I understand that sentiment but I think its arbitrary. People buy lots of products that don't have a useful life exceeding two years. For example, every pet toy ever sold. Some will have higher impact for manufacturing and disposal than this ring.

1. Arbitrary it may be. You have to start somewhere. In that sense, anything we do is “arbitrary“. Straw man. (see also: ban of plastic straws)

2. I would expect pet toys to be regulated as well and to contain less environmental toxins and hard to recycle elements than batteries, so I doubt the claim about impact per item sold.

There is an endless stream of cheap battery powered pet toys flowing out of China with far more plastic, circuit boards etc than this watch.

As long as their batteries are replaceable, that’s fine, and if not, they will not be legally allowed to be sold in Europe. What point is it that you’re trying to make?

What difference does it make if you can replace the batteries in a toy the animal loses interest in within 20 minutes?

Then don't buy it? I'm not buying these toys, and why would I?

So people should make their own choices about the products they buy? Glad we agree. This thread is about a law that prevents it.

> So people should make their own choices about the products they buy? A little, yeah. Buy and don't use: your problem. Buy and can't use because I can't change the battery: subject to regulation. We can't stop anyone from making dumb monetary decisions, but we can stop products not being repairable.

And an endless stream of devices in the form of toys running full software stacks which never receive updates. Great, some products are as shitty. Perhaps we oppose those as well?

This is exactly the problem they're trying to tackle. Repairability goes further than just batteries.