Smart Device End-of-Life Disclosure: Why Laws Matter [2025]

The Looming Crisis of Zombie Smart Devices

You've probably got at least three things sitting around your house right now that are connected to the internet and haven't received a software update in years. Maybe it's an old Wi-Fi router. Maybe a security camera you set up five years ago. Maybe a "smart" thermostat that's technically connected but forgotten. These devices aren't broken, but they're not exactly healthy either. They're digital zombies, and they're creating a massive security blind spot most people don't even know exists.

Here's the thing about connected devices: once a manufacturer stops pushing updates, you've basically got an open door on your network. The device keeps running, but the security patches stop coming. Vulnerabilities that hackers could exploit? They're sitting there unfixed indefinitely. Your thermostat becomes a potential entry point for someone to map your network. Your camera becomes a waystation for malware. It sounds dramatic, but this isn't theoretical anymore.

Two Massachusetts state lawmakers are trying to do something about this mess. In early 2024, state senator William Brownsberger and state representative David Rogers introduced legislation that would require manufacturers to be straight with consumers about when products will stop receiving updates. The bills, collectively called An Act Relative to Consumer Connected Devices, would mandate that companies disclose on packaging and online exactly how long a device will get security updates and software support.

What makes this legislation significant isn't just that it protects individual consumers, though it absolutely does that. It's also a direct acknowledgment that the way we buy connected products has become fundamentally broken. We're purchasing devices with hidden expiration dates. Manufacturers profit from the sale and then vanish, leaving customers with either a paperweight or a liability. That's not sustainable, and it's definitely not secure.

The Massachusetts effort arrives after years of consumer advocacy groups, security researchers, and privacy organizations warning that this problem was getting worse, not better. This isn't niche concern territory anymore. This is mainstream cybersecurity infrastructure at stake.

TL; DR

• Massachusetts bills would require manufacturers to disclose when smart devices will stop receiving security updates, with notifications before service ends
• Zombie devices without patches pose real cybersecurity risks, as vulnerabilities remain unfixed and exploitable
• The legislation addresses a growing problem as the internet of things ages, with billions of devices still connected but unsupported
• Consumer reports found massive gaps in transparency, with most companies providing no information about support timelines
• Similar legislation is emerging nationwide, including the New York Connected Consumer Product End of Life Disclosure Act

Estimated data shows that post-legislation, compliance with support timelines could increase significantly from 30% to 80% among manufacturers.

Why Smart Devices Become Cybersecurity Disasters

The basic math of connected device security is straightforward: no updates equals no protection. But most people don't think about it until something goes wrong. They buy a device, it works fine, and then one day something weird happens. Maybe the app stops connecting. Maybe the device keeps dropping off the network. Maybe you just realize nobody's touched the setup in five years.

When a manufacturer stops supporting a device, they're not usually doing it because the hardware broke. They stopped because the business case went away. The product sold its units, the revenue curve flattened, and keeping servers running and developers employed to push security patches doesn't make financial sense anymore. So they cut the team and move on. The customer? You're stuck with a device that might work functionally but is completely exposed from a security perspective.

Consider what happens to an old home Wi-Fi router when updates stop. Routers sit between your internet connection and every device in your house. They handle authentication, encryption, traffic routing. When a critical vulnerability is discovered and the manufacturer doesn't patch it, you've got an attacker-friendly gateway sitting in your home network. They could intercept traffic. They could inject malware. They could pivot to other devices.

The problem scales fast. The average home now has between 15 and 25 connected devices. Not all of them are equally critical, but collectively they create what security researchers call "attack surface." Each unpatched device is another vector. Each zombie gadget is another potential entry point.

Historically, this wasn't a massive problem because most home networks weren't heavily targeted. But that's changed. Botnets automatically scan for vulnerable devices on the internet. Malware propagates through weak routers. Ransomware operators use compromised smart home hubs to establish persistence. This isn't speculation. This is how modern attacks work.

The Consumer Reporting Gap That Sparked Legislation

In 2023, three major organizations collaborated on research that revealed how badly the industry was failing consumers. Consumer Reports, US PIRG (United States Public Interest Research Group), and the nonprofit Secure Resilient Future Foundation conducted a comprehensive survey of major smart device manufacturers. What they found was damning: almost no transparency about support timelines.

Manufacturers simply weren't disclosing how long devices would receive updates. Some had no defined timeline at all. Others buried support information in terms of service documents that nobody reads. A few companies provided information, but it was inconsistent across product lines. The report concluded that consumers had essentially no way to make informed purchase decisions about the lifespan of connected products.

