An act to add Chapter 28.6 (commencing with Section 22928.10) to Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to consumer protection.
Summary
SB 898 would create a new chapter in the Business and Professions Code governing “connected consumer products,” defined broadly to include consumer devices that rely in whole or in part on an internet connection, along with related mobile apps or cloud infrastructure. The bill requires manufacturers to clearly and prominently disclose a minimum guaranteed support timeframe before sale, including at the point of online sale when practicable, on packaging, and on a website or product-specific webpage. That support period must be at least five years from the first month the product is offered for sale, and manufacturers may not later reduce the disclosed timeframe.
The bill also requires manufacturers to notify the public and product owners when a connected consumer product is approaching and then reaches end of life. Those notices must be sent six months before end of life and again on the end-of-life date, and must explain what consumers can do to keep using the product securely and effectively, including any lost features, security risks, or interoperability changes. For businesses that lease or otherwise provide connected consumer products as part of a service, the bill requires prompt application of manufacturer updates and, when a product reaches end of life, replacement at no additional cost with a comparable product if one is reasonably available.
Impact
SB 898 would add new consumer-protection requirements to Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code and make violations actionable as deceptive acts or practices under the Unfair Competition Law. In practical terms, it would impose disclosure, notice, and replacement obligations on manufacturers and certain service providers selling or supplying internet-connected consumer devices in California, potentially affecting product labeling, warranty/support practices, subscription or leasing models, and post-sale customer communications. The bill would also expand compliance exposure by tying noncompliance to UCL enforcement.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill has generally advanced with support, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee approval at one stage and a later 8-3 vote to pass and re-refer to Appropriations. That pattern indicates broad interest in the consumer-protection goals of the measure, especially around transparency and continued device support. At the same time, the fact that it was amended multiple times and sent to Appropriations suggests lawmakers were still working through implementation and cost concerns.
Contention
The main points of contention appear to be the scope and operational burden of the bill’s requirements. Manufacturers may object to the mandatory five-year minimum support period, the prohibition on shortening a disclosed support timeframe, and the detailed end-of-life notice obligations, all of which could increase compliance costs and constrain product lifecycle decisions. Businesses that lease or bundle connected devices as part of a service may also be concerned about the requirement to replace end-of-life products at no additional cost when a comparable product is available. The Appropriations referral suggests fiscal and administrative impacts were significant enough to warrant further review.