The publication of the draft delegated act follows a process whereby stakeholders were invited to submit applications for specific product categories they believed should be exempt from these requirements.

What are the new exemptions?

Key proposed changes include:

• Good news for wearables manufacturers – The draft delegated act would create helpful new “partial” exemptions for wearables, provided they meet certain criteria, which we would expect many wearables to be able to demonstrate. The exemptions are partial because they would permit the removal and replacement of batteries by independent professional repairers, rather than end users.

• Clarifying the wet environment exemption –Wording would also be added to the wet environment partial exemption to confirm that wearable devices can fall within this exemption, as well as the new stand-alone wearables exemption.

• Alignment for toys – The draft delegated act also proposes aligning the EUBR with the new EU Toy Safety Regulation, with a new partial exemption for electric toys that incorporate rechargeable batteries, where due to the nature or size of the toy, the derogation is necessary to ensure the safety of the toy.

• Telematics – There is also a new partial exemption proposed for certain telematics devices incorporated into specific machinery, given the nature of these devices and the need to ensure they remain water- and shock-resistant.

Importantly, because the proposed exemptions are partial, products falling within these new exemptions (if adopted) will still need to be designed for battery removability and replaceability by an independent professional.

What else is changing?

In addition to the draft delegated act, the European Commission separately published proposed draft updates to the Article 11 guidance. There are two key helpful updates from this guidance:

1. The updates to the section on the wet environment exemption state that “other examples of wet appliances specifically designed to operate in a wet environment are wearable devices, such as wireless earbuds, heart rate monitor straps, smart glasses,or watches, intended to be worn on the head, wrist, chest or hand, which meet the five indicators [required for the wet environment exemption]”.

• The draft amendments also include a helpful amendment that would support charging cases and power banks being out of scope of the removability requirements entirely. It states that “Article 11 only applies to products being placed on the market which incorporate portable batteries. In certain cases, it can be considered that the product constitutes a portable battery in itself, such as rechargeable power banks, charging cases for wearable products (e.g. earbuds) … and therefore Article 11 would not be applicable in the first place”.

If you would like to see a copy of these updates, please reach out to your usual Cooley products team contact.

What should I do next?

The consultation period is open for four weeks, with feedback due by 26 May. This is almost certainly the last chance for stakeholders to have their say on the scope of the Article 11 EUBR end-user battery removability and replaceability obligations before they take effect in February 2027.

If you have questions about the draft delegated act, the proposed exemptions or how to prepare an effective consultation response, please reach out to the authors of this post.

• Full name: Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC (ESPR)
• Applies from: 18 July 2024
• Where can I find it: The ESPR is available here.

As things can change, always check for the latest version of the legislation and any guidance provided.

What is it about?

The ESPR:

1. Introduces a new ban on the destruction of certain unsold consumer goods.
2. Introduces new disclosure requirements.
3. Establishes a framework for introducing new product design requirements which physical products must comply with to be placed on the EU market or put into service in the EU.

It replaces the EU’s previous Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC, significantly expanding the range of physical products required to comply and the types of requirements applicable.

Who and what does it apply to?

The ESPR is relevant to EU and non-EU companies placing physical products on the EU market or putting those products into service, including intermediate products (such as steel and aluminium) and product components. Only a few product categories are exempt, e.g. certain motor vehicles, medicinal and veterinary products, food, feed and living organisms.

Overview of requirements

The ESPR contains certain requirements on the destruction of unsold goods. While some of these requirements already apply, businesses should be preparing now for new disclosure requirements covering FY2025 data and a strict ban on destruction which starts to apply from 19 July 2026 (see the “Key dates” section below for more).

However, most of the ESPR’s anticipated requirements (including ecodesign, information and digital product passport requirements) are product-specific and will be set out along with compliance deadlines in additional secondary legislation which is being developed on a product-by-product basis.

Destruction of unsold goods requirements

The following new requirements concern consumer products and apply without the need for further legislation:

• An obligation to take necessary measures to prevent the need to destroy unsold consumer products. This started to apply from 18 July 2024.

• A requirement to publish annual website disclosures on the destruction of unsold consumer products. Businesses must publish the quantities of unsold consumer products they discard each year, their reasons for doing so and the measures planned to prevent future destruction. This requirement applies to businesses’ financial years starting on or after 18 July 2024, with publication due 12 months after year-end. For most, this will involve reporting in 2026 on FY2025 data.

• A ban on the destruction of certain unsold consumer products. The ban applies to unsold consumer footwear, apparel and clothing accessories. The European Commission has also been given the power to prohibit the destruction of other categories of products in the future (e.g. unsold small electronics).

For more detail on these disclosure requirements and the derogations to the destruction ban, see our Productwise Deep Dive.

Requirements subject to secondary legislation

The ESPR also establishes a framework for the European Commission to adopt product-specific ecodesign and information requirements. These will be set out in secondary legislation that has not yet been adopted. Products subject to such secondary legislation can only be placed on the EU market or put into service if they are compliant. The new requirements may also be integrated into public procurement criteria.

While the exact requirements for each product group will vary, the European Commission is able to adopt a broad spectrum of sustainability requirements, including:

• Performance requirements. These can cover product durability, reliability, reusability, repairability, energy and resource efficiency, recycled content and the presence of “substances of concern” – a new concept covering substances that can negatively affect the reuse and recycling of materials in the product. Typically, these requirements are drafted to exclude the worst-performing products from the market, with minimum performance thresholds expected to rise over time.

• Information requirements, including digital product passports. Products will need to be accompanied by certain information determined by secondary legislation. The type of information businesses should expect to be required to provide includes information on a product’s carbon or environmental footprint, its durability and repairability scores, along with information allowing the tracking of substances of concern, and information explaining how product-users can install, use, and maintain their products to minimise environmental impact and optimise durability. In most cases, this information will need to be provided via a “digital product passport” (DPP). DPPs are expected to include product compliance documentation and information required under the ESPR, as well as user manuals, instructions, warnings and safety information. The DPP will need to be accessible electronically, with different levels of access anticipated for consumers, third parties (such as recycling operations) and regulatory authorities. The DPP will also allow customs authorities to perform automatic checks on products imported into the EU.

Key dates

The ESPR is a regulation. This means that it applies directly in each EU Member State and does not require transposition into the national law of each EU Member State. The ESPR has applied since 18 July 2024, with requirements phased in as follows:

* Note: Medium-sized enterprises benefit from longer transition periods.

Most compliance deadlines will be set in secondary legislation and will apply on a product-by-product basis. The European Commission’s latest Working Plan (published April 2025) indicates which products are being prioritised and the targeted timelines for adoption of legislation – with requirements typically applying 18 months after adoption. These are:

An accompanying Staff Working Document confirms that the European Commission still plans to update existing ecodesign rules for certain energy-related products, including household appliances like vacuum cleaners and cooking appliances, computers, servers and data storage products, and heating and cooling equipment, amongst others. While these updates (anticipated in 2026) are expected to follow the narrower energy-related focus of the previous ecodesign regime, businesses should pay attention to any new spare part obligations in case these trigger new requirements under the EU’s Right to Repair Directive.

Why does it matter?

Penalties for noncompliance are set at the national Member State level and must be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. The ESPR requires that these penalties include, at least, fines and temporary exclusions from public procurement.

Is there any guidance?

FAQs are available here.

Authors

Emma Bichet and Jack Eastwood

• Full name: Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste
• Applies from: 12 August 2026, with longer transition periods for some requirements
• Where can I find it: Full text

What is it about?

The PPWR replaces the existing Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD) and is intended to reduce divergence between the rules currently applicable in different EU Member States.

The PPWR introduces requirements applicable throughout the life cycle of packaging, including new rules on labelling, chemical content, claims, recyclability, reuse and reduction of packaging. It also further harmonises the rules on extended producer responsibility (EPR).

Who and what will it apply to?

