I will discuss the situation in Poland below, as I find the details not so important for this thread. In here I only suggest Fflint to not buy at such sellers.
The main consequence may be, as always, malicious conformance. Some producers may choose to hold consumers hostage to change the law, or to retaliate without a particular purpose by harming consumers as much as they can. Another option is using intentional misinterpretations or ambiguities as an excuse for abuse. But both of these may happen with any law: it’s not specific to this one.
I suppose there may be some consequences regarding new technologies. For any limit imposed by law usually there are some edge cases, which it unintentionally covers, because of either an omission or inability to predict the future. But we can’t stop making laws for this reason, as either the entire legal system would get paralyzed or there would be massive loopholes present. The current approach is to adjust laws when needed. It’s imperfect, but it’s not always possible to get a perfect solution.
Finally, one can easily devise situations falling under the regulation and technically being intentionally covered by it, but in practice raising questions reagarding sanity. The “kid sold 20 bottles of soda and did not pay taxes” situations.
Situation in Poland:
Polish law regulating collection and disposal of batteries is “Ustawa z dn. 24 kwietnia 2009 r. o bateriach i akumulatorach”. It’s indeed implementing EUParl’s 2006/66/EC, but this is a
directive, not a regulation, and is neither requiring nor suggesting implementing the scheme Fflint mentioned.
The Polish regulation requires the seller to take a 30zł ($7 now) deposit on each
car battery they sell. The deposit is returned, if the buyer returns another battery within 30 days. The seller can’t charge the buyer for this,
(1) including shipping costs. This applies to all sellers, without distinction between delivery methods. Unclaimed deposits are transferred to the state.
The directive is clear, that the basic collection system should be implemented by the state and possibly supplemented by other means. It seems Polish parliament used that loophole to shift responsibility to the market. Poland has a state-run waste collection system (local authorities’ respnsibility) and you can drop a battery there, but the deposit requirement effectively discourages this.
If a seller refuses to accept a battery or offer a deposit, even if that is done passively,
(2) they are breaking the law and it has nothing to do with either the directive or national regulations. Simply do not buy there. It’s not even an ethical issue, but a matter of being a sucker losing money. The seller will take the deposit anyway.
(3) You will just never have an option to get it back. It’s also a common case of shifting problems to consumers, because consumers don’t protest.
(4) Which hurts you as a consumer both short- and long-term. The short-term risk is, that the seller also scams you on other things. The long-term harm is normalization of such practices.
By law, you may buy as many car batteries as you wish without delivering a single one in exchange. You just pay $7 extra, which is 5–10% of the cost. A part of that may even be regained by selling the old battery later for lead recycling. Or finding somebody, who is in a similar situation and needs an old battery to have their deposit returned.
I dislike how it is set up, but it it’s not tragic and certainly not preventing anybody from acquiring batteries. The situation of hobbyists scavenging parts is a much more serious issue.
(1) The no-charge requirement is based on 2006/66/EC.
(2) E.g. by not outlining such a procedure in the agreement or/and internal policies.
(3) That is exposed in financial documentation, so the seller needs paper to cover up their ass.
(4) And the minority, who does, may be safely ignored.