The E-Waste War: How LG and Samsung’s Legal Battle Could Reshape India’s Electronics Industry

In a clash that could redefine environmental regulation and corporate responsibility, LG and Samsung have launched a high-stakes legal challenge against the Indian government over its new e-waste pricing policy. The policy, introduced in 2024, mandates electronics manufacturers to pay a minimum of ₹22 per kilogram for recycling consumer electronics and ₹34 per kilogram for smartphones—rates the companies argue are 5-15 times higher than current market prices. The dispute, now before India’s Supreme Court, hinges on whether the government’s “polluter pays” principle will protect the environment or cripple manufacturers.

The Policy and Its Rationale

India generates 3.2 million metric tons of e-waste annually, ranking third globally behind China and the U.S. Yet only 43% of this waste is formally recycled, with 80% processed by informal scrap dealers using unsafe methods. The government argues that minimum recycling payments will attract formal recyclers, improve infrastructure, and reduce toxic emissions. However, manufacturers counter that the policy ignores the root cause of the informal sector’s dominance: lax enforcement of existing environmental laws.

LG’s 550-page court filing asserts that the policy “misapplies” the polluter-pays principle, arguing that without curbing illegal dumping, the burden of higher costs will fall disproportionately on companies like Samsung and LG. Samsung’s filing adds that price controls fail to address systemic issues, warning of a “substantial financial impact” on its operations.

Financial Implications: Cost Pressures vs. Market Opportunities

The policy’s impact on manufacturers is stark. Recycling costs for large appliances like air conditioners—where per-unit costs rise far more than for smaller devices—could triple. For instance, Hitachi’s Indian subsidiary reported recycling costs for air conditioners quadrupling to $2.6 million annually.

Yet the policy also opens doors to innovation. The global e-waste management market is projected to grow at a CAGR of 13.52% through 2032, reaching $5.2 billion, driven by stricter regulations. Indian recyclers stand to benefit from high-margin EPR fees (25-30% of revenue) and sales of extracted metals like gold, silver, and copper. Manufacturers could mitigate costs by partnering with recyclers or investing in patented recovery technologies—though this requires upfront capital.

The Legal Landscape and Investor Risks

The lawsuit, joined by firms like Daikin and Voltas, remains unresolved. While the April 22, 2025, hearing provided procedural updates, no final ruling has been issued. The outcome will determine whether manufacturers must absorb these costs or if the government will adjust its approach.

Investors should monitor:
1. Cost Pass-Through Potential: Can companies raise prices without losing market share?
2. Regulatory Flexibility: Will India revise its policy to balance environmental goals with industry viability?
3. Recycling Tech Investments: Are firms like Samsung or LG developing solutions to reduce long-term costs?

Conclusion: A Crossroads for Sustainability and Profitability

The stakes are immense. If manufacturers lose the lawsuit, their margins could shrink, particularly for companies reliant on large appliances. LG’s stock, already pressured by declining TV sales, might face further volatility. Conversely, a win could delay India’s efforts to formalize e-waste management, risking environmental harm and future regulatory backlash.

The data underscores urgency: India’s e-waste recycling efficiency is five times lower than the U.S. and 1.5 times lower than China. Without compromise, India risks falling further behind. Investors should favor firms with diversified revenue streams, partnerships with recyclers, or R&D in eco-friendly technologies—traits that will define winners in this emerging regulatory environment.

As the court deliberates, one truth is clear: the e-waste war isn’t just about legal fees—it’s about who will pay the ultimate price for progress.