The PPWR applies to:

• All packaging placed on the EU market and all packaging waste, regardless of the type of packaging or the material used. This includes sales packaging, packaging used in stores and transport packaging, irrespective of whether the packaging or packaged products are destined for businesses or consumers.
• Businesses involved in placing packaged products on the EU market, including EU and non-EU manufacturers, importers and distributors, all of whom will have compliance obligations under the new regime. The “manufacturer” does not need to be the company physically producing the packaging, so it is possible that your business is captured even if you are working with a third-party packaging supplier.
• Online platforms allowing traders to sell packaging or packaged products to EU consumers.

Overview of requirements

Key obligations in the PPWR include:

From 12 August 2026:

• Conformity assessment: Conduct a conformity assessment, draw up technical documentation, and retain it for five or 10 years depending on the type of packaging.
• Labelling: Label packaging with traceability information (manufacturer details, importer details, and type, batch, serial number or other element allowing identification). Additional labelling requirements will apply once the relevant implementing acts have been adopted.
• Substances of concern: Minimise the presence of substances of concern and comply with restrictions on heavy metal concentrations (lead, cadmium, mercury and hexavalent chromium) and, for food-contact packaging, with restrictions on the concentration of PFAS.
• EPR: Comply with EPR obligations, e.g. by engaging a producer responsibility organisation (PRO) and/or registering in the national producer register established by each Member State (insofar as established by 12 August 2026, with some EPR obligations, including reporting, applying later).
• Claims: Avoid misleading claims and comply with green claims requirements.
• Corrective action: Take corrective action in respect of noncompliant packaging and notify authorities of any noncompliance.

After 12 August 2026, at dates which vary depending on the specific obligations:

• Recyclability: Design packaging for recyclability. Recyclability criteria and performance grades are anticipated through forthcoming delegated acts.
• Recycled content: Ensure packaging meets minimum recycled content requirements. Implementing acts are expected to set out the methodology for the calculation and verification of the percentage of recycled content recovered from post-consumer plastic waste recycled and collected within the EU.
• Labelling: Label packaging with a harmonised label containing information on material composition and with standardised open digital-marking technologies providing information on substances of concern. Details are to be specified in implementing acts which will be adopted by the European Commission.
• Packaging minimisation: Minimise the weight and volume of packaging. Further details to be specified in implementing acts which will be adopted by the European Commission.
• Packaging formats: Phase out certain packaging formats (e.g. shrink wrap, single-use packaging for cosmetics, hygiene and toiletry products used in the accommodation sector, etc.).
• Reuse: Ensure at least 40% by 2030 and 70% by 2040 of transport packaging and/or sales packaging used for transportation is reusable packaging. Delegated acts are anticipated covering criteria for reusable packaging.
• EPR: Report to the national authorities or ensure the PRO does.

Why does it matter?

The PPWR introduces significant new obligations for businesses making packaging or packaged products available on the EU market, touching on sustainability, compliance, labelling and EPR. Noncompliance may limit the ability to sell packaged products in the EU and could expose businesses to regulatory risk across multiple EU Member States.

With the first requirements applying from August 2026, businesses should already have reviewed their packaging portfolios to identify compliance gaps, particularly in relation to substance restrictions, labelling requirements and EPR obligations.

In parallel, businesses should continue to monitor the development of secondary legislation, since many of the obligations will start to apply once implementing and delegated acts have been adopted, and integrate PPWR compliance considerations into ongoing packaging design and supplier engagement.

Is there any guidance?

Guidance and an FAQ to accompany the PPWR were published by the European Commission in March 2026. Further guidance is also anticipated, including guidelines on marks or labels likely to mislead or confuse consumers or end-users.

Authors

Emma Bichet, Rebecca Halbach and Corinne Mustafa.

On March 31, 2026, the UK’s national product safety regulator, the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), published its long-awaited consultations setting out proposals to reform the UK product safety framework. The proposals are split across two consultations – one on the framework itself and one on enforcement:

1. Product regulation: the UK’s new product safety framework  
2. Product regulation: market surveillance and enforcement framework  

Why does this matter?

These proposals form part of a programme of work intended to deliver the most significant overhaul of the UK product safety framework in a generation. The consultations offer stakeholders a real opportunity to advance issues, such as digital labelling, and to advocate for simplification and reduced business burdens. For some topics, this may be the only chance to provide input before secondary legislation is introduced under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 (PRAM Act). For potentially impacted businesses, now is the time to engage – either to voice support or concern, or propose clarifications.

Headlines of what’s included in the proposals

Getting the basics right

EU alignment: Northern Ireland (NI) will continue to follow certain European Union product safety rules in accordance with the Windsor Framework. The consultation notes that the new UK framework is expected to apply in Great Britain (GB) in a complementary way to EU rules applying in NI, and that UK proposals will “support trade with the EU”, all pointing to some level of EU alignment. However, several proposals envision a different approach to that of the EU – in short, we see the potential here for a level of conflict and confusion.   

Reforms to core framework rules: The first consultation addresses the UK’s product safety framework, proposing reforms to the rules in the UK’s General Product Safety Regulations 2005 (UK GPSR). The UK GPSR acts as a baseline “safety net”, where there are no specific provisions with the same objective in other product safety legislation. This consultation will be followed by reviews of sector-specific legislation (i.e. governing UKCA/CE-marked products) that overlay the core framework, to be carried out over the next three years. Whatever is agreed in the core framework will therefore have far-reaching implications. 

Expanded scope: A key proposal is expanding the UK GPSR beyond consumer products to cover all products, including nonconsumer workplace products, with some exemptions. This is a wider scope than the EU GPSR (focused on consumer products); however, it is not seeking to cover stand-alone software (which EU GPSR does, albeit not expressly within the legislation itself; this is instead confirmed in guidance). As with the EU regime, sector-specific legislation with the same objective would continue to take precedence over the new baseline framework. Arguably, the category of nonconsumer workplace products not already covered by sector-specific legislation is likely to be very narrow. However, the proposals could still affect these products where they introduce new pre-market or post-market obligations not addressed by existing sector-specific regimes.

Updates for new technology products: The proposals include updating the factors relevant for assessing product safety, including cybersecurity and artificial intelligence/machine learning risks – broadly in line with the EU GPSR’s broadened view of “safety”.  

Accountability throughout the supply chain

Reframed supply chain actors bringing online marketplaces into view: The consultation proposes duties for three categories of supply chain actor:

1. “Producers” (UK-based manufacturers/own-branders, UK-authorised representatives, importers, overseas sellers for distance sales direct to UK consumers, and others whose activities affect product risk)
2. “Onward suppliers” (distributors and fulfilment service providers)
3. “Online marketplaces”

For online marketplaces, the proposals include new duties to act with due care to prevent, identify and remove dangerous products, and to practise due diligence to identify and take action against “bad actors” on their platforms. These are framed as high-level, outcomes-based duties – giving marketplaces flexibility in how they comply aligned with their activities and role in the supply chain. The consultation includes nonexhaustive examples of compliance steps but does propose mandating verification of seller contact details. These duties sit alongside other targeted reforms, including requiring online marketplaces to design their interfaces to enable third-party sellers to comply with new mandatory information requirements for online offers.

Additional tools to manage higher-risk products: The consultation proposes additional tools for higher-risk products, including potential verification or pre-listing assurance requirements for onward suppliers (i.e. distributors) and online marketplaces. It also proposes that there be a UK-based responsible person for the GB market, but only for certain high-risk products, e.g. where many of the noncompliant goods in question enter the GB market from abroad. This contrasts with the EU and NI position, which requires an EU responsible person for all nonharmonised products in scope of the EU GPSR and for products under many EU sector-specific rules. The UK approach recognises that requiring a responsible person for all products would not be proportionate. However, the role would be limited to UK-based manufacturers, authorised representatives or UK importers – without the option of using a fulfilment service provider (as is available in the EU).

