LG and Samsung Challenge India’s E-Waste Revolution: A Legal Showdown Over Recycling Costs 2025
April 26, 2025 | by faisalfitness01@gmail.com

In a bold move, South Korean tech giants LG and Samsung have filed lawsuits against the Indian government, challenging its new e-waste recycling policy that mandates higher payouts to formal recyclers. The legal showdown, which began heating up earlier this week, marks a significant escalation in the ongoing tension between multinational corporations and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration over environmental regulations. With India being the world’s third-largest e-waste generator, the stakes are high for both the electronics industry and the country’s sustainability goals. Let’s break down what’s happening, why it matters, and what could come next.
Table of Contents
The Core of the Conflict: New E-Waste Pricing Rules

India’s E-Waste Management Amendment Regulations 2024 introduced a controversial “minimum recycling payment standard” that requires electronics manufacturers to pay recyclers a fixed rate of ₹22 per kilogram for consumer electronics and ₹34 per kilogram for smartphones. The government’s rationale is clear: by setting a price floor, it aims to incentivize formal recyclers, reduce reliance on the informal sector—which handles 80% of e-waste using often hazardous methods—and boost investment in sustainable recycling infrastructure. With only 43% of India’s 3.8 million metric tons of e-waste recycled formally in 2024, the policy seeks to address a pressing environmental challenge.
However, LG and Samsung argue that the policy is a financial overreach. In their filings at the Delhi High Court, reviewed by Reuters, both companies claim the mandated rates will triple their recycling costs. Samsung’s 345-page petition notes that the new fees are “5-15 times” higher than what they currently pay, warning of a “substantial financial impact.” LG’s 550-page filing takes a sharper tone, accusing the government of “fleecing companies” under the guise of the ‘polluter pays principle’ while failing to address enforcement gaps in the informal sector. “If the authorities have not been able to regulate the informal sector, then it is an enforcement failure,” LG’s filing states, highlighting a systemic issue that the policy doesn’t solve.
A Broader Industry Backlash
LG and Samsung aren’t alone in their opposition. Other major players, including Japan’s Daikin, India’s Havells, Tata’s Voltas, and air conditioner maker Blue Star, have also filed lawsuits, citing compliance burdens and potential impacts on consumer prices. The policy hits air conditioner manufacturers particularly hard, as their per-unit compliance costs are significantly higher than those for smaller gadgets like smartphones. Industry groups warn that these increased costs could trickle down to consumers, potentially raising retail prices for electronics.
Interestingly, not all companies are staying in the fight. Johnson Controls-Hitachi, which initially joined the legal challenge, recently withdrew its lawsuit without explanation, leaving some to speculate about possible negotiations with the government. Meanwhile, the Environment Ministry has remained silent, offering no public response to the mounting criticism.

India’s E-Waste Crisis: A Global Perspective
India’s e-waste problem is undeniable. As the third-largest generator globally, behind China and the U.S., the country produced 3.8 million metric tons of electronic waste in 2024. Yet, its recycling rates lag far behind international benchmarks. According to research firm Redseer, the U.S. recycles e-waste at rates up to five times higher, while China’s rates are at least 1.5 times better. The dominance of informal scrap dealers—handling 80% of the sector—poses environmental and health risks, as unregulated recycling often involves toxic practices like burning circuit boards to extract metals.
The government’s push to formalize the sector through fixed pricing is a step toward aligning with global best practices. Environment Ministry officials argue that the policy will attract investment in eco-friendly infrastructure, reducing the environmental footprint of e-waste. But LG and Samsung counter that the approach is flawed, arguing that taxing manufacturers without addressing the informal sector’s role won’t achieve the desired outcomes. They advocate for market-driven pricing, a stance they’ve pushed since last year when Samsung wrote to Modi’s office and LG urged the government to reconsider the “very high” rates in August 2024.
What’s at Stake?

The Delhi High Court hearings, which began on April 22, 2025, could set a precedent for how India balances corporate responsibility with environmental goals. If the court upholds the policy, electronics manufacturers may face higher operational costs, potentially passing them on to consumers or scaling back investments in the Indian market. This could also accelerate the growth of the formal recycling sector, a win for sustainability but a challenge for companies already navigating a competitive market.
On the other hand, if the court sides with LG, Samsung, and their peers, the government’s e-waste strategy could be derailed, leaving the informal sector unchecked and sustainability goals unmet. With e-waste in India projected to grow by 30% annually, the urgency to find a workable solution is clear. The outcome of this legal battle could also influence how other developing nations approach similar challenges, making this a case with global implications.
A Critical Look: Is the Policy Enough?
While the government’s intentions are commendable, LG and Samsung raise valid concerns about enforcement. The informal sector’s dominance isn’t just a regulatory failure—it’s a structural issue tied to economic realities. Informal recyclers often operate at lower costs, making them more competitive despite their harmful methods. Without incentives for these workers to transition to the formal economy, or stricter enforcement to curb illegal practices, the policy risks becoming a financial burden on companies without addressing the root cause.
Moreover, the ‘polluter pays principle’—a cornerstone of environmental policy—shouldn’t be a blanket excuse to impose costs without ensuring tangible outcomes. The government must demonstrate that the increased payouts will lead to measurable improvements in recycling rates and environmental safety, rather than simply benefiting formal recyclers at the expense of manufacturers.
Final Thoughts
The LG-Samsung lawsuit against India’s e-waste policy is more than a corporate dispute—it’s a test of how emerging economies can tackle sustainability without stifling business. As the Delhi High Court deliberates, the electronics industry, environmentalists, and consumers are watching closely. Will India find a way to modernize its recycling system, or will this policy become another example of good intentions gone awry? Share your thoughts in the comments—I’d love to hear your take on this unfolding story.
RELATED POSTS
View all