The basis on which material obsolescence was considered by the FTC to be an illegitimate practice was that, in addition to possibly running afoul of federal antitrust laws, it short-changed the consumer. Planned obsolescence violated what were held to be reasonable, yet only vaguely defined, expectations about the durability and repairability of products. “The consumer is entitled,” FTC director Meyers maintained, “to expect that replacement parts—particularly minor parts—will be available for the reasonably predicted useful life of the item in question. . . . Similarly, in my view, the commission is also concerned about durability obsolescence—the intentional inclusion by some manufacturers of an inferior part within a product where the usage of a better part would not add significantly to the cost of the final product.”81 The FTC’s statement implies that a producer has a moral and legal obligation to make objects as durable as possible at a given price point—and that failure to do so, even under nonmonopoly conditions, warrants state regulation and possible sanctions.82
The response to the FTC investigation varied in quite predictable ways. Guenther Baumgart, president of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, complained that the FTC was searching for something that did not exist: “We have no evidence of the deliberate planning of products to wear out prematurely.” By contrast, Morris Kaplan, director of the Consumers Union, commented that “it is definitely possible to design products that will last a great deal longer than they do.”83 But all sides shared the assumption that there is some objectively “reasonable” (therefore fair) duration of use consumers should get out of the products they purchase.
Moral Panic about Utility
249