Post-market monitoring, corrective actions and reporting: The consultation proposes requirements on product safety monitoring and corrective actions for all supply chain actors (producers, onward suppliers and online marketplaces), with the extent of the obligation depending on their respective activities within the supply chain. It also proposes requirements to retain documentation to enable product traceability. Overall, the proposals appear largely to preserve the existing recall and reporting framework, while introducing some additional obligations – notably for online marketplaces. However, the consultation does not provide detail on whether specific reforms introduced under the EU GPSR (for example, in relation to recall remedies) will be taken forward in the UK.

No mention of accident reporting: At this stage, the consultation gives no indication that OPSS intends to follow the EU GPSR approach of introducing a separate general accident reporting obligation (outside of the risk-based obligation to report dangerous products and existing obligations to report certain incidents for specific products, e.g. cosmetics). 

Cooperating with authorities: The consultation proposes extending the statutory duty to cooperate with authorities to all supply chain actors. Online marketplaces may be required to enable access to their interfaces for online tools operated by regulators to identify noncompliant products. The proposals also include requiring producers and online marketplaces to have a single point of contact for authorities, with online marketplaces potentially required to register this contact point.

A new approach to product information

Move towards greater digital and physical labelling flexibilities: The consultation proposes allowing certain product information to be provided digitally instead of physically, as part of a broader push towards “digital by default”. At this stage, the proposals cover the producer’s name and contact details (capturing the UK importer) and even certain safety-relevant information. For UKCA/CE-marked products (governed by sector-specific legislation), the government has announced that separate legislation is planned for later this year to give businesses more flexibility on labelling for products placed on the GB market, including allowing digital labelling for some information – albeit for anyone placing the same products also on the EU and NI markets, digital labelling alone, for the most part, will not be compliant as things currently stand (the EU has been consulting on potential proposals as part of the upcoming European Product Act, largely focussed on moving towards Digital Product Passports).  

New requirements for online offers: The consultation also proposes new mandatory information requirements for online product offers, largely based on the EU GPSR but arguably going further – including compliance markings and “any other information that could inform the purchase of a product”, such as whether a product uses AI or includes AI-driven features.

Building on the new foundations

Consolidating and simplifying the regulatory landscape: Ahead of the sector-specific reviews, the consultation also seeks feedback on provisions in sector-specific legislation that could be simplified, moved to the core framework, delivered through standards, replaced by guidance or removed entirely.

Preparing for products of the future: The consultation focuses on AI components in physical products (excluding AI in its own right). No specific reforms have been proposed at this stage. Instead, the OPSS is seeking feedback to inform future proposals and its upcoming sector-specific reviews about, for example, current or potential harms associated with AI-enabled products, regulating life cycle risks, and how to regulate AI-enabled products and digital innovations while supporting innovation.

Market surveillance and enforcement reform

New enforcement toolkit: The second consultation proposes consolidating and strengthening enforcement and market surveillance powers currently spread across more than 71 pieces of legislation into a single toolkit in one piece of legislation, applicable across all product regulation (UK GPSR and sector-specific legislation).

Expanding available penalties to ramp up enforcement: The existing reliance on criminal sanctions is seen as a blocker to enforcement (due to higher bar and the time and costs to bring criminal proceedings). The consultation proposes introducing civil sanctions, including powers for authorities to directly issue civil monetary penalties, alongside tools like enforcement undertakings (similar to the new enforcement regime under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA)). The OPSS is also considering obligations for companies to admit fault publicly or pay compensation.

In relation to online marketplaces, the OPSS is considering whether additional bespoke enforcement powers are needed, such as powers similar to Online Interface Orders available in the EU and under the UK DMCCA (e.g. directing removal of content, disabling access, displaying warnings or deleting domain names) or requiring certain online marketplaces to have a UK presence (e.g. where they have a high number of UK sales or demonstrated noncompliance or lack of cooperation with authorities).

Other reforms to enhance market surveillance: Proposals include new cost recovery powers for authorities and enhanced information sharing.

What’s next?

Both consultations are open until June 23, 2026. This is an important opportunity for stakeholders to comment on the proposed reforms. After considering stakeholder responses, the government plans to publish its response within 12 weeks and to introduce regulations in Parliament to implement the decisions taken. The government then plans to complete the sector-specific reviews over the next three years.

In addition to the two main consultations, the OPSS has separately published a third consultation on the fire safety of domestic upholstered furniture.

Like to know more?

Get in touch with any member of the Cooley products team to find out more about the OPSS consultations, including how to formulate a submission and how the proposals may impact your products.

1. New pre-contractual information requirements

The ECGT Directive will require traders to provide consumers with additional, new information before a consumer enters into the contract. These new information requirements will apply for both bricks-and-mortar and online sales. There are also new requirements for both physical goods and digital content.

Physical goods

For physical goods (including those with digital elements), the following new information must be provided:

• A notice with a reminder about the legal guarantee of conformity and its main elements, including the minimum duration of two years. This notice must follow the template in Commission Implementing Regulation 2025/1960. There are different formats available for online and bricks-and-mortar sales. For example, for online sales, the notice must look like the one pictured below. For in-store sales, the notice can be in black and white, but must be at least A4 in size:

• If a free commercial warranty is offered lasting more than two years, then a label with information on the commercial warranty must also be provided. This label must also follow the template set by the EU. Again, there are different formats available for online and bricks-and-mortar sales. For example, for online sales, the notice will typically look like the one pictured below, though there is also a version that can be used as a nested display. For in-store sales, the notice can be in black and white. Where it is printed on packaging, it must meet specified dimensions and minimum font sizes.

• The repairability score, where applicable (e.g., this may be imposed by EU ecodesign rules, currently the only product group subject to this requirement being smartphones and tablets).
• Information about the availability and estimated cost of, and how to order, spare parts that are necessary to keep the goods in conformity; the availability of repair and maintenance instructions; and about repair restrictions. This does not create an obligation to offer repairs, spare parts or repair or maintenance instructions. However, if they are offered, and producers make this information available to traders, then it must be provided to consumers. The European Commission Q&A clarifies that this does ‘not mean that the producer-trader is obliged to inform the consumer proactively if a product cannot be repaired’.
• For goods with digital elements, information on the period of time during which software updates will be provided, where that information is available to traders.
• For online sales, information on environmentally friendly delivery options, where these are available.

Digital Goods

For digital goods (including digital content and services, such as apps) the following new information must be provided:

• A reminder of the existence of the legal guarantee of conformity for digital content and digital services. This is the legal guarantee established under the regime in Directive 2019/770. Unlike the requirement for physical goods, there is no harmonized template notice for this “reminder”.

• The minimum period of time during which software updates will be offered.

2. New prohibitions on certain types of claims

The ECGT Directive will ban certain types of claims, including:

• Generic environmental claims like ‘sustainable’, ‘green’ and ‘energy efficient’,unless traders can demonstrate ‘excellent environmental performance’ (e.g., EU Ecolabel, national schemes such as Germany’s Blue Angel, or top energy efficiency Class A under the EU Energy Labelling Regulation) relevant to the claim.

• Environmental claims about an entire product or a trader’s entire business when it only concerns a certain aspect of a product or a specific part of a trader’s business.

• Claiming that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions, such as saying a product is ‘carbon neutral’ or ‘net zero’.

• Presenting minimum legal requirements as a distinctive feature of a trader’s offer. This means that if a trader is required to achieve a certain environmental target by law, e.g., minimum recycled content in plastic packaging, this cannot be presented as if it is a feature of a trader’s offer.

• Misleading claims about the longevity of a product. This includes presenting a software update as necessary when it only enhances functionality; falsely claiming that under normal conditions of use a good has a certain durability in terms of usage time or intensity; presenting a good as allowing repair when it does not; inducing consumers to replace or replenish consumables of a good earlier than necessary; and withholding information concerning functional impairment when consumables, spare parts or accessories from a third party are used, or falsely claiming that such impairment will happen.

