Think of a car that may have 3 years warranty but a service life of maybe 10 or more years.
In some EU countries the law mandates that manufacturers clearly state the warranty period and the average service life (where you can use the product reasonably within the original parameters). So the manufacturer must be able to fix/replace (not necessarily for free) the product if hidden flaws caused it to fail within the average lifetime period. This means only manufacturers who are certain their product is up to the task will declare a longer life and charge a premium but also guarantee that period of support.
Most products have warranties that are far shorter than their expected service life. Clothes may have as little as 30 days warranty but the reasonable expectation is for a far longer expected lifetime.
If my kettle has a warranty and breaks down, it's on the manufacturer. If it's only within the design lifetime? What if 10% don't last the design lifetime, wheres the cut off if relevant? If I buy a kettle that lasts the design lifetime, but is deemed not to for the purposes of the law, do I get compensated?
These are genuine questions, I am in favour of publishing this kind of information, it occurs to me that poorly thought out rules would be useless though.
Depending on the law some EU countries already expect the manufacturer to be able to fix or replace products that failed due to hidden defects within the average service life. So a manufacturer has a vested interest in declaring realistic figures because they are expected to support them. The "1000 year kettle" would have to have spare parts available for the period.
It's really funny to see the backlash on demanding such a basic premise of capitalism as information transparency in a forum like this.
Chapter?
But my point is, what is lying? If a kettle is designed to last 10 years, it's reasonable to expect that 100% won't last that long, so what percentage should we reasonably allow to break in that time, 10%? 20%? 50%?. If the manufacturer was found to be lying, do I with my still working kettle get compensated?
And your answer raises other concerns, who is this consumer advocacy group that's going to lead this? Is it reasonable to assume some proportion of people are going to direct their complaints there? This to me doesn't seem like an easy thing to police at all.
If there's reasonable doubt (ie a large number of complaints about the kettle failing), the manufacturer has to provide sales statistics and test results and will be judged accordingly. As for the consumer advocacy groups: it's pretty standard in Europe to have these (and they are the only ones to initiate something like class-action). As for the metrics: everything is measured, I'm sure, we can come up with a sensible metric?!
And parallel to that there are also companies adverting their 10,15 or 25 year warranty[1]. Now you can choose who you want to give your money to.
That being said I have no problem per se with forcing companies to offer long warranties.
[1] a further thing to look at is of course what these warranties actually cover and how likely you are to actually get help when your appliance breaks 17 years after you buy it. A 25 year warranty is useless (and should probably be illegal to advertise) if it's so full of loopholes and caveats that no one can practically make any claims against it.
What products that have extended warranties usually have in common is that they are expensive and represent significant investments for the average buyer. If you buy a car, a fridge, a washing machines, etc, you want a guarantee that you will be able to amortise that investment over as long a time as possible.
No one stops a manufacturer from offering a product with a 5 year warranty, and in fact they do. Shop for products made for businesses and you will find 5 year warranties. However, they cost much more, and consumers are choosing not to pay more for the products with 5 year warranties, and instead choosing to go with the 1 year warranty.
Miele was known for making very durable products, however, even they over the years had to acknowledge that consumers were opting to purchase cheaper products from competitors, so they had to do the same to stay in business.
[1] Unless you have some reason to believe the insurance is priced too low.
Insurance is usually provided by a regulated entity and implicitly backed by the government in the even that the insurer fails. Their regulators also provide redress for consumers against unfair treatment without the need to resort to the courts and the terms usually have to be fair too.
Warranties are typically provided by the vendor who may well be financially unsound and willing to treat a customer less fairly, contain significant legal loopholes and require redress through the courts or perhaps a binding arbitration tribunal.
And most machines probably do work for many years, just not sufficiently enough to offer a longer warranty. Which is fine for most homes, since you're not running a mission critical operation and a few days to pick out a new washer isn't going to kill you. A business that needs machines to work might find it worth shelling out more for a quality product that rarely quits or can be fixed on site.