This matters because it completely inverts the normal consumer relationship with products. When you buy most things, you understand the expected lifespan. A toaster might last five years. A refrigerator ten. A car thirteen. These are rough expectations you develop based on experience and product categories. But with connected devices, that mental model doesn't work. A smart light could work for five years or become a dead brick in two. You have no way to know beforehand.

Stacey Higginbotham, who worked on the research at Consumer Reports, pointed out in interviews that the problem goes beyond mere inconvenience. "Your product is now connected to a manufacturer by this software tether that dictates how it's going to perform," she explained. This tether is invisible to consumers. You buy a device, and you inherit whatever support lifecycle the manufacturer decided, with zero transparency about what that means.

The research also surfaced another critical insight: consumers often don't realize devices are getting old until they stop working properly. A five-year-old smart camera might suddenly disconnect frequently or develop new bugs as the underlying OS becomes obsolete. A smart thermostat might glitch through the winter. These aren't hardware failures. These are the symptoms of abandoned software. But consumers blame themselves, the Wi-Fi router, or bad luck. They don't know the manufacturer simply stopped supporting the product.

Estimated data shows that 40% of manufacturers provide no timeline for device support, while only 10% offer clear information. This lack of transparency sparked legislative interest.

Understanding the Proposed Massachusetts Legislation

The Massachusetts bills represent a direct legislative approach to forcing transparency. If passed, manufacturers selling connected products in Massachusetts would face specific requirements. Let's break down what the legislation actually proposes.

First, manufacturers would need to clearly disclose on product packaging and on online product pages exactly how long the product will receive security updates and software support. This isn't vague language. It's specific: a number of years, a date, or a clear statement that support is ongoing. No hiding in fine print. No burying it in terms of service documents.

Second, the bills would require manufacturers to notify customers when their device is approaching the end-of-life date. This is important because it means you don't buy something expecting five years of support and then get surprised in year four when it suddenly stops working. You'd get a notification: your device will stop receiving updates in six months. Plan accordingly.

Third, manufacturers would need to explain what happens when support ends. What features will be lost? What security vulnerabilities might emerge? This is crucial information that almost never gets communicated currently. Most people don't understand the difference between a device that works offline without updates versus one that requires cloud connectivity and breaks completely when the service ends.

The bills also emphasize the cybersecurity angle explicitly. The language directly ties end-of-life disclosure to security vulnerabilities and malware risks. This framing is smart because it elevates the issue beyond "consumer inconvenience" into genuine public safety territory. Legislators understand cybersecurity. They don't always understand consumer protection issues, but they absolutely understand national security implications.

Paul Roberts, president of the Secure Resilient Future Foundation and a Massachusetts resident who worked with the legislators, explained the urgency: "We're trying to reduce the attack surface. We cannot prevent it, but we do want to give consumers awareness that they could be hosting something. Basically, they have an open door that can no longer be locked."

How the Legislation Would Actually Work in Practice

Let's imagine you're shopping for a smart thermostat and you live in Massachusetts (if this law passes). You'd walk into a store or visit a website and immediately see clear information: "This device receives security updates for 5 years from the date of purchase." That's the requirement. Simple. Transparent. Actionable.

You buy it. Two years later, you get an email or notification through the manufacturer's app: "Your device will stop receiving updates in 3 years, on March 15, 2027. After this date, you may experience reduced functionality and increased security vulnerabilities." Now you can plan. You know that in 2027, you need to either replace this device or accept the security implications of running unsupported software.

When the support end date actually arrives, you get a final notification. The device continues to function if it works offline, but the manufacturer has made crystal clear that it's no longer being maintained. If you keep using it, you're consciously accepting the risk. That's vastly different from the current scenario where devices just silently stop being patched and users have no idea.

The legislation would also likely establish baseline requirements. What counts as "security updates" versus minor bug fixes? How frequently must they be released? These are implementation details that regulations typically have to hash out, but the intent is clear: no vague language. The manufacturer has to commit to a specific support model and stick to it.

From a manufacturer's perspective, this creates clarity too. Right now, they can support products indefinitely or abandon them without explanation. This law would force them to choose: commit to a specific timeline and honor it, or commit to indefinite support (which some companies already do). Either way, consumers know what they're signing up for.

The Cybersecurity Imperative Behind the Legislation

The legislation's primary justification is cybersecurity, and this is where the issue becomes genuinely urgent. Connected devices have fundamentally changed the threat landscape for homes and small businesses. Ten years ago, your home network was mostly air-gapped. Today, it's a potential entry point for sophisticated attacks.