3. New rules on sustainability labels – including third-party verification

The ECGT Directive introduces new requirements that impact traders using sustainability labels.Sustainability label is defined to include any trust mark, quality mark or equivalent distinguishing a product or business by virtue of its environmental or social characteristics, e.g., B Corp, Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), Fairtrade and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

From 27 September 2026 onwards, all sustainability labels used in the EU must either be established by a public authority or based on a certification scheme that complies with the ECGT Directive’s requirements. If this is not the case, the sustainability labels can no longer be used by traders in the EU.

Certification schemes underpinning sustainability labels need to meet requirements on transparency, openness and credibility and the trader’s compliance with the certification scheme’s standards must be verified by a third party that is independent from both the scheme owner and the trader.

While in practice compliance requires sustainability certification providers to take action, traders who display the sustainability label or certification remain legally responsible for only displaying sustainability labels based on a compliant certification scheme.

4. New requirements for claims relating to future environmental performance – also including third-party verification

The ECGT Directive bans claims related to future environmental performance, such as claims that a business ‘will become carbon neutral’ or that a product ‘will be made of fully recycled materials in the future’, unless these claims comply with the following:

• The claims are based on clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments;

• The commitments are set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan that includes measurable and time-bound targets and other relevant elements necessary to support its implementation, such as resource allocation;

• The implementation plan is regularly verified by an independent third-party expert; and

• The findings of the independent third-party expert are made available to consumers.

5. Enforcement and implementation

EU Member States are required to adopt national legislation to implement the new rules. There may be differences between different EU Member States in how they implement the ECGT Directive. Germany, for example, applies certain rules on misleading commercial practices to certain B2B transactions. However, the legislative amendment adopted to implement the ECGT Directive into German law expressly limits the requirements for claims about future environmental performance, for example, to B2C contexts.

The ECGT Directive will be enforced by the regulatory authorities of each EU Member State.

Fines for noncompliance can be up to 4% of a trader’s annual turnover in the relevant EU Member State (or more if the relevant EU Member State sets a higher maximum under national law). The relevant consumer laws are also in scope of the EU’s Representative Actions Directive, which allows claimants to bring class-action-style claims in the EU based on noncompliance with these obligations.

With just over six months until the new requirements start to apply, traders operating in the EU are advised to review their websites, product packaging and any other marketing claims for compliance. They should also check their websites and sales flows to make sure that they are compliant with the new consumer information requirements, in particular that they are showing customers the EU harmonised notice and label where required.

Key takeaways:

• Effective 27 September 2026, the EU’s Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive introduces new requirements for traders offering goods and services to consumers in the EU.
• New pre-contractual information requirements will be introduced impacting every retailer in the EU, including an obligation to show customers a harmonised notice as a reminder of the minimum two-year guarantee.
• Certain types of claims will be banned in the EU, including generic claims like ‘sustainable’ and ‘carbon neutral’ claims based on offsets.
• Sustainability labels can only be used if compliance is monitored by an independent third party.
• Claims about future environmental performance trigger obligations to have an underlying implementation plan and commitments that are verified by an independent third party.

If you have any questions, please contact the Cooley EU Products Team.

Global regulator updates

Regulators from around the world shared updates on their current priorities and upcoming initiatives.

Health Canada gave a pre-recorded address reporting on its red tape review, spending reductions and upcoming regulatory changes. These include fragrance allergen disclosure requirements for cosmetics, proposed toy regulation amendments, consultations on furniture tip-overs and button batteries, and a notice of intent on proposed new requirements for lithium-ion batteries and consumer products that contain them.

A speaker from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection provided an overview of US state-level activity, covering PFAS regulations, battery regulations and emerging bills to watch across multiple states.

Regulators from Brazil (INMETRO), Peru (INDECOPI), Chile (SERNAC) and El Salvador – all part of the Organisation of American States’ Consumer Safety and Health Network that comprises 21 active members – shared regional updates. Common themes included challenges with recall effectiveness (e.g., companies failing to sustain follow-up actions over time), manufacturers applying lower safety standards in Latin America than in other regions and the proliferation of unsafe products sold through ecommerce.

Brazil highlighted its use of mobile labs (including X-ray capabilities) and digital approval labels, as well as a dedicated office overseeing ecommerce platforms. Peru reported on recent regulatory changes requiring recalls to be published through mass media channels such as television, along with its cooperation with customs authorities to identify local suppliers and importers of internationally recalled products. Chile is developing a new interpretative circular on recalls to provide suppliers with greater certainty regarding the steps required following a recall notification. El Salvador presented its 2024 product safety reforms, including a 48-hour recall notification requirement and fines of up to $200,000 for violations.

The European Commission reported on plans to reinforce the European Union’s product compliance and market surveillance framework with proposals to revise the New Legislative Framework and Market Surveillance Regulation as part of the upcoming European Product Act (draft legislation expected in Q3 2026). The European Commission is also coordinating surveillance activities, including product testing across EU member states, and undertaking capacity-building initiatives to help national authorities better understand mental health risks. Studies on safety and circularity and on e-vulnerabilities are expected this year. The European Commission is also supporting United Nations Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in developing a handbook and training materials to implement the recent UN resolution on consumer product safety.

The UK Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) outlined its evolving priorities, focusing on new product technologies, new types of harm (including psychological harm or harm caused by digital security breaches) and a new sectoral approach as a regulator. It is developing a support offering for new and innovative businesses, including an innovative product advice center and regulatory sandboxes. A consultation on reforms under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act will be published soon – including ideas to clarify digital distribution responsibilities, explore new approaches to general product safety and introduce enhanced enforcement tools.

Industry keynotes: Trust and collaboration

Three industry leaders delivered keynotes. The first argued that competitors should never compete on safety, calling for safety IP to be open and for companies to share learnings. The second drew on past crisis experience to outline a response framework – plan, communicate, cooperate, fix, exit and feed learnings back – emphasizing that trust is ultimately what is at stake. The third shared her path from quality compliance to company president, encouraging curiosity, a willingness to work outside comfort zones and remembering that quality is everybody’s job.

Looking back and forward: The ‘Eras Tour’ of product safety

A plenary session traced the arc of US product safety from 1972 to the present, highlighting the creation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the shift toward voluntary standards and the landmark 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. The overarching message: Return to basics – collaboration, data, testing and certification – while embracing new tools.

Recalls: Practical frameworks

Two sessions focused on recalls. Key reminders included: Revisit prior risk assessments based on new information, consistently follow your processes, partner with cross-functional teams, don’t await final risk assessments, consider when to engage outside experts and periodically test your process. A separate session debunked five common recall myths, underscoring the value of upfront manufacturer-retailer discussions.

Extended producer responsibility (EPR)

A session unpacked the evolving US EPR landscape, covering requirements across seven states, baseline data collection and managing supplier data gaps, practical implementation steps, design impacts, enforcement risk and where EPR is heading.

AI in product safety

Artificial intelligence is already transforming how manufacturers, retailers and regulators work. Applications include computer vision on assembly lines, device telemetry analysis, multimodal analysis of warranty claims, customer support data and social media, as well as bespoke compliance-checking tools. The UK’s OPSS is focused on leveraging AI to drive efficiency gains – improving data gathering and analysis. The panel emphasized the importance of maintaining a human in the loop, with AI augmenting – not replacing – expert judgment.

Older adults: An overlooked group

A session highlighted older adults as an increasingly vulnerable and under-recognized group in product safety – not a niche concern, but a global-scale issue. Australia is undertaking a major project to close existing data gaps.

Consumer education and catalyzing change

Several sessions emphasized the importance of plain language, simple and consistent messaging, and the power of personal stories to educate consumers. Speakers also highlighted that cross-stakeholder collaboration enables the best possible education, engineering and evidence to drive systemic change.

