November 6, 2026
Why it’s cheaper to replace, rather than repair, your broken phone
UOW researcher says planned obsolescence is costing households and the environment, but Australia could change that
We all know the frustration of buying a laptop, phone or washing machine, only for it to break well before its time. Repairing is usually harder than it should be. Spare parts not available. Repairs that can take weeks or even months. The cost and inconvenience can outweigh the price of replacing the item altogether. Many products aren’t designed to be fixed, so we buy a new one and the cycle starts again.
Planned obsolescence is the practice, intentionally or otherwise, of shortening a product’s lifespan to drive more sales. It is more than an inconvenience. It contributes to environmental waste, increases costs for consumers and undermines efforts to build a more sustainable economy.
Research by Dr Margherita Feleppa, from the University of Wollongong’s School of Law, argues Australia could do far more to tackle planned obsolescence, through stronger consumer protections and repair rights.
“We often hear people complain about their products not lasting long enough, but this is not necessarily a reflection of consumers being hungry for new things,” Dr Feleppa said.
“Planned obsolescence isn’t just a strategy to shorten product lives. It’s a broader problem involving design, repair barriers, marketing and consumer behaviour.
“Planned obsolescence can take many forms. It can start with weak materials or poor manufacturing, but includes proprietary software that needs to be updated for a device to run, changing headphone or charger inputs so accessories become redundant or making replacement parts prohibitively expensive. In many cases consumers are nudged towards replacement rather than repair.”
E-waste is one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world. In Australia, around $430 million worth of materials went to landfill in 2019 alone. Australians generate about 20kg of e-waste per person annually, almost triple the global average. Consequences extend beyond just household budgets. The environmental impact is immense; e-waste leaches toxic chemicals such as lead and mercury into the earth, harming ecosystems and human health.
A 2021 national inquiry into the right to repair delivered small wins for consumers and put the issue on the national agenda but did not go far enough, Dr Feleppa said.
She pointed to the European Union, which has blacklisted practices that contribute to planned obsolescence, such as forcing software updates that don’t add essential features. Products in the European Union must now be designed to be durable and repairable.
Australia’s circular economy blueprint is still emerging, Dr Feleppa said. Our first (and only) right to repair law, which was introduced in 2021, only applies to motor vehicles.
“Australia has committed to cutting emissions by 62 to 70 per cent below 2005 levels by 2035. Products that don’t last, and can’t be easily repaired, make that harder to achieve,” she said.
“A circular economy shouldn’t only be for people who can afford to buy the most durable products. Affordable repair and clear information about durability and reparability should be available to everyone.”
About the research
‘Revisiting the concept of planned obsolescence in light of the recent reforms in Europe and Australia: A necessary step for the circular economy transition’, by Margherita Feleppa, was published in the University of New South Wales Law Journal: https://www.unsw.edu.au/content/dam/pdfs/law/unsw-law-journal/2020-2029/2026/issue-493-02-feleppa.pdf