Here's how the attack pipeline works in 2024: cybercriminals scan the internet for vulnerable routers, cameras, thermostats, and other connected devices. They use automated tools that probe for known vulnerabilities. Devices with old firmware are easy targets because the vulnerability is public and the fix is known. Attackers deploy malware or gain access. From there, they can establish persistent presence, steal data, or pivot to more valuable targets.

Botnets specifically target IoT devices because they're accessible, often poorly configured, and rarely updated. Mirai, one of the largest botnets ever discovered, primarily consisted of compromised smart home devices. It wasn't particularly sophisticated malware, but it worked because millions of connected devices were running completely unpatched software. The botnet could coordinate hundreds of thousands of devices into massive DDoS attacks.

More recent botnets like Meris, Fracturedaas, and various ransomware-adjacent infrastructures have followed the same pattern. Find vulnerable IoT devices. Compromise them. Use them for profitable operations. The profit motive is what keeps these campaigns running. And the vulnerability density of old smart home devices makes them incredibly profitable.

From a national security perspective, this creates cascading risks. Small businesses often have the same consumer-grade smart devices as homes. A compromised smart office thermostat or security camera becomes the entry point for business network compromise. Hospitals have dozens of connected medical devices. Universities have thousands of networked sensors. When manufacturers stop supporting devices, you're creating a growing pool of compromised infrastructure across critical sectors.

Estimated data shows that 50% of consumers replace devices due to lack of support transparency, leading to economic and environmental costs.

The Broader Context: Right to Repair and Consumer Power

The Massachusetts bills don't exist in a vacuum. They're part of a larger legislative movement around consumer rights and manufacturer accountability. The Right to Repair movement, particularly championed around automotive repair and agricultural equipment, created political momentum for this type of legislation.

The federal Repair Act, which focuses on automotive manufacturers, establishes similar transparency and access principles. John Deere wouldn't be able to prevent farmers from repairing equipment or accessing diagnostic data. The principle is straightforward: when you buy something, you should have meaningful access to repair it and understand its limitations.

Smart device end-of-life disclosure is essentially the software equivalent of right to repair. You're not asking manufacturers to keep supporting products indefinitely. You're asking them to tell you upfront when support will end, so you can make informed decisions about whether to buy that product in the first place.

New York has separately introduced the Connected Consumer Product End of Life Disclosure Act, which follows the same basic framework as the Massachusetts bills. The legislation was introduced by State Senator Patricia Fahy and represents parallel efforts across multiple states to address the same problem.

What's significant about this multi-state approach is that it's creating momentum for federal legislation. If Massachusetts and New York both pass laws, and they start having real effects on how manufacturers operate, other states will likely follow. Federal legislation becomes inevitable once it's clear that state-by-state regulation is happening. Manufacturers prefer a single federal standard to navigating fifty different state requirements.

The broader principle underlying all of this legislation is that companies shouldn't be able to hide the downsides of their products from consumers. You can sell a device with five years of support. You can sell a device with ten years of support. You can sell a device with perpetual support. But you can't sell a device and then decide unilaterally when support ends without telling anyone. That crosses the line from normal business practice into deceptive commerce.

Why Manufacturers Resist and What They Stand to Lose

Manufacturers aren't excited about these bills, and you can understand why. Transparency about end-of-life creates immediate competitive pressure. If one company commits to five years of security updates and a competitor commits to three years, consumers might rationally choose based on longevity and support durability.

There's also a second-order effect that manufacturers worry about: liability. If you've explicitly told consumers that a device will receive security updates until December 2027, and it gets hacked in 2028 due to an unpatched vulnerability, are you liable? If consumers can point to your own disclosure and show that you failed to meet the commitment, the legal exposure is clear.

Currently, manufacturers hide behind boilerplate terms of service that essentially say they can stop supporting products whenever they want. They're not required to promise anything. If you suffer a breach through an unpatched device, the manufacturer wasn't responsible. They had no obligation to support it. Legislation that requires explicit support timelines changes this calculation significantly.

There's also the technical debt issue. Many manufacturers have legacy products still in their support infrastructure that require ongoing effort to maintain. If a company has committed to supporting a 2014 product until 2019, but now it's 2025, that's five years of effort beyond the original commitment. They'd have to either:

1. Hire engineers to maintain old systems indefinitely
2. Explicitly end support at a predetermined date
3. Find creative technical solutions to maintain without active development

All of these options cost money. The current system costs manufacturers nothing because there's no requirement to do any of them. You can simply stop supporting a product and move on.

