I just love the EU. Not perfect of course, but this kind of stuff is great.
this post was submitted on 02 May 2026
625 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
84668 readers
4521 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nothing is perfect, but the EU is by far the best government entity for consumers right now.
the best
Low bar though. I'll not forget Chat Control. Dieselgate, Qatargate, or Ursula's unelectedness.
“Unelected Ursula” is directly from the Russian disinformation playbook btw.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Chat Control was still a proposal made by a few politicians in a big continent. Never an EU made innitiative of any kind, and never voted through.
And I think you should read about the democratic system in the EU, if you want to challenge how she was elected.
She's elected how most of European countries elect their presidents. You vote for parties, and then after; one among them will be president. Typically the head figure from the biggest party.
We should be very glad it's not an election like in the US. Awful way of giving "power" to the people, by putting a single person in charge by popular vote.
load more comments
(2 replies)
How is dieselgate the fault of the EU? The main offender was Volkswagen. Chat Control and Qatargate are the result of lobbying and corruption, and while the EU is not immune to this kind of influences (being a government body made by people), the aggregate result of EU bureaucracy is much better then any other power block currently active in the world in my opinion.
In June 2016, documents leaked to the press indicated that in 2010, European Commission officials had been warned by their in-house science team that at least one car manufacturer was possibly using a NOx-related defeat device in order to bypass emission regulation.
While this is totally true, you cannot fault the EU for not acting on the in-house science team info given the EU commission had no authority on policing car manufacturers. At the time that was the duty of national authorities. Now the EU commission has granted itself the power to conduct vehicle audits and fine those responsible. Positives changes over embarrassing scandals are a positive outcome to me, and not the norm in modern politics.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The article doesn't mention the requirement's 100W limit.
Edit: Per reply, the regulation is designed with 240W accounted for, and updatable in case of further improvements to the standard.
Glad you did, because I was gonna make a comment about how high end gaming laptops are now illegal in the EU.
Not sure there's a 330w USB C going around I could use.
The limit should really be 240W, because that's what the USB-C PD 3.1 spec goes up to.
Edit: Per reply, the regulation is designed with 240W accounted for, and updatable in case of further improvements to the standard.
It is 240 W actually. Seems Techpowerup was wrong. See my first comment: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/59511400/25528592
load more comments
(4 replies)
Nope, still perfectly legal. Proprietary charging ports are allowed but have to be accompanied by a USB PD port that supports the same wattage (or 240 W if the device needs more than that).
So basically the law says "devices must support USB PD", not "devices must only support USB PD".
Gaming laptops can continue to use the typical barrel power connector on models that exceed 100 W of power
load more comments
(4 replies)
Even if they had left out that condition, I'm sure there would be ways around it for gaming laptops and they wouldn't necessarily even have to be stupid ways: I could imagine a stupid way of complying being a charging cable with USB-C for the first 100W and proprietary port for the other 200W+.
Just because a law might say that it's got to be technically able to charge from USB-C probably doesn't imply that has to be the only charging port and method, nor even the normal/recommended one. Even on a 200W+ gaming laptop it would be nice sometimes to be able to charge it from USB-C, without pulling out the full charger. If mine supported USB-C charging I could see using it like that when I travel, I might only be using it for half an hour or an hour a day, the 100W would significantly extend the battery runtime, the rest of the time it could be sleeping or off and charging happily back to full from USB-C, so I wouldn't even need to bring the (literal) charging brick.
Can't the provider just make two charging ports?
They can.
USB-C goes up to 240 W now and the law has been amended to acknowledge the new USB PD spec. Devices are also allowed to have proprietary charging ports but must include a USB-C port capable of showing the full power draw of the device (or 240 W of they need more than that).
So a big gaming laptop might have a USB PD-capable port that supports 240 W and a barrel jack that supports 350 W.
So yeah, basically what I supposed. Gaming laptops are bulky so there defo no shortage of space
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
Putting "Universal" back in "USB"
I bet it's not available on Jupiter.
and it'll take a few million years for Andromeda to get the news
The source of law here is Directive 2022/2380 (which amends Directive 2014/53), in Article 2 a grace period until 2026-04-28 is defined for the category of laptops. This has now expired, which explains the renewed wave of articles being published.
The directive itself is not that interesting to read, as a lot of it is just empowering the Commission to make a decision on the specifics. The result is in the Commission Delegated Regulation 2023/1717. Although it seems to me like something is missing. I can't find more though.
