It's hard to track down a vague insinuation of a rule. If the company wants to use it as a defense, I think it's okay to put the burden on them to be specific.

I mean, I guess it does make me curious how you should go about regulating a device like this.

Like, if the metal fails and you have a horrible fall and break your hip and shoulder, that's pretty different from an iPhone that won't turn on.

If this is only approved for 5 years, shouldn't the guy be replacing it rather than repairing it? And shouldn't health insurance be covering that, at least beyond the deductible or whatever?

yeah, it would have been interesting to have seen some deeper digging.

for instance, did the fda simply not renew because the company didn’t try? was this just the company being lazy and attempting to deflect blame onto a spoooooky faceless gov agency? it the company actually gave a good faith attempt, was there some reason the fda said “nope?”

tangential but related, this highlights why we need better funded journalistic institutions rather than lowest tier trash because it’s “free”, journalists need to be able to afford to dig deeper to tell us who is screwing us over in situations like this.

it’s hard for us (society) to advocate for something if we don’t know what the real story is because our investigators (journalists) are hamstrung by lack of funds.

journalist institutions being underfunded only helps crooked governments and crooked company owners keep us in the dark.

[flagged]

My thoughts exactly. But then again, journalists have long ceased to be investigative or technologically versed.