But here's the interesting paradox: manufacturers who are already maintaining good long-term support practices aren't threatened by this legislation. Companies like ASUS that commit to hardware support for 3-5 years are already doing what these bills require. Their competitive advantage would actually increase if the baseline moved up to include everyone.

The Economic Case for Support Transparency

There's an economic argument for end-of-life disclosure beyond just consumer protection. When consumers have better information about product longevity, they make better purchasing decisions. Better purchasing decisions lead to less waste, less replacement churn, and potentially more rational pricing in the market.

Consider what happens currently without transparency. A consumer buys a smart home device with no information about support duration. They use it for three years and it becomes unsupported. They have three options:

1. Keep using unsupported software (accept risk)
2. Replace the device (environmental waste, economic cost)
3. Stop using the feature (economic loss, reduced functionality)

None of these are good outcomes. With transparency, a consumer might choose a more durable option upfront, understanding they're paying more for longer support. Or they might avoid the device entirely because the support duration is too short for their needs. Either way, it's a conscious choice.

The environmental angle is also worth examining. Electronic waste is one of the fastest-growing waste streams globally. If consumers had better information about device longevity and support timelines, they might be more likely to buy more durable products or fewer devices overall. They wouldn't waste money on devices with suspiciously short support windows.

Manufacturers could even use transparency as a competitive advantage. Imagine a smart home ecosystem where one company commits to 10-year updates on all devices. It's a higher technical commitment, but it's also a compelling marketing story: "Buy our ecosystem and it will work in 2035." Versus buying competitors' devices that might not work in 2028.

There's also the possibility that forced transparency leads to better security practices earlier in the development cycle. If you know you're committing to support for five years, you're incentivized to write more maintainable code and invest in security from the beginning. The opposite is also true: if you have no accountability for support duration, there's less incentive to write code that's easy to patch.

Consumer advocacy organizations focus on consumer protection (40%), security advocacy (35%), and environmental advocacy (25%). Estimated data based on advocacy roles.

Implementation Challenges and Realistic Timelines

If these Massachusetts bills pass, the actual implementation would face several challenges. The legislation would need to be specific about baseline requirements. What counts as a "connected device" for these purposes? Does it include all smart home devices? All IoT devices? There's definitely going to be debate about scope.

Second, there's the question of exemptions. Would the legislation apply to devices that work completely offline? What about devices that are owned rather than licensed? What about products that receive automatic critical security patches but no feature updates? These distinctions matter legally and they matter practically.

Third, enforcement would require infrastructure. Who's responsible for verifying that manufacturers are actually following through on their commitments? Is it the state attorney general's office? Some new regulatory body? Is it based on consumer complaints? The legislation would need to specify enforcement mechanisms or risk becoming unenforceable.

Historically, consumer protection laws in Massachusetts face this issue. They're well-intentioned but enforcement is often sporadic. Manufacturers test the boundaries and enforcement actions happen only after complaints mount. It's not necessarily a failure of the legislation, but it is a realistic challenge.

The timeline for passage is also uncertain. Legislation in Massachusetts goes through committee hearings, gets amended, goes through votes. A bill introduced in 2024 might not pass until 2025 or 2026. Even if it passes, there's usually an implementation period where manufacturers have time to adjust practices. So we're probably looking at real-world impact in 2026 or 2027 at the earliest.

But that doesn't mean the bills are pointless if they take time to pass. The bills serve an important signaling function. They tell the industry that this issue is politically salient. They encourage manufacturers to voluntarily improve transparency rather than wait for legislation to force them. We see this pattern across regulatory domains: the threat of regulation often changes behavior before actual regulation is enacted.

Comparing to International and National Precedents

The Massachusetts bills aren't completely novel. Several countries and jurisdictions have already explored similar requirements, and there's useful experience to draw from. The European Union's focus on right to repair includes strong transparency requirements. Products sold in the EU often have explicit support duration information because manufacturers want to sell in European markets and EU regulations encourage disclosure.

In Japan, major manufacturers like Panasonic provide lengthy support commitments as a market differentiator. They explicitly commit to parts availability and software updates for extended periods. This became competitive advantage in a market where consumers value longevity. When it became clear consumers preferred durable products, manufacturers responded accordingly.

The Federal Trade Commission has also published guidance on unfair or deceptive practices in connected devices, specifically pointing out that vague support commitments can constitute deception. This federal guidance doesn't create a binding mandate, but it points manufacturers toward transparency as the safe harbor approach.

