Internet of Things Part IV: Environmental Impact

It’s so easy to become excited about the newest technology on the market today. Learning about all of the ways a new device can supposedly make life better and easier can be all-consuming. As a result, what often gets pushed to the back burner is the environmental impact of this new technology, and what happens when old gadgets go in the garbage.

Before considering the negatives of the IoT though, there are definitely some positives to consider.

First off, all of this wearable technology that can track sleep and movements, and yell at a wearer who’s decided not to to move for hours on end, can also track other information. This includes air quality, local radiation levels, and hazardous airborne chemicals, as well as many other environmental indicators. People living with asthma could be updated if they’re in environment that puts them at an increased risk of having an asthma attack. Individuals working in radiation-filled or otherwise hazardous environments could have a live feed of the health ramifications resulting from prolonged exposure and an alert that tells them when they need to leave.

The IoT has been used in the Netherlands to enhance their tulip growing, and a university in Chile discovered how to reduce water consumption on blueberry farms using the IoT.

However, it’s a mistake to think that only environmental positives are coming out of this ever-growing field. The largest environmental concern is currently waste management. This is the result of how quickly the field is evolving: within a year, “new” technology becomes “old” and outdated. The iPhone is a classic example of this, with Apple releasing a new model of the phone on an almost annual basis. Without giving it a second thought, users dispose of devices and replace them with the newest and best gadgets. Globally, 53 million metric tons of electronic waste was produced in 2013. This number will almost certainly increase, quickly, as newer technology emerges in the coming years.

Another problematic area for the environment is in the form of energy consumption and use of raw materials in building the devices. IoT networks require massive data centers and, because everything is live, there is a constant stream of information around the clock. Before the devices are even released to the public and put in use, though, they have to be built. The manufacturing process requires a huge amount of energy consumption. While companies sometimes try to move towards renewable energy sources, it still isn’t feasible in all cases, so as the need for more devices to be produced increases, so does the use of fossil fuels and other non-renewable energy sources.

Major companies are making the move towards renewable energy and are releasing information outlining their energy consumption, which does increase consumer awareness. But it’s a long, uphill battle and will take time for these changes to be fully implemented.

The IoT is a double-edged sword providing both amazing positives, but also major challenges. Hopefully, as the average consumer becomes more aware of these challenges, there will be a shift in the scale, and the positives of the IoT will begin to dramatically outweigh the negatives.

For more information regarding the IoT and its environmental impact, contact Revision Legal’s Internet attorneys through the form on this page or call 855-473-8474.

Image credit to Flickr user Ron Mader.

E-Waste and the Law: Who Bears Responsibility?

The staggering volume of electronic waste generated by IoT adoption is not merely an environmental concern — it is an emerging legal and regulatory problem. The United States does not have a single comprehensive federal e-waste statute, but a patchwork of state laws and international agreements governs how electronic devices must be handled at end-of-life. Understanding where legal responsibility falls is increasingly important for manufacturers, distributors, and even consumers.

Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia currently have e-waste recycling statutes. The most comprehensive is California’s Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 42460 et seq., which imposes a “covered electronic waste recycling fee” on consumers at point of sale and establishes a funded recycling system for covered devices. Manufacturers that sell into California must register with the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery and can face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day for noncompliance. As IoT devices proliferate into appliances, lighting, and building infrastructure, the scope of “covered electronic device” definitions will expand, and companies need to track state-by-state requirements as they evolve.

International E-Waste Obligations: WEEE and the Basel Convention

Companies doing business internationally face additional obligations. The European Union’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive, 2012/19/EU) imposes take-back and recycling obligations on producers who sell into EU member states. Producers must register in each member state where they sell, fund the collection and recycling of e-waste, and meet recovery targets that increase year over year. Noncompliance can result in market access restrictions: several EU countries prohibit the sale of non-compliant products entirely.

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, to which the United States is a signatory but has not ratified, restricts the export of electronic waste to developing countries. A 2019 amendment to the Basel Convention — the “Basel Ban” — limits exports of hazardous e-waste from OECD countries to non-OECD countries. U.S. exporters of e-waste should be aware that their trading partners may have Basel obligations that restrict importation of devices the U.S. exporter considers legitimate secondhand goods. The distinction between “reuse” and “waste” is actively litigated in international trade contexts.

Energy Consumption: Regulatory Pressure on IoT Devices

Energy consumption is the second major environmental pressure point for IoT manufacturers. The U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency jointly operate the ENERGY STAR program, which certifies products that meet efficiency standards. While ENERGY STAR certification is currently voluntary, federal procurement preferences favor certified products, and several state utility programs require certification as a condition of rebates. The EU’s Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC) goes further, setting mandatory minimum energy performance standards for a wide range of connected products — including routers, displays, and smart home devices — and imposing fines for noncompliance.

California is again the leading domestic regulator. Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations imposes mandatory energy efficiency standards on certain “small network equipment,” a category that increasingly captures IoT hubs, gateways, and edge computing devices. Products sold in California that do not meet Title 20 standards are subject to civil penalties under California Public Resources Code § 25402.9. Because California’s market is large enough to set de facto national standards, manufacturers typically design to the California specification rather than maintain separate product lines.

Product Liability Dimensions of Environmental Failures

The environmental harms associated with IoT devices can create product liability exposure in ways that are not immediately obvious. Consider a smart thermostat that, due to a firmware failure, causes a heating system to run continuously, resulting in excessive energy consumption and a property owner’s financial loss. Or consider a connected industrial sensor that fails to detect a toxic chemical leak because the device’s data upload cycle was stretched to conserve battery life. Both scenarios potentially give rise to negligence or strict liability claims against the device manufacturer, with the environmental dimension serving as evidence of the foreseeable harm from inadequate design.

Manufacturers should conduct lifecycle analysis not only as a sustainability practice but as part of their legal risk assessment. Courts in toxic tort and products liability contexts increasingly scrutinize design choices that prioritize cost reduction over environmental performance when those choices foreseeably result in harm to downstream parties.

Practical Steps for IoT Companies

If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or distributes IoT devices, your environmental compliance obligations are both real and growing. At minimum, you should: (1) audit your current product line against applicable state e-waste registration requirements; (2) assess your EU WEEE registration status if you sell into European markets; (3) review energy consumption specifications for Title 20 and ENERGY STAR compliance; and (4) build end-of-life take-back provisions into your product terms and distribution agreements.

Beyond compliance, companies should monitor proposed federal IoT legislation and state environmental bills that would expand producer responsibility schemes to a broader range of connected devices. The regulatory trajectory is clear: the cost of IoT’s environmental footprint is being shifted from government and consumers back to manufacturers, and the pace of that shift is accelerating.

For guidance on IoT regulatory compliance, product liability risk management, or e-waste obligations, contact Revision Legal’s internet law attorneys through the form on this page or call 855-473-8474.