Breakout sessions

More than 20 breakout sessions covered topics ranging from risk assessment harmonization and Internet of Things cybersecurity to right to repair and digital accessibility, plus an “Ask Us Anything” session moderated by Cooley’s Matt Howsare, where attendees drove the conversation.

What’s next?

Mark your calendars: The ICPHSO 2026 North America Product Safety Training Workshop is taking place June 18, 2026, and will be hosted by Lowe’s Corporation in Mooresville, North Carolina. The ICPHSO 2026 International Symposium is taking place September 9 and 10, 2026, in Brussels, held in conjunction with the European Commission’s International Product Safety Week, from September 7 – 10, 2026. Visit the ICPHSO website for further details.

ICPHSO is an international, neutral forum for product safety stakeholders to learn, network and share information. It typically hosts three types of events each year – an annual symposium in the US, an annual international symposium outside the US and regional training workshops based in North America. Cooley is a major sponsor of ICPHSO, and partner Rod Freeman serves as vice president on the ICPHSO executive board of directors.

Multinational companies should monitor cross-border implications, especially in light of other evolving regimes like the EU AI Act and the proposed Digital Omnibus on AI, which will impact businesses’ AI compliance roadmaps.

Read Cooley’s full article on the Executive Order.

It’s been a year since the European Union’s (EU) General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) started to apply. While some aspects of the regulation have settled into practice, others remain open to interpretation, and the landscape continues to shift.

In the session, we’ll take stock of where things stand for businesses selling consumer products in or into the EU. We’ll focus on what’s clear, what’s less clear, and some implementation and enforcement trends.

Topics will include:

• What’s been clarified over the past year
• How regulators are approaching enforcement and where they’re focusing
• Key compliance challenges for manufacturers, importers, distributors and marketplaces
• Divergence between EU and UK regimes and what it means in practice
• What businesses should be preparing for in 2026

This is a practical, business-focused briefing designed to help legal, compliance and commercial teams stay ahead of developments and manage risk across their product portfolios.

Register your attendance here.

The targeted amendments have important implications for businesses that place, put into service and/or use AI systems in the EU, as well as for product manufacturers that integrate AI systems into their hardware products.

Read the full article on the Digital Omnibus on AI and explore key changes and simplification measures, including what they mean for businesses’ AI compliance roadmaps.

Scope: The GPSR applies in full to consumer products that are not already subject to EU harmonisation legislation (i.e. non-CE marked products) and covers gaps in product safety regulation for consumer products subject to certain EU harmonisation legislation (i.e. CE marked products). The new rules for product recalls and corrective actions under the GPSR apply to all consumer products in scope of the GPSR, including consumer products regulated by EU harmonisation legislation (to the extent that the sector-specific legislation does not provide for its own obligations related to product recalls and corrective actions).

What are the changes for product recalls and corrective actions?

Notifying authorities: Before the GPSR, companies could discharge their obligation to inform national authorities about dangerous products using the business-facing portal of the Safety Gate system (Business Gateway). While there was scope for companies to inform national authorities via other means, in practice, many opted to use Safety Gate. Under the GPSR, however, it is now mandatory to use the business-facing portal of the Safety Gate system (renamed the Safety Business Gateway). Whilst many will be familiar with the Safety Gate system, care should be taken as the online form has changed and is also the same form used to report accidents under the GPSR.

New post-market risk assessment methodology: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3173 establishes a new risk assessment methodology for EU member states to use in support of notifications they make via Safety Gate. The new methodology combines the risk assessment guidelines from both:

• Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/417, laying down guidelines for the management of the European Union Rapid Information System.
• The EU general risk assessment methodology for harmonised products (i.e. many CE-marked products) that covers broader categories of risks.

The new methodology also introduces several changes. One concern for companies has been that the new methodology expands the list of cases that can be deemed to present a serious risk without the need for national authorities to conduct a risk assessment. This builds on a handful of examples under the former risk assessment methodology, which mainly involved chemicals and certain risks associated with children’s products. However, the new list is much broader and includes the following scenarios (among others):

• There is well-documented evidence that certain features of the product consistently lead to a serious risk – with the addition of electrical products with defective components that can lead to electric shock or fire.
• The product has been subject to a recall, withdrawal or removal of online content based on voluntary measures of economic operators or providers of online marketplaces.

The European Commission has clarified in a Q&A document that the presumption of serious risk without the need for a risk assessment under the first bullet point above is a rebuttable presumption. There is scope for national authorities to consider information provided by a manufacturer or importer that a product presents a less-than-serious risk.

In relation to the presumption for products subject to a recall, withdrawal or removal of online content based on the voluntary measures of online marketplaces, the European Commission clarified in its Q&A document that this presumption is applicable where this action constitutes ‘corrective measures, taken in relation to dangerous products and products posing other public interests as regards products covered by the Union harmonisation legislation’. Where the product recall, withdrawal or removal of online content was decided by an economic operator or a provider of an online marketplace for any reason other than these risks, e.g. ‘such as mere commercial reasons’, the presumption of serious risk should not apply.

Communication and advertising: The GPSR introduces a new express obligation to directly notify all affected consumers that can be identified ‘without undue delay’, making use of personal data collected. If not all affected consumers can be contacted directly, companies will be required to disseminate the recall notice using alternative channels such as their website, social media, newsletters, retail outlets and media announcements. This information should be accessible to persons with disabilities.

Recall notices: The GPSR introduces a new obligation to use a recall notice when communicating with consumers in writing and lays down requirements for what the recall notice needs to contain. This includes certain information about the product, the hazard, the actions consumers should take and the recall remedies available. Certain terms that may decrease a consumer’s perception of risk are prohibited, such as ‘voluntary’, ‘precautionary’, ‘discretionary’, ‘in rare/specific situations’ or statements indicating that there have been no reported accidents.

The European Commission has provided a template recall notice in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1435, with subsequent corrections published in July 2024. The Commission clarified in a Q&A document that, whilst use of this template is recommended, use of the template itself is not mandatory. Another format for the recall notice that satisfies the requirements listed in the GPSR can be used. 

Recall remedies: The GPSR introduces new requirements surrounding recall remedies. This includes offering consumers a choice of at least two remedies from repair, replacement or refund. However, there is some flexibility for only one remedy to be offered in certain cases where other remedies would be impossible or disproportionate. The GPSR also lays down rules surrounding asking consumers to repair products themselves, asking consumers to dispose of products, who is to bear the costs of returning a product and the collection of nonportable products.   

New obligations on online marketplaces: The GPSR introduces new obligations for online marketplaces, including reporting dangerous products via the business-facing portal of Safety Gate, directly notifying affected consumers who purchased a product through their interfaces about recalls and publishing recall information on their online interfaces.

What’s next?

The European Commission is yet to publish its formal guidance on the GPSR, with tentative indications that this may possibly be published on 19 November 2025.

Companies that supply products to the EU should ensure that they understand the new requirements and review and update their internal recall plans.

Like to know more?

Get in touch with any member of the Cooley products team to find out more about the new rules under the GPSR and how they may impact your products.

This is the fourth in a blog series where the Cooley products team explores the new rules under the GPSR. See the first post in the series, ‘What’s New?’, along with the second post, ‘An Expanded Concept of Safety’, and third post, ‘New Accident Reporting Obligations’.

These requirements were originally due to apply from 18 August 2025, but the European Commission extended this date by two years, to 18 August 2027.

If you are wondering whether the Batteries Regulation applies to your products, please see Part 1 of our series.

Who is in scope?

The battery due diligence obligations apply to manufacturers or importers placing batteries on the EU market, where their net turnover (or the net turnover of their group) is at least 40 million euros in the financial year preceding the last financial year. There is currently a European Commission proposal to increase this turnover threshold to 150 million euros. This proposal is part of a larger package of reforms and is currently still under negotiation.

