Baterias

Sealed for competitiveness: Meta’s AI glasses and the derogation from end-user replaceability of batteries for wearable devices

Doutrina

By Anna D’Agostino

One of the parameters of the ‘ease of repair and maintenance’, as provided by the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (EU) 2024/1781, is the non-destructive disassembly and re-assembly of a product, so that it can be reused or repaired. This parameter includes the possibility for users to easily remove and replace the product’s battery, an aspect regulated by Art. 11 of the Batteries and Waste Batteries Regulation (EU) 2023/1542, which aims to prevent premature obsolescence and increase the collection of waste portable batteries.

Several industrial sectors are objecting to the implementation of this provision, which would apply as of 18 February 2027, or pushing for delays, alleging the safety risks such a requirement would create (i.a. for electric toys), its technical impossibility (e.g. in small devices), and its unintended negative consequences for environmental and consumer protection.

In this blog post, I shed some light on the tricky aspects of the general removability and replaceability requirements for portable batteries, also in view of the European Commission’s delegated act which recently introduced partial derogations from Art. 11 for a few product categories, such as ‘wearable devices’. Taking the example of AI glasses, I also reflect on the relationship between legal regimes and technological innovation, and on whether it may sometimes be desirable for innovation in certain markets to meet legal hurdles, so that it does not come at the expense of other important goals, but rather contributes to solving societal problems.

General end-user removability and replaceability requirements for portable batteries as a parameter for repairability

Art. 11 of the Batteries Regulation sets out general requirements for the removability and replaceability of portable batteries incorporated in products placed on the market. As a general rule, they need to be removable and replaceable by end-users at any point during the product’s lifetime. This means that batteries must be removable from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product. A battery is readily replaceable where, after removal, “it can be substituted by another compatible battery without affecting the functioning, the performance or the safety” [Art. 11(6)], and the use of software to impede the replacement of a battery with a compatible one is prohibited [Art. 11(8)], which should prevent parts pairing and serialisation practices.

Art. 11(2) provides a partial derogation from end-user removability for certain products where it is necessary to ensure the safety of the product user. In those cases, it is sufficient that portable batteries can be replaced and removed by independent professionals with commercially available tools. Such tools should be available at a reasonable and non-discriminatory price to the independent repairer. The Commission guidelines specify that proprietary tools (i.e. ‘tools not available for purchase by the general public, or for which any applicable patents are not available for license under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms’) should never be needed to remove portable batteries.

Delegated act adding partial derogations from Art. 11 of the Batteries Regulation

This derogation originally applied only to two product categories: wet-environment appliances and professional medical imaging devices. On 14 July 2026, the Commission adopted, pursuant to Art. 11 (4), the first delegated act (Delegated Regulation C(2026) 5031 final) expanding the list to include, among others, wearable devices for which the safety, durability or water resistance may be compromised by user access to the battery, and which are either too small for the end-user to safely handle a battery replacement or rely on a compact sealed enclosure to maintain functional integrity, including protection against dust and shock (letter c, as added to Art. 11(2)).

The Guidelines, clarifying Recital 39 of the Batteries Regulation, state that companies should have evidence that battery removability and replaceability would compromise the safety of the user or the appliance, and that there is ‘no way to redesign the appliance with current state of the art technology, without severely affecting the health and safety of the end-user or the performance and functionality of the product’. This might ensure that the partial derogation is not abused. However, such evidence does not seem too hard to produce.

The act is currently under the scrutiny of the European Parliament and the Council, which have so far raised no objections. Meanwhile, the act has drawn quite a reaction. Right-to-Repair advocates find it especially problematic that ‘the small size of products is presented as a justification for poorly replaceable batteries’, as this risks cementing a trend towards disposable miniaturised electronics, which also create fire hazards at the recycling stage. By contrast, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, whose members include Apple and Meta, welcomed the decision as pragmatic.

The example of AI glasses

This derogation comes in very handy for the wearable devices sector, which includes earbuds, smartwatches and, more recently, AI glasses. These are frames fitted with a camera, microphones, speakers and sometimes a display, combined with AI. Meta, the market leader, has repeatedly raised concerns with EU institutions over the legal hurdles that Art. 11 would have posed to this emerging market.