What's notable about all these precedents is that transparency requirements don't actually kill the smart device industry. Companies continue innovating and selling connected products. They just do so with clearer expectations about support duration. The market adjusts. Some manufacturers pivot toward longer-term support as a differentiator. Others maintain shorter support cycles but face competitive pressure for doing so.

The Security Research Community's Perspective

Security researchers have been pushing for this type of legislation for years. From their perspective, the zombie device problem is a massive vulnerability in national infrastructure. Every unpatched device is a liability.

The research community also understands something that policymakers are still learning: the problem will get worse without intervention. More devices are becoming connected. More critical infrastructure depends on IoT. The installed base of unsupported devices grows every year. We're accumulating a massive backlog of outdated, unpatched hardware that will cause security problems for years.

Researchers point out that once a device is unsupported, that state is essentially permanent. The manufacturer won't go back and fix it. It won't get patched. It will just sit on networks, vulnerable, indefinitely. This creates a long tail of risk that extends far beyond the product's commercial lifecycle.

Security conferences in 2023 and 2024 featured numerous presentations about IoT attack surfaces in enterprise networks. The common theme: companies have no idea how many unsupported devices are on their networks because there's no transparency about support status. They buy something, it works, they forget about it, and seven years later it's still connected and completely unpatched. Then a breach happens and everyone asks why the network was vulnerable.

Legislation like the Massachusetts bills gives security teams the information they need to inventory and manage IoT risk. If a device has a known end-of-life date, security teams can plan for that date. They can evaluate alternatives. They can schedule replacement before the device becomes a zombie. Information enables management. Opacity enables disaster.

Estimated data shows varying security update commitments among manufacturers, with some offering up to five years of support, potentially influencing consumer choice.

Privacy Implications and Data Collection Concerns

There's another dimension to this legislation that's worth examining: privacy. Connected devices often collect data even when they're not actively being used. An old camera might still send data back to manufacturer servers. An outdated thermostat might still transmit temperature readings. When a device stops receiving updates, these data flows often don't stop. You're still transmitting information, but the endpoints you're transmitting to are no longer being maintained.

Paul Roberts and other advocates for the legislation specifically mentioned that end-of-life disclosure includes information about what will be lost when support ends. For some devices, that means information about privacy settings or data collection that will continue. For others, it means data flows might continue but with no maintenance, no security updates to protect that data in transit.

The legislation implicitly addresses privacy by requiring manufacturers to explain the implications of end-of-life. If a device collects location data or usage information, the manufacturer needs to explain what happens to that data collection when support ends. Does it keep happening? Is the data still encrypted? Is the server still being maintained? These are legitimate consumer concerns that transparency would address.

This is particularly important for device categories where privacy is sensitive: smart locks, security cameras, health monitoring devices. A five-year-old smart lock that's no longer receiving updates is potentially transmitting unlock events to a server that's no longer being actively maintained. That's a privacy risk that consumers should know about.

The Role of Consumer Advocacy Organizations

The Consumer Reports research that preceded these Massachusetts bills was instrumental in framing the issue as both a security and a consumer protection problem. These advocacy groups have credibility with policymakers precisely because they do independent research and present findings neutrally.

Stacey Higginbotham and her colleagues at Consumer Reports tested actual products and surveyed manufacturers. Their findings were specific and documented. This research became the evidence base that lawmakers could point to when introducing legislation. "Our data shows manufacturers aren't being transparent," becomes a much more compelling argument than "consumers think transparency would be nice."

US PIRG and the Secure Resilient Future Foundation brought different expertise to the table. US PIRG brings experience with consumer advocacy at the state level. They know how to frame issues in ways that resonate with policymakers. The SRFF brings specific security expertise and network connections to the research and cybersecurity communities.

This coalition approach is important because it bridges different advocacy communities. Environmental advocates care about reducing electronic waste. Consumer advocates care about transparency and deception prevention. Security advocates care about national cybersecurity. When all three groups support the same legislation, it has broader appeal and stronger momentum.

Moving forward, these same organizations will likely be instrumental in supporting similar legislation in other states and at the federal level. They've proven they can conduct credible research and can organize political support for action. If Massachusetts and New York pass their bills, the organizations will likely move to California, Illinois, and other large markets where they can drive momentum for national change.

What Happens When Products Die: The Real-World Scenarios

Understanding the practical implications of end-of-life requires looking at real scenarios. Let's consider several categories of devices and what happens when manufacturer support stops.