The obligations apply to economic operators responsible for placing both stand-alone batteries and batteries that are incorporated into products on the EU market. This means that manufacturers and importers will be responsible for compliance with these requirements where they place batteries on the EU market, even where their batteries were originally sourced from a third party outside the EU.

What are the new requirements?

From 18 August 2027, companies in scope must implement a comprehensive battery due diligence system covering the following pillars:

1.     Battery due diligence policy (DDP)

Businesses must adopt a corporate battery DDP addressing the sourcing of cobalt, lithium, nickel, natural graphite and related compounds. The policy must identify social and environmental risks and align with international standards. The battery DDP must also be verified by a notified body, and compliance must be audited annually.

2.     Update supplier contracts

Supplier contracts must incorporate both the company’s battery DDP and its risk management measures. In practice, this means that most businesses will need to take steps to amend their existing contracts now, so the new measures are incorporated for the compliance deadline.

3.     Traceability system

Companies are also required to establish a system of controls and transparency over their supply chain, including a chain of custody or traceability system which identifies upstream actors in the battery supply chain. In practice, this can take some time to put in place, given many companies’ limited visibility over their supply chains beyond their direct suppliers.

The traceability system must be supported by documentation that provides at least the following information:

• A description of the raw material, including its trade name and type.
• The name and address of the supplier that supplied the raw material to the economic operator that places the batteries on the market.
• The country of origin of the raw material and the market transactions from the raw material’s extraction to the immediate supplier to the economic operator placing the battery on the market.
• The quantity of the raw material present in the battery, expressed in percentage or weight.
• Third-party verification reports issued by a notified body, or if these are not available and the raw material originates from a conflict-affected and high-risk area, additional information as set out in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas.

For many businesses, this will require greater scrutiny over their supply chains, particularly for those purchasing batteries from third parties before incorporating them into products.

4.     Oversight responsibility with top management level

Businesses must establish a risk management system that assigns responsibility for overseeing the battery DDP to the company’s ‘top management level’. The company must also report the findings of its risk assessment to the top management level. Generally, we see companies setting this up by establishing a committee that includes senior management.

5.     Due diligence and risk management

Businesses must conduct a risk assessment to establish whether there are any adverse impacts in their battery supply chain associated with the risk categories listed in Annex X (which includes environmental impacts, human rights and community life, including that of Indigenous people).

Following this assessment, businesses are required to develop a risk management plan which includes a strategy to address the identified risks – including mitigation, supplier engagement and escalation – with the findings being reported to top level management. Companies are expected to keep this plan under review, and it should be adapted when any new risks are identified.

6.     Grievance mechanism

There is also a requirement for the company’s due diligence system to integrate grievance and remediation mechanisms aligned with the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

7.     Annual Closure

Annually, businesses must publish a report on a free-to-access website which must include data and information on steps taken to comply with the due diligence requirements, any significant adverse impacts in identified risk categories and how these have been addressed. The report must also include a summary of the third-party audit carried out regarding the business’ compliance with its battery DDP.

The first report will likely need to be published by 18 August 2028.

8.     Record-keeping and audits

Documentation, including audit and verification reports, must be retained for 10 years after the last battery covered by the battery DDP is placed on the market.

Compliance with all the requirements mentioned in this blog post must be audited periodicallyby a notified body.

How can companies get support with compliance?

Businesses can join a recognised scheme to support their compliance programs but will remain individually liable for compliance. This means that while schemes can support compliance, ultimately it will be up to each company to make sure they have a compliant policy and process, do the audit on time and keep the necessary documentation. At the time of writing this post, no due diligence schemes have been recognised by the European Commission. Once a scheme has been recognised, it will be recorded in a public register maintained by the European Commission. 

The European Commission is required to adopt guidelines to support the due diligence obligations by 27 July 2026.

What should my business do next?

The Batteries Regulation applies in addition to other EU due diligence laws, such as the Conflict Minerals Regulation, Critical Raw Materials Act and the upcoming Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Businesses are advised to approach their EU supply chain diligence compliance holistically, since it may be possible to leverage compliance with other due diligence laws that also apply to them. 

Concretely, we recommend that companies:

• Review existing supply chain policies and update for EU Batteries Regulation compliance or create a new battery DDP.
• Review and update contracts with battery suppliers to integrate the battery DDP and risk management processes.
• Update governance processes and assign oversight responsibility to top management.
• Put in place a traceability system for the battery supply chain. 
• Start doing due diligence on the company’s battery supply chains to assess environmental and/or human rights risks, and document processes.
• Engage a notified body for the audit once they are designated by the European Commission.

Stay tuned for Part 5 of our ‘Battery Shorts’ series, which will cover the new removability and replaceability requirements in the Batteries Regulation.

The NLF (Decision No 768/2008/EC and Regulation (EC) No 765/2008) sets out the template for rules governing CE-marked products in the EU. There are 30 legal acts aligned to the NLF template – so a revision to the NLF would have a broad impact. The aim of the revision is to boost harmonisation, cut regulatory burdens and leverage digital tools to improve compliance and safety.

The call for evidence outlines the potential legislative options being explored by the European Commission. These range from targeted amendments, through to comprehensive revisions, including amendments to the NLF and product harmonisation legislation to:

• Introduce mandatory DPPs, which would be a digital record of a product’s compliance and supply chain information.
• Revise conformity assessment processes.
• Align definitions with other EU legislation, such as the Market Surveillance Regulation (EU) 2019/1020.
• Address certain practices of notified bodies and strengthen oversight of notified bodies.
• Ensure timely and consistent responses to noncompliant and dangerous products across Member States.

The European Commission previously outlined its ambitions to progressively roll out DPPs to become the main tool for disclosing and sharing product information across all new and revised EU product legislation using the proposed revision of the NLF in its Single Market Strategy in May 2025. This would build on the framework for DPPs currently being established under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 (ESPR), where requirements for DPPs will be laid down for specific product groups, such as textiles, by future delegated acts made under the ESPR. There are also requirements for DPPs for certain products included in recently revised rules – such as the provisional agreement for the new Toy Safety Regulation, the new Construction Products Regulation (EU) 2024/3110, and for certain large batteries under the Batteries Regulation (EU) 2023/1542.

We don’t know yet how quickly the European Commission plans to roll out the expansion of DPPs under the NLF revision. If future requirements for a DPP are progressively added to existing pieces of product harmonisation legislation as those rules come up for review, or when new product harmonisation rules are made, this would result in a much slower rollout. Alternatively, if proposed amendments introducing requirements for DPPs across a number of pieces of product harmonisation legislation are contained in an omnibus proposal presented at the same time as the amendments to the NLF template legislation, this process could be much faster – and we could see widespread adoption of DPPs in the next few years.  

The revision of the NLF builds on the shorter-term simplification measures proposed in the Omnibus IV package of draft legislation presented in May 2025 and currently working its way through the EU legislative process. The Omnibus IV proposals include amendments to 20 pieces of EU harmonised product legislation for CE-marked products and seek to introduce digital Declarations of Conformity (DoCs) and flexibility to provide digital instructions for use, and empower the European Commission to adopt common specifications to fill the gap where harmonised standards are not yet in place. The Omnibus IV proposals would require the DoC and instructions be provided on a DPP, where a product is required to have a DPP under EU law.

Whilst one of the focuses of the Omnibus IV proposals is to reduce administrative burdens, in practice, we consider that there is a real risk that they will have the opposite effect. For example, the proposals include new obligations that may mean changes will need to be made to hardcopy labelling, in-box materials, digital instructions and DoCs – potentially increasing burdens and costs in the short term. Similarly, whilst we are aware of widespread industry support for e-labelling, if the NLF revisions mandate much wider adoption of DPPs, this will increase burdens for businesses in the short term, which will need to digitalise product compliance documentation for existing products.

A public consultation for the proposed revision of the NLF is planned for Q4 2025. Draft legislation is expected to be presented around Q3 2026, as part of the proposed European Product Act announced in the European Commission’s 2026 work programme. We will continue to blog updates on this topic on Productwise.