Meta voiced these concerns, for instance, in response to the call for evidence for the Circular Economy Act (November 2025), arguing that Art. 11 risked undermining the innovation potential of a market representing ‘the next generation of personal computing’ and could ‘stifle the very technologies where Europe has the strongest chance to lead globally’. It also raised similar concerns in its feedback to the call for evidence for the Digital Fitness Check (March 2026).

Both submissions reveal a narrative in which Art. 11 hinders not only EU competitiveness but the Regulation’s own goals. More precisely, Meta argues that Art. 11 would be detrimental to environmental and consumer goals if applied to AI glasses, citing durability (‘mandating consumer removability leads to shorter-lived batteries’) and evidence on consumers’ actual behaviour regarding the incorrect disposal of portable batteries through household waste streams, and adding that such measures would place ‘an unjustified burden on consumers, expecting them to handle high-tech devices correctly and properly dispose of extremely small batteries’. Meta thus claims that a derogation is suited to ensuring a higher level of consumer and environmental protection.

Some of these concerns have merit, and the delegated act, citing the risk of damaging tightly encapsulated batteries, goes some way towards meeting them. Still, I share some reflections on what Meta’s narrative may entail, and ask whether the proverbial “can of worms”, with possible repercussions for repairability more broadly, might have been opened.

Concerns about premature battery obsolescence and lock-in effects

While the user may still have the battery replaced by an independent professional, one may question whether, given the product’s miniature size, the partial derogation will in practice amount to a full derogation, with independent professionals being unable to perform such a task. In light of the iPhone batterygate scandal, and how it allegedly steered purchases of new models, it is also conceivable that once the battery is worn out or underperforming, the user will simply buy a new model rather than go to a professional repairer.

If Meta’s concern about consumers incorrectly disposing of batteries stands, where will consumers dispose of AI glasses whose battery cannot be removed? Meta may find a fix by introducing the good old trade-in schemes, which however tend to have a lock-in effect on consumers.

As for repairability, whether this may have broader repercussions for the aspirations of the Ecodesign Regulation and the Repair of Goods Directive (EU) 2024/1799 will depend on how strictly the derogation’s conditions are enforced and on whether new product-specific ecodesign requirements end up narrowing repairability parameters on various grounds. For example, the Ecodesign requirements for smartphones (EU) 2023/1670 provide, as lex specialis to the Batteries Regulation, a partial derogation from the end-user removability and replaceability requirements where the product embeds high-endurance batteries (Annex II, point B 1.1. (5)(a–c)). This was a way to find a balance between durability and repairability requirements.

Final reflections on technological innovation and EU competitiveness

Was it too naïve to imagine that technological innovation would also mean overcoming the technical difficulties of designing repairable tech, especially given that small electronics are often thrown away or replaced because their batteries wear out? The EU narrative on consumer empowerment strategy and the “right to repair” conveyed the impression of expanding consumers’ autonomy and their control of the goods they own.

A “reality check” shows we probably all were. Or maybe the most profitable technological innovation is not the kind that takes into account ease of repair and maintenance, or possible changes in consumer habits. This raises the question of whether such innovation is desirable at all. While innovation may seem a matter for the private sector, and best left to its own devices, the public sector often contributes to these markets in various ways or can have a say in which kinds of innovation are most needed.

In its feedback, Meta frames the AI wearable sector as an opportunity for the EU market, contending that by ‘prioritising this sector’ the EU can foster ‘a more integrated digital market and encourage the growth of a new category of innovative startups’. It is far from obvious that this is what the EU should want its competitiveness to rely on, and the role Big Tech’s narratives play in the shaping of EU’s vision of competitiveness deserves closer scrutiny.

In the case of AI glasses, ça va sans dire, the stakes extend beyond user-removable batteries and electronic waste. Recently, the French Data Protection Authority launched an action plan to monitor the sector, which it says poses a ‘new challenge for privacy and raises strong ethical and societal questions’. Meta already faces legal challenges, such as an action brought by HateAid, a German advocacy group assisting victims of digital violence. I hope the EU’s vision of competitiveness will reflect such scepticism, not out of naivety but out of maturity.