Smart Routers and Network Hardware: When a router stops receiving updates, you lose security patches for Wi-Fi vulnerabilities, authentication bypass exploits, and denial-of-service attacks. The router keeps working for basic connectivity, but the security evaporates. An attacker anywhere on the internet can potentially compromise it. This is particularly dangerous because routers are the gateway to your entire network. One compromised router means everything on your network is potentially compromised.

Security Cameras: Older cameras often relied on proprietary software and manufacturer-run cloud services. When support ends, you have options: keep using the device connected to the internet but unpatched (risky), disconnect it from the network (reduces functionality), or replace it. Some older cameras simply become unusable when the manufacturer's service endpoint shuts down. You can't view footage because the remote server no longer exists.

Smart Locks and Doorbells: These are particularly sensitive because they control physical access to your home. An unpatched smart lock with a vulnerability could be remotely exploited to unlock your door. Ring, August, and other manufacturers have generally been good about supporting hardware, but smaller manufacturers have let products languish. When a smart lock stops receiving updates, you're trusting that no one finds a vulnerability in that specific firmware version.

Health Monitoring Devices: Devices like smart scales, glucose monitors, or sleep trackers often transmit data to cloud services. When support ends, the data flows might continue but without encryption updates or security maintenance. You might be transmitting health information over unencrypted channels. This is a direct privacy and potentially health concern.

Smart Appliances: Dishwashers, refrigerators, and other connected appliances often have basic connectivity that's not essential to function. An unpatched smart fridge won't prevent refrigeration, but it might be compromised and used to attack your network. Many people don't realize their appliance is even connected to the internet or what happens when support ends.

Across all these categories, the pattern is consistent: when support ends, the device doesn't immediately break, but it becomes a security and privacy liability. Informed consumers would want to know this before purchasing.

With transparency requirements, the percentage of unpatched IoT devices is projected to decrease significantly by 2030, enhancing network security. (Estimated data)

The Federal Perspective and Potential Legislation

The Massachusetts and New York state bills are intentionally framed to be attractive to federal legislators. They establish a clear problem and a reasonable solution. This is the typical pathway: states legislate first, federal legislators see the pattern, and federal legislation becomes inevitable if the issue is significant enough.

Cybersecurity is one of the few consumer protection issues where federal legislators have consistent attention. National security concerns override typical regulatory reluctance. If smart device vulnerabilities are framed as a national security issue, which they genuinely are, federal legislation becomes more likely.

The FTC has already shown interest in this space through enforcement actions and guidance documents. The agency has taken action against companies for unfair or deceptive practices in connected devices. That regulatory attention suggests federal legislators might be receptive to legislation that mandates transparency, since it aligns with FTC priorities.

What's uncertain is whether federal legislation would be stronger or weaker than state-level efforts. Federal legislation could establish clear baseline requirements that all manufacturers must meet. Or it could establish minimal federal standards and allow states to exceed them, which often creates a de facto federal baseline (state requirements tend to apply nationwide because manufacturers sell in all states).

The timeline for federal legislation is probably not 2025. These things move slowly. But if Massachusetts and New York pass their bills and manufacturers have to adjust practices anyway, there will be political momentum for federal action. Legislators will see that the sky didn't fall when transparency requirements were implemented. This creates space for federal legislation.

Manufacturer Responses and Industry Adaptation

Some manufacturers are already heading off regulation by voluntarily improving transparency. Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon have all published information about how long devices will receive updates. They're not universally clear, but they're at least communicating timeframes. This represents defensive response to legislative pressure and security advocacy.

What's interesting is that these major manufacturers are not uniformly opposed to legislation. They already maintain longer-term support commitments because it's part of their brand promise and competitive differentiation. For them, legislation that mandates transparency is actually competitive advantage because smaller manufacturers will struggle to maintain equivalent support.

Smaller IoT manufacturers face more pressure because they often lack the engineering resources to maintain years of support. Their business model might not support longer-term commitments. Legislation that requires transparency will force them to either commit to longer support, accept that their devices have short support windows, or get out of the market.

This is actually good from a market rationalization perspective. Right now, hundreds of mediocre IoT products exist that should never have been built. They solve minimal problems, add complexity to networks, and receive minimal support. If transparency requirements force manufacturers to be honest about support duration, many of these products won't survive market pressure. Consumers won't buy devices with two-year support windows when better alternatives exist.

The net result should be higher quality connected devices with clearer support expectations. It should reduce the population of zombie devices on networks because fewer bad products get built in the first place.

The Path Forward for Legislation

If the Massachusetts bills pass, they'll likely become a template for other states. Legislators in California, Illinois, New York (which has separate legislation), and other major markets will probably introduce similar bills. Within 3-5 years, we could see a patchwork of state legislation addressing the same issue.

