A new European Union energy labeling law has sparked a public disagreement between tech giants Samsung and Apple over battery life claims. For the new label, which became mandatory on June 20, 2025, Samsung claims its latest smartphone batteries can withstand 2,000 charge cycles.
This figure is double the 1,000 cycles reported by competitors like Apple and Google. Apple has pushed back, stating it is intentionally giving its products a lower rating. The company blames “unclear” and “contradictory” EU testing rules for its conservative stance.
The dispute raises serious questions about the new regulation’s real-world effectiveness and the divergent strategies top manufacturers are adopting to comply with it.
New EU Label Puts Durability and Repairability in the Spotlight
The EU’s Ecodesign Regulation now requires smartphones and tablets to display a comprehensive energy label. This label gives consumers at-a-glance information on energy efficiency, battery longevity, drop resistance, repairability, and water and dust protection (IP rating).
The goal is to empower consumers to make more sustainable choices by highlighting not just energy use, but a product’s overall durability. The battery cycle test, for instance, measures the number of full charges and discharges until the battery’s remaining capacity falls below 80% of its original rating.
All official data is logged in the European Product Database for Energy Labelling (EPREL), creating a public record of manufacturer claims.
Samsung Claims Double the Battery Lifespan of iPhone
Samsung has come out of the gate with an aggressive rating. The company’s EPREL filings show its latest devices, including the Galaxy S25 series, are rated for 2,000 charge cycles. This positions its products as significantly more durable than their main rivals in the eyes of consumers comparing labels in-store.
By contrast, Apple’s iPhone 16 lineup and Google’s devices are both rated for a more modest 1,000 cycles. Other brands like Motorola and OnePlus also list figures well below Samsung’s, topping out around 1,200 cycles, making Samsung’s claim a notable outlier.
Apple Cries Foul, Citing ‘Unclear’ and ‘Contradictory’ Testing Rules
In a clear response, Apple has publicly stated it is deliberately assigning its products worse ratings than they might have achieved. The company detailed its reasoning in a 44-page document, criticizing the EU’s prescribed testing methodologies as being open to interpretation.
Apple’s specific complaints are numerous. It points to a lack of specificity for the drop test surface—defined only as a “hardwood-backed steel plate” without clarifying the type of wood or steel. It also argues the sample size of five devices is too small to be statistically reliable.
This move signals Apple’s deep frustration. The company argues the Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) formula also inherently penalizes larger devices, resulting in poor ‘E’ and ‘G’ ratings for its iPads. It claims its iPhone 16 models could have achieved an ‘A’ rating but were given a ‘B’.
The core of the debate may lie in the EU’s strict verification tolerance. The regulation states that a product’s tested battery cycle life cannot be more than 20 cycles below the manufacturer’s declared value. This tight margin leaves little room for error and may explain Apple’s caution.
More Than Just Batteries: Repair Scores Add to the Controversy
The controversy extends beyond battery life. The new label also includes a repairability score, which has already been described as causing “drama” by repair advocates like iFixit. This score is a key part of the EU’s broader “right to repair” initiative.
This composite index is calculated based on several factors. These include disassembly depth, fastener types, tool requirements, spare parts availability, software update guarantees, and access to repair information. Each element contributes to a final score out of five, providing a nuanced look at how easy a device is to fix.
The divergent strategies of Apple and Samsung highlight a fundamental tension in the new law. Is Samsung exploiting ambiguity for a marketing advantage, or is Apple being overly cautious to avoid any risk of non-compliance?