Ventos de mudança na remoção e substituição das baterias portáteis

Doutrina

Quantos de nós consumidores já nos deparámos com a situação em que um aparelho portátil, como por exemplo smartphones, ainda se encontra em perfeitas condições de hardware, software ou estado de conservação, mas a sua bateria tem uma durabilidade nula ou quase nula? Quantos de nós é que já nos vimos obrigados a substituir as baterias desses aparelhos em lojas próprias ou autorizadas porque, de outro modo, é impossível ou arriscado manter o bom funcionamento do mesmo? A verdade é que, frequentemente, a vida útil do aparelho e da sua bateria não coincidem, tal como já tivemos oportunidade de analisar em texto anterior de José Filipe Ferreira, para o qual se remete.

Porém, naquilo que se esperam ser boas notícias para os consumidores europeus, o artigo 11.º da Proposta de Regulamento do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativo às baterias e respetivos resíduos foi desenhado para, pelo menos, remodelar esta realidade. É, pois, proposto que, doravante, as baterias portáteis[1] incorporadas em aparelhos possam ser facilmente removíveis e substituíveis pelo utilizador final ou por operadores independentes durante a vida útil do aparelho, se a vida útil das baterias for inferior ou, o mais tardar, no fim da vida útil do aparelho. A Proposta de Regulamento também esclarece que se deverá considerar que uma bateria é facilmente substituível quando, ao retirar a mesma do aparelho, este último pode funcionar com uma bateria semelhante, sem que isso afete o funcionamento ou o desempenho do aparelho.

Como bem se compreende, esta inovação poderá representar uma pedra no charco naquele que é o paradigma atual quanto à remoção e substituição de baterias portáteis. Veja-se, por exemplo, o caso da Apple em que nos diversos aparelhos (iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, etc.) a substituição das baterias, por um utilizador final leigo na matéria, é praticamente impossível de realizar e, mesmo que seja feita por profissionais – que não a Apple ou as lojas por si autorizadas -, não há qualquer proteção para os consumidores, caso a remoção e substituição afete o desempenho dos aparelhos.

Assim, a obrigação que a Proposta de Regulamento prevê afigura-se como bastante benéfica para os consumidores, pois oferecerá aos mesmos a possibilidade de substituírem, por si próprios, as baterias em causa, assim como terão mais opções de escolha, caso pretendam recorrer a operadores profissionais, sem que sobre essas decisões paire a quase certeza de diminuição da qualidade e desempenho do aparelho que atualmente se verifica.

Adicionalmente, esta facilidade em dar uma segunda vida aos aparelhos poderá, igualmente, conduzir a uma redução do consumo, na medida em que, não raras vezes, a opção dos consumidores passa por comprarem novos aparelhos, pois os custos e riscos inerentes à substituição das baterias não compensa o investimento. Acresce que a estatuição da obrigação que aqui se analisa poderá, também, ter a virtude de levar os fabricantes a investirem em baterias com uma vida útil mais longa, evitando-se assim a necessidade de aquisição de novas baterias e promovendo-se, deste forma, o consumo sustentável.

Por fim, é importante não esquecer que o artigo ora analisado está incluído numa Proposta de Regulamento – a qual conheceu vários avanços durante a Presidência Portuguesa do Conselho Europeu – mas que, até à aprovação final, a acontecer, provavelmente, ainda em 2021, poderá conhecer alterações. Assim, somente com a versão final do Regulamento, bem como com a sua produção de efeitos concretos no mercado, é que será possível compreender se estamos perante verdadeiros ventos de mudança ou se, em contrapartida, não assistimos a uma mera brisa não refrescante.

[1] Para efeitos da Proposta de Regulamento, classificam-se como baterias portáteis aquelas que: (i) são fechadas hermeticamente, (ii) pesam menos de 5 kg, (iii) não são concebidas para fins industriais e (iv) não são baterias de um veículo elétrico nem baterias de um automóvel.