At some point, either federal legislation will preempt these state laws, or states will compete to offer the most consumer-friendly requirements. The pressure toward uniform federal standards is significant because manufacturers don't want to maintain fifty different compliance frameworks.

The bigger question is what "success" looks like. Success probably isn't that manufacturers maintain perfect perpetual support. That's unrealistic. Success is transparency. Success is that consumers know what they're buying. Success is that a five-year-old router isn't still sitting on networks providing open access because the manufacturer never bothered to tell anyone it was unsupported.

Success also includes infrastructure to manage the transition. When a device reaches end-of-life, what are the responsible options? Can the manufacturer release source code so the open-source community can maintain security patches? Can devices be factory reset to a basic secure configuration even without ongoing support? Can manufacturer support timelines be extended through third-party services?

The legislation creates the framework for transparency. How industry responds to that transparency, how consumers react, and what secondary mechanisms emerge to extend device lifecycles, those are the variables that will determine whether the legislation actually solves the problem or just makes the problem more visible.

A Future Without Zombie Devices

Imagine the smart home landscape in 2030 if these transparency requirements are implemented across most states and manufacturers adjust accordingly. You buy a smart thermostat knowing it will receive support for seven years. You set a calendar reminder for year six, so you can start evaluating replacement options before year seven arrives. The manufacturer sends you a notification when year six hits, letting you know which new features won't be available in a year.

Meanwhile, the population of unpatched devices on networks drops significantly. Not to zero, because there will always be some legacy hardware, but to a manageable level. Your router is only four years old, so it's still receiving security patches. The smart camera in your office is three years into its five-year support window. The connected lock in the conference room is maintained.

When a new vulnerability is discovered, patches come out. Your devices get updated. You don't have to worry that critical infrastructure is running unpatched code because you forgot to replace something years ago.

Security researchers and network administrators can actually manage IoT risk because they have information about what will and won't be supported. Enterprise networks can maintain inventory of device lifecycles. Public institutions like hospitals and schools can budget for replacements because they understand when devices will reach end-of-life.

This isn't a hypothetical utopia. It's the baseline state in enterprises that take security seriously. They manage device lifecycles explicitly. They track what's supported and when support ends. They maintain inventory. They plan replacements.

The legislation is essentially forcing consumer markets to operate like enterprise markets. Transparency about support duration becomes the baseline expectation. From there, everything else follows naturally.

Key Obstacles and Why This Matters

The biggest obstacle these bills face is manufacturer lobbying. The industry isn't happy about explicit support commitments, and they'll make arguments about costs and complexity. Some arguments are legitimate. Some are just resistance to change.

A secondary obstacle is consumer apathy. Many people don't care about this issue until their device becomes a security liability or stops working. Legislators respond to voter pressure. If voters don't demand transparency, legislators face less pressure to pass legislation. The advocacy groups working on this understand this challenge. That's why they invested in research to demonstrate the problem before legislation was introduced.

There's also the philosophical argument some manufacturers will make about property rights. They might argue that designing a device and choosing when to stop supporting it is a business decision and shouldn't be regulated. This argument doesn't hold up when the device affects network security for other people, but it will be raised anyway.

Despite these obstacles, the legislation matters because it represents explicit acknowledgment that the current system is broken. Manufacturers shouldn't be able to sell devices with hidden expiration dates and disappear. Consumers deserve to know what they're buying. Networks deserve to not be full of zombie devices.

The legislation also matters because it will likely pass eventually. The issue is too obvious. The security implications are too clear. The precedent from other jurisdictions shows it's workable. Within a decade, smart device end-of-life transparency will likely be standard practice, not because manufacturers wanted to do it, but because they were required to.

FAQ

What exactly are the Massachusetts bills proposing?

The proposed Massachusetts legislation, collectively called An Act Relative to Consumer Connected Devices, would require manufacturers to disclose on product packaging and online how long devices will receive security updates and software support. Manufacturers would also need to notify customers when support is ending and explain what features will be lost and what security risks may emerge.

Why do lawmakers care about connected device support timelines?

Lawmakers care because unpatched connected devices create cybersecurity risks for entire networks. When a device stops receiving security updates, vulnerabilities remain unfixed and exploitable. These "zombie devices" can be compromised and used to attack other systems. The legislation frames end-of-life disclosure as a national cybersecurity issue.

How would this legislation affect manufacturers?