This year’s international symposium was held in London with a record attendance of nearly 370 delegates from more than 30 countries – including representatives of regulators, manufacturers, retailers, online marketplaces, testing laboratories, consumer organisations, law firms, standards organisations and academia. Cooley’s Rod Freeman, vice president of ICPHSO, served as the planning chair for the program, working alongside the planning committee of volunteer ICPHSO members.

Sarah Smith, deputy chief executive at the OPSS, opened the conference, providing a snapshot of product safety opportunities, as well as the challenges OPSS is seeing. We heard about the recently passed Product Regulation and Metrology Act (PRAM Act), a framework piece of legislation that gives the UK government powers to reform UK product safety laws via secondary legislation and represents one of the biggest product safety legislative reforms in the UK in the last 40 years. A consultation on using these new powers is expected before the end of the year. We also heard about OPSS’s continued focus on online marketplaces, new technologies (in consumer products, those used for compliance, e.g. by online marketplaces, and how the civil service can use artificial intelligence), and the broader priority of the UK government to simplify and reduce administrative burdens for businesses.

The first keynote was a fireside chat with former US Attorney General Eric Holder. This discussion offered insights into how companies can strengthen trust and resilience while navigating fast-evolving global product safety and compliance obligations. Key takeaways included the importance of a truly effective compliance program, being aware of legal requirements and building relationships with regulators in other jurisdictions, and the importance of diversity, equity and inclusion.

Arnau Izaguerri Vila, legal officer at UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), also delivered a keynote focusing on UNCTAD’s work, including the recently adopted UN Principles for Consumer Product Safety that will now go before the UN General Assembly in December 2025. This is the first globally agreed framework for product safety and an important step to improve product safety for consumers worldwide.

The “Global Regulator Update” featured speakers from the European Commission, OPSS, Health Canada and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), who spoke about their priorities, what has been keeping them busy and what gives them hope for the future. Some common themes emerged, including a continued focus on online marketplaces, lithium-ion batteries (particularly for e-bikes), and button and coin cell batteries, as well as priorities to promote competitiveness and growth within their respective economies. We also heard that the guidance on the European Union General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) has been translated and may be published in the next month.  

The first plenary, “AI-Improving Compliance from Differing Lenses”, featured perspectives from academia, testing and a regulator. We heard about the possibilities of using AI to assess potential product safety issues, and how the European Commission is using AI both to search on a greater scale than ever for the online sale of products already covered by safety alerts and to proactively identify new safety trends and issues at an early stage before they escalate.

“Product Safety in Latin America: Regional Challenges, a Call for Focused Attention, and the Urgency of Harmonizing Regulation and Market Surveillance” explored the product safety landscape in Latin America. Despite market challenges, including fragmented regulations, limited enforcement and the widespread presence of informal markets, the panel explored encouraging signs of progress. Regional cooperation is gaining momentum, aiming to raise safety standards while easing compliance for businesses. The panel highlighted that these efforts are increasingly international, with Latin American regulators drawing on product safety data from other jurisdictions and the EU’s harmonised approach noted as a potential model for future regional alignment in Latin America.

“Regulation Hokey Cokey!”, moderated by Cooley’s Claire Temple, explored the rapid pace of change in the product regulatory landscape, including new regulation, deregulation and simplification. The session noted how it is more challenging for companies than ever before to stay on top of developments. Steps that can be taken include horizon-spotting, educating internal stakeholders and creating contingency plans in anticipation of change.

In “Market-Driving Sustainability: Ensuring Product Safety in a Circular Economy”, we heard how industry continues to drive a shift to more sustainable products. However, improving sustainability without considering product safety can create risks for consumers. The panel shared how suppliers, standards bodies and testing organisations are adapting to new realities – including the rise of third-party remanufacturing and increased use of recycled materials. To manage these changes, they emphasised the importance of increased testing, closer collaboration across supply chains and product chains of custody.

“Navigating Obligations Under the New Packaging Regulation” explored new rules coming into application across the EU. We heard about the shift to a full life cycle approach, examples of steps companies can take to achieve compliance and the requirements that are most challenging for different actors.

 “Disruption: Maintaining Safety and Compliance When Geopolitics Disrupt Your Supply Chains” explored how disruptions to supply chains can affect businesses and ways to maintain product safety and compliance. One key takeaway was the importance of stress-testing continuity plans.

“Collaborative Solutions for Ensuring Product Safety in Third-Party Online Marketplaces”, led by Consumer Reports, brought together representatives from Which?, Amazon and OPSS. The panel discussed ways they have engaged in collaborative dialogue to develop innovative strategies for enhancing consumer protection in the evolving digital marketplace.

“Intersection of Consumer Product Safety and Mental Health” explored the topical issue of mental health following reforms made by the EU GPSR. One takeaway was the data gap that currently exists on the prevalence of mental health harms. A representative from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) took attendees through some of the findings from a study on products that incorporate digital aspects, including mental health considerations not yet published.

The conference also featured shorter, rapid-style sessions covering risk assessments under the EU’s new GPSR, the digital safety landscape, a guide to button battery standards worldwide, data-driven sustainability and apprehending product safety in the era of the new EU Product Liability Directive. One stand-out rapid session was “The Recall Loophole: How Fraudsters Game the System – and What It Costs Us”, which explored how fraud is reshaping recall dynamics, how this affects consumers, and some of the ways to tackle this issue without putting undue burdens on honest consumers.

One important role ICPHSO plays is to train and mentor the next generation of product safety professionals. At the end of the conference, we heard from the students who took part in the International Student Mentorship Program, who shared how they found the event.

This year’s event was also held in collaboration with the UK charity Electrical Safety First (ESF). Many attendees stayed on to attend ESF’s annualElectrical Product Safety Conference 2025, which followed on 16 October at the same venue.

ICPHSO is an international, neutral forum for product safety stakeholders to learn, network and share information. It typically hosts three types of events each year – an annual symposium in the US, an annual international symposium outside the US and regional training workshops based in North America. The next ICPHSO in-person event will be the 2026 Annual Meeting and Training Symposium taking place February 23 – 26, 2026, in Orlando, Florida. Visit the ICPHSO website for more information.

Online marketplaces and ecommerce now dominate the modern world of B2C transactions. But what does that mean in terms litigation risk – be that regulatory litigation or consumer / commercial litigation? And which areas present the highest risk for businesses operating in this industry?

In this webinar, we’ll take a look at what’s changing for online marketplaces and ecommerce in terms of regulatory obligations, consumer rights, and what it means for businesses and legal teams working in the digital space in terms of litigation risk. We’ll help unpack the latest legal developments across the EU and UK.

Tuesday, 15 July 2025 – 4:30-5:30pm BST

Register now.

CLE credit
Attendees may earn up to 1.0 CLE credit for participating in this live webinar.
Credit will not be granted for on-demand viewing.
Cooley LLP is an approved provider and will provide credit in CA, CO, IL, NY, PA and TX.
Cooley LLP is a sponsor and will apply for credit in FL, OH, VA and WA.
Credit in other jurisdictions may be available via reciprocity.
If you have specific CLE credit questions, please contact Cooley’s CLE team.

If you are wondering whether the Batteries Regulation applies to your products, please see Part 1 of our series. For information on conformity assessment and CE marking, please see Part 2 of our series.

Substance restrictions

The Batteries Regulation incorporates restrictions on mercury and cadmium which are included in the EU’s existing Batteries Directive. It also introduces a new restriction on lead.

The restrictions are as follows:

• All batteries must not contain more than 0.0005% of mercury by weight.
• Portable batteries must not contain more than 0.002% of cadmium by weight.
• Portable batteries must not contain more than 0.01% of lead by weight.

These requirements have applied since 18 August 2024, save for the lead restriction on portable zinc-air button cells, which does not apply until 18 August 2028.

