BMW’s new “logo screw” complicates repairs.
Contents:
+ BMW’s “logo screw” patent puts brand protection over public repair.
+ Congress introduces federal Fair Repair Act: If You Own It You Can Fix It
+ DHS Declares Un-fixable, End of Life Hardware A Security Crisis
+ Trump officials tell manufacturers to stop hiding behind the Clean Air Act
+ Report calls out costs of automakers lock down of vehicle data
+ First Circuit judge calls for compromise over Massachusetts telematics repair lawMassachusetts is asking a simple question that the tech industry has spent years dodging: When will this thing I bought stop working?
Two bills introduced in January in the state House and Senate are aimed at forcing companies to disclose end-of-life timelines for software-supported products.
The bills, dubbed“An Act Relative To Consumer Electronic Devices” (HD 5563 and SD 3606) will create new rules for the makers of personal electronics when it comes to supporting- and patching the software that runs the devices. That includes requirements that manufacturers:
Disclose a minimum guaranteed support timeframe to consumers before they purchase an electronic devices, informing would-be owners of the period for which they will provide security and software updates.
Notify consumers when their devices are nearing the end of life and provide guidance on how to handle the device’s end of life.
Inform customers about features that will be lost as a result of the end of life declaration as well as potential vulnerabilities and security risks that may arise after software support ends.
The proposed legislation follows the introduction of a similar bill, S8507, the “connected consumer product end of life disclosure act” in the New York State Senate in September by Senator Patricia Fahey.
When Your Product Has an Expiration Date, You Shouldn’t Have to Guess It
As we have reported before: the current “Wild West” marketplace for software-powered devices empowers companies to sell you a “smart” device with no meaningful disclosure about how long it will receive security updates, cloud access, or even basic functionality. The hardware may be engineered to function for decades. The software? That can vanish overnight - like Amazon’s Halo Rise smart alarm clock, which sold for $140 but was “bricked” by the online retail giant just 9 months after being introduced. Servers get shut off. Logins stop working. Features disappear. What’s left is a perfectly functional piece of plastic headed for the landfill.
The Massachusetts proposal tackles the quiet risk behind this cycle: end-of-life software isn’t just inconvenient. It’s a security hazard. Unsupported devices become easy targets. They linger on home and business networks long after patches stop coming. The result isn’t just waste—it’s exposure.
“Our daily lives have become intertwined with smart devices,” state Representative Dave Rogers told WIRED. “Once a company decides it will no longer provide software updates for those devices, they become ticking time bombs for hackers to exploit. We must ensure consumers are given the tools to understand their devices and the risks, before they purchase them.”
The proposed legislation would set much-needed guardrails for smart device makers: requiring manufacturers to disclose minimum support timelines and clarify what happens when support ends. That shifts power, giving consumers and public agencies the ability to factor software lifespan into purchasing decisions. It also introduces something tech companies have skillfully avoided: accountability.
This is the missing transparency in the right-to-repair conversation. You can’t meaningfully “repair” a device if its core functionality depends on a server someone else controls—and that server can disappear without warning. You don’t own a product with a kill switch. You’re leasing permission.
The proposed legislation follows a model law introduced in March by Consumer Reports, (Fight to Repair parent organization) Secure Resilient Future Foundation, PIRG and the Center for Democracy and Technology.
“Almost everybody has a story about some device that they love that suddenly stopped working the way they thought it would or has just straight up died,” Stacey Higginbotham, a policy fellow at Consumer Reports told Wired. “Your product is now connected to a manufacturer by this software tether that dictates how it’s going to perform.”
Lawmakers pushing similar disclosure rules nationally are recognizing that the market won’t fix this on its own. Companies are incentivized to shorten lifecycles. Shorter support windows mean more upgrades. More upgrades mean more revenue. The costs—e-waste, security vulnerabilities, consumer frustration—are externalized.
Requiring clear end-of-life disclosures doesn’t ban innovation. It doesn’t freeze companies in place. It simply forces them to tell the truth at the point of sale: this product will be supported for X years. After that, here’s what happens.
That clarity changes everything. It creates competition around longevity. It rewards companies willing to stand behind their products. And it exposes those building disposable tech ecosystems propped up by vague promises.
The fight here isn’t about nostalgia for old gadgets. It’s about informed consent in a software-defined world. If a device’s brain lives in the cloud, the lifespan of that cloud connection is part of the product.
Massachusetts is stepping into a gap that’s been quietly costing consumers for years. The question now is whether other states—and Congress—are ready to follow. Because “smart” shouldn’t mean temporary.
Other News
BMW’s “logo screw” patent puts brand protection over public repair.
Boing Boing spotlights a BMW patent for a logo-shaped fastener—hardware designed less to hold parts together than to keep people out. It’s a small story with big symbolism: companies don’t always need laws to block repair; they can engineer friction directly into the object. Specialized screws mean specialized tools, and specialized tools create a barrier that pushes DIYers and independent shops out of the room. The piece frames it as the latest episode in a familiar escalation: when consumers demand repair access, manufacturers respond with new ways to make repair inconvenient, expensive, or “unauthorized.” Patents like this also normalize the idea that preventing repair is a legitimate innovation goal, rather than an anti-competitive tactic. Even if most drivers never touch a screwdriver, the downstream effects land on everyone: longer waits, higher bills, and fewer local repair options. And once a design pattern becomes industry-common, it’s hard to undo—because the barrier isn’t only a screw, it’s the ecosystem built around it (tools, parts, policies, dealer exclusivity). The future of repair can be killed by a thousand tiny “clever” decisions. (Read more at BoingBoing)
Congress introduces federal Fair Repair Act declaring “if you bought it, you should be allowed to fix it.”