A very interesting Q&A from their Commission Notice – Guidance document:
- Are laptops and other radio equipment that require more than 240 W of charging power exempted from the ‘common charger’ rules?
No. They are not exempted. Radio equipment which is subject to the ‘common charger’ rules must incorporate the harmonised charging solution.
The Commission has updated (in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1717), the references to the standards cited in Annex Ia to the latest version of the European standards. Therefore, due to the amendments introduced by this delegated regulation, radio equipment subject to the ‘common charger’ rules must incorporate the harmonised charging solution up to their maximum charging power or up to 240W if their maximum charging power is above 240W (as opposed to 100W in the previous versions of the standards concerned).
The Commission will continue to update the technical specifications set out in Annex Ia, in order to reflect scientific and technological progress or market developments provided that such developments meet the objectives of the common charging solution.
But then also
- Are proprietary charging receptacles allowed in addition to a USB-C receptacle?
Yes. The RED only requires radio equipment subject to the ‘common charger’ rules to be equipped with the USB-C receptacle. The use of other receptacles is therefore not prohibited as long as the covered radio equipment is also equipped with a harmonised charging (USB-C) receptacle.
That means those hefty laptops going up to 350 W or whatever, now need to accept 240 W over USB PD, but they may still include additional proprietary charging solutions that are rated higher.
Also I don't think the 100 W limit that some outlets report is actually in force since 2023/1717 has replaced the references to ‘EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021’ by those to ‘EN IEC 62680-1-3:2022’
Reading on, yes they make that explicit further down:
- Is a radio equipment allowed to charge above 240 W when using an additional charging protocol?
Yes. If the radio equipment proprietary charging solution requires more than 240 W (e.g. 300 W), the concerned radio equipment must also support USB PD up to 240W.
The Commission has updated, via Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1717, the references to the standards cited in Annex Ia to the latest version of the European standards. The updated version of the standards will apply as of the date of applicability of the relevant rules introduced to the RED by the Common Charger Directive, i.e. for handheld mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones, headsets, handheld videogame consoles, portable speakers, e-readers, keyboards, mice, portable navigation systems and earbuds, as of 28 December 2024 and, for laptops, as of 28 April 2026. This means that as from those dates a radio equipment, if it listed in Annex Ia and is capable to be recharged by means of wired charging at power above 240 W, must incorporate the harmonised charging solution up to 240 W.
The Commission will continue to update the technical specifications set out in Annex Ia, in order to reflect scientific and technological progress or market developments provided that they meet the objectives of the common charging solution.
Oh no the innovation will suffer! How are the laptop makers going to screw the consumers now?
Now make them put a port on each side of the laptop!
What if the ports are recessed and you have built in dongles you can swap to change the port type on either slot?
Oh wait, framework did it :)
Though, to be fair, Framework laptops can't charge from all of their ports. The 16 can charge from one port each per side; not sure about the 13 and 12.
The 13 (amd) can charge from either side not sure if the ports closer to the keyboard also charge at the same speed
Edit: Apparently they do. (negotiating 3A PD on a first come first serve basis)
Well, I have a 16 and it can be charged on 4 out of the 6 ports. It is true though that not all ports are equal. Some supporting display, others not, some consuming more power when a USB-A is plugged into them etc.
The diagram is here: https://knowledgebase.frame.work/expansion-card-slot-functionality-on-framework-laptop-16-amd-ryzen-7040-series-rkUjGm7cn
So the shape of the plug is the same for all devices regardless of the spec... doesn't it just make things more confusing for non techies? I can already see people saying their new laptop is broken because their 5v 0.67A power brick won't charge it, or buying a USB-c charger just to find out it doesn't work. A lot of aftermarket chargers claim to support up to 120W etc. Except they mean 120W is a sum of all ports for a 6 port charger so really it's only 20W. For techies it can get annoying too if you like to play with hardware. You can just feed appropriate voltage DC over those barrel connectors, for example from a car battery with a buck converter or AA/18650 in series and it will work while usb-c charging needs to be negotiated.
A lot of aftermarket chargers claim to support up to 120W etc.
That is called deceptive marketing.
If you plug in a weak charger or an inadequate cable you will get a message on the screen saying as much. Also, the new law doesn't prevent manufacturers shipping proprietary chargers alongside USB-C.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next ›