Manufacturers of portable batteries and products containing batteries must ensure their batteries comply with these restrictions.

The European Commission has powers to add further substance restrictions in the future.

Labelling of restricted substances

The Batteries Regulation introduces several new labelling requirements, which will be summarised in a later instalment of our series. At this stage, we flag that all batteries containing more than 0.002% of cadmium or 0.004% of lead must be labelled with the chemical symbol for the relevant metal.

Where it is not possible to mark this information on the battery itself, it can be provided on packaging or accompanying documentation.

Stay tuned for Part 4 of our ‘Battery Shorts’ series, which will summarise the new supply chain diligence requirements applicable from 18 August 2025.

If you are wondering whether the Batteries Regulation applies to your products, please see Part 1 of our series.

Conformity assessment and CE marking

Many product manufacturers will be familiar with the EU conformity assessment process if they sell CE marked products. For the first time, the Batteries Regulation introduces a requirement to conduct a specific EU conformity assessment for the battery, in order to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Batteries Regulation.

Manufacturers need to:

• Draw up technical documentation and a Declaration of Conformity (DoC) for their batteries, which can be combined with the DoC for products containing batteries. When it comes to evidence of compliance, if manufacturers apply harmonised standards or common specifications laid down in an implementing act (where these exist), this gives rise to a presumption of conformity.
• Establish procedures to ensure conformity of products containing batteries as part of series production.
• Retain technical documentation and the DoC for 10 years after the last battery has been placed on the market.
• Apply the CE mark on batteries. The CE mark should be affixed visibly, legibly and indelibly to the battery itself. Where this is not possible or not warranted due to the nature of the battery, it should instead be affixed to packaging and accompanying documentation. Where notified body involvement is required, the notified body number should be affixed next to the CE mark.

Can I rely on my third-party battery supplier to comply with these requirements and draw up the necessary documentation?

Many product manufacturers will be purchasing batteries from third-party suppliers. However, the manufacturer of the finished product remains legally responsible for compliance of the product as a whole, including the battery.

Where manufacturers rely on documentation provided by a third-party battery supplier as part of their evidence of conformity, they should ensure that they have taken steps to verify the accuracy and completeness of the technical documentation and put in place appropriate contractual protections in the supplier agreement. A manufacturer of a product containing a battery will need to draw up and sign its own DoC, though it may be possible to rely on a third-party battery supplier’s compliance documentation in support of this.

If you have any questions about the conformity assessment procedure, or other requirements under the Batteries Regulation, please reach out to your usual Cooley contacts.

Stay tuned for Part 3 of our Productwise Battery Shorts series, which will summarise the new substance restrictions in the Batteries Regulation.

Plenary session 11 featured speakers from Whirlpool and Exponent.

The panel discussed the components of a successful product safety compliance program (PSCP) – compliance, communication, culture and continuity. They provided their insights on how a company can implement or strengthen its existing PSCP in an effort to maximise the safety of its products and better withstand government scrutiny.

Below are some key takeaways and insights from the panel on the four Cs of company PSCPs:

1. Compliance

Companies should not just ensure that they are compliant with applicable laws and regulations, but also consider and comply with internal company rules and practices.  

During the production phase, companies should take into account a number of considerations including in respect of the equipment that is selected for production, whether it is being maintained and calibrated, whether there is adequate quality control, and whether all the data from any testing being carried out is being captured and uploaded to systems and databases to allow for traceability.

2. Communication

The panel discussed effective methods of communicating product safety compliance issues both internally and to consumers. Ad hoc communications are important, but the panel emphasised the importance of having defined processes in place to ensure that reactive communications can take place when issues arise. For example, is there a mechanism for whistleblowers to report anonymously if they become aware of a product compliance issue?

3. Culture

The panel discussed how corporate culture is important as it informs the beliefs and practices concerning product compliance. They noted the importance of integrating safety into the culture of the company so that all stakeholders can take decisions effectively during a crisis. Examples on how this can achieved include mission statements, training on safety campaigns and opening meetings with safety-related discussions.

4. Continuity

Finally, the panel noted that internal procedures should be updated on a regular basis so that the PSCP can deal with new challenges, such as artificial intelligence, and ensure continuous improvement.

The Cooley products team will be posting highlights from other plenary panel sessions on our blog throughout the event. 

Key contacts:

• Anushi Amin
• Jamie Humphreys

This panel session featured a regulator, a retailer, a consumer advocate (the president and founder of Reese’s Purpose), and our very own Lissie Ng, a Cooley associate.

The panel gave us insight into what happens when a product safety hazard is addressed via a product safety requirement – a law that must be implemented and followed by industry. The relatively recent enactment of Reese’s Law (dealing with button cell/coin batteries) has done just that.

The ingestion of button cell batteries by children can lead to death or serious injury, and the panellist from Reese’s Purpose spoke movingly about the death of her daughter, Reese. Following her advocacy, Reese’s law was introduced, presenting the following requirements for consumer products containing or designed to use button cell or coin batteries:

• Battery compartments containing replaceable button cell or coin batteries must be secured such that they require the use of a tool or at least two independent and simultaneous hand movements to open.
• Button cell or coin battery compartments must not allow such batteries to be accessed or liberated as a result of use and abuse testing.
• The packaging for the overall product must bear a warning.
• The product itself must bear a warning, if practicable.
• Accompanying instructions and manuals must include all of the applicable warnings.

The panel focussed on issues faced by industry stakeholders when managing a fast-tracked implementation of product safety law. A key tension emerged – timing.

• The longer it takes to enact a new product safety law, the longer consumers (in this case, children, one of the most vulnerable consumer groups) are at risk.
• Manufacturers, retailers and testing labs, on the other hand, have to manage complex implementation procedures in a compressed time frame. Businesses want to ensure compliance, but high-quality procedures take time.

Industry stakeholders can help manage this process by:

• Keeping open lines of communication with regulators, experts and advisors, allowing companies to pivot easily as the requirements evolve through the drafting/implementation process.
• Acting early – Don’t wait until the last minute to determine whether implementation will impact your business, or you could end up facing a last-minute scramble to comply. Feedback from companies that complied with Reese’s Law noted that monitoring developments early and often led to a smoother compliance path.
• If you are uncertain on the requirements – ask for help. There is no ‘one size fits all’ in this process.

The Cooley products team will be posting highlights from other plenary panel sessions on our blog throughout the event.

Key contacts:

• Jamie Humphreys
• Harriet Jones

Plenary session 8: ‘Women in Product Safety Leadership’ featured speakers from the Toy Association, Exponent, Safe Kids Worldwide, GE Appliances and the legal industry.

The panel gave attendees an opportunity to hear from five women who have been in the product safety space for a number of years and took leadership roles in their respective fields. The panel described both the challenges and opportunities facing women in product safety – across engineering, advocacy and policy.

For first-time attendees, particularly those just starting out in their careers, the panel offered a unique opportunity to hear more about different paths in product safety, from a diverse group of industry representatives.

Some particularly interesting discussions were had around:

• The importance of role models, particularly for individuals from less-represented backgrounds. Sponsoring someone else’s success is the best gift leaders can give to their teams, or anyone starting out in the product safety world.

• What makes a good leader, with the panel agreeing that authenticity, listening and trust are the key qualities people who want to become leaders should look to develop. Together, these assets empower teams to act, and to work together for the best outcomes.

• Building a ‘trusted advisor’ role, whether that is backed by science or by knowledge of other similar scenarios in the market. This inspires confidence with both internal and external teams and is the ‘gold standard’ of a leader.

• The child safety industry, particularly how it is adapting to new ways of information being shared on children’s products. This presents a great opportunity for advocacy groups to educate parents on child safety, particularly in areas like car seat safety.

The Cooley products team are posting highlights from other plenary panel sessions on our blog throughout the event, which concludes today.

Key contacts:

• Emma Bichet
• Julia Greaves