Manufacturers would be required to commit to specific support timelines rather than abandon devices silently. This creates liability if they fail to provide updates as promised. It also creates competitive pressure because transparent support timelines become comparable between products. Some manufacturers are already doing this voluntarily.

What happens to devices when support ends?

When support ends, the device doesn't immediately stop working, but it no longer receives security patches or software updates. If the device works offline, it can continue functioning indefinitely. If it requires cloud connectivity or regular updates to function, it may become unusable. Vulnerabilities in the device remain unfixed.

Who is pushing for this legislation and why?

Consumer Reports, US PIRG, and the Secure Resilient Future Foundation conducted research showing that manufacturers provide almost no transparency about support timelines. Their advocacy prompted Massachusetts state senator William Brownsberger and state representative David Rogers to introduce legislation addressing the issue.

Could this legislation pass federally, or is it just state-level?

The bills are currently state-level in Massachusetts and New York, but they're designed as templates for other states and potentially for federal legislation. If multiple states pass similar bills, federal legislation becomes likely. The precedent from right-to-repair legislation in other domains suggests federal action eventually follows state-level success.

How would manufacturers decide what support timeline to commit to?

Manufacturers would have flexibility to commit to whatever timeline they believe is sustainable. Some might commit to five years, others to ten years, others to indefinite support. The requirement is disclosure, not a specific timeline. Competitive pressure and consumer preferences would then influence whether manufacturers' timelines are competitive.

What would this cost consumers?

Transparency shouldn't directly cost consumers, but it might indirectly increase prices for devices with longer support timelines. If a manufacturer commits to seven years of support instead of three, that requires more engineering resources. Consumers with longer time horizons would benefit from longer support windows even if devices cost more upfront.

Could manufacturers just commit to very short support timelines to avoid complexity?

They could, but they would face competitive disadvantage. Consumers comparing products would see that one commits to two-year support while a competitor commits to five-year support. In competitive markets, the longer timeline becomes attractive. Legislation that mandates transparency enables this kind of comparison.

What about devices that work offline and don't require manufacturer support?

Devices that work offline without manufacturer connectivity wouldn't need ongoing support in the traditional sense. However, the legislation would likely still require disclosure about security risks if the device has any network connection capability or collects any data that's transmitted.

The Bottom Line

The Massachusetts bills represent a straightforward solution to a persistent problem: manufacturers should tell consumers how long they'll support connected products. It's not revolutionary. It's not complex. It's just transparency.

What makes this issue urgent is the scale of the problem and the pace of growth. Connected devices are proliferating. Most consumers have no idea how many connected devices are on their networks or when those devices will stop receiving updates. That's a security risk that compounds over time.

The legislation won't solve all connected device security challenges. People will still buy products with short support windows. Manufacturers will still prioritize new products over supporting legacy hardware. Some devices will still become zombies. But with transparency, at least these become conscious choices rather than hidden defaults.

For the broader ecosystem, the legislation matters because it establishes a principle: manufacturers have obligations to consumers even after the sale. You can't sell a device and then silently abandon it without explaining the consequences. That principle, once established, becomes the baseline for future regulation and consumer expectations.

If you care about cybersecurity or consumer protection, these Massachusetts bills are worth watching. They represent early-stage legislation addressing an obvious problem that will likely become standard practice eventually. The question isn't whether end-of-life transparency becomes required, but when and in what form. The Massachusetts bills are attempting to shape that outcome before the issue becomes more urgent.

Key Takeaways

• Massachusetts legislation would require manufacturers to transparently disclose security support timelines for connected devices, addressing a growing cybersecurity gap
• Unsupported 'zombie devices' without security patches create real attack vectors for botnets, ransomware, and data breaches across home and enterprise networks
• Consumer transparency about device support duration enables informed purchasing decisions and reduces unnecessary electronic waste from premature obsolescence
• Multi-state legislation creates momentum for federal standards, similar to right-to-repair movements that have proven effective across multiple industries
• Manufacturers already using long-term support strategies gain competitive advantage when transparency becomes industry baseline through legislation

Related Articles

• Lenovo's Magic Bay Modular Laptop Ecosystem Opens to Third Parties [2025]
• FTC Meta Monopoly Appeal: What's Really at Stake [2025]
• Blink Mini 2K+ Camera Review: High-Res Security That Actually Works [2025]
• Meta's Illegal Gambling Ad Problem: What the UK Watchdog Found [2025]
• Trump Mobile FTC Investigation: False Advertising Claims & Political Pressure [2025]
• Jen Easterly Leads RSA Conference Into AI Security Era [2025]