That is what I also wonder, who added that tootbrush statement there? Given that Oral-B has done replacable batteries for years, and they have dominant position, I'm thinkin that statement didn't come from lobbies. Maybe someone who are making the law is reasoning with itself or small group and didn't know that replacable batteries in toothbrushes are already a thing.

Because they're specifically engineered to be safe?

I can see someone taking open a toothbrush, slapping a generic cell in there and then it going into water and having a fun time

Why would a company choose to produce an inferior product?

My guess is there is a trade of that's worth it on the product side. That's why you can't buy a compelling phone w a replaceable battery anywhere. Its an incredibly competitive market. If there was a design that worked and tradeoffs made sense it works certainly exist and do well since who wouldn't like it.

I just believe that the fact it doesn't exist tells you that the trade offs aren't worth it. I didn't buy conspiracy theories how dozens of independent manufacturer and hundreds of hardware manufacturers that are on the side line so collude to keep this design choice at bay.

[dead]