from Hacker News

EU kills Android bootloader unlock starting August 1

by methuselah_in on 8/2/25, 9:12 AM with 32 comments

• by Y-bar on 8/2/25, 9:56 AM

  The linked article says:

  > As of August 2025, manufacturers selling devices in the EU need to:

  > Block the installation of unauthorized software

  > Use Secure Boot (or similar) to verify firmware authenticity

  > Ensure only signed and approved ROMs can run

  But the text at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2022/30/oj/eng mentions no word such as "authorized"/"unauthorized" or "authent(icity)" or "signed" or "approved" so how can we know that this is the EU which does this when it seems like the removal was global, as seen in this article: https://xiaomitime.com/android-makers-remove-bootloader-unlo... ?

• by diggan on 8/2/25, 9:56 AM

  As is usual, there seems to be a massive misunderstanding what the directive is and means. The TLDR is that the directive contains no clauses that compels phone makers to keep the Android bootloader locked or that forbids EU users from unlocking it.

  Samsung's public reasoning might be that disabling unlocking the bootloader because of the directive, but there is nothing in the directive that forces them to lock the bootloader. It does sound like a convenient scapegoat if they don't want to talk about the real reasons though.

  The phone makes who end up disabling the unlocking of bootloaders are all doing so on their own accord, not because some regulation is forcing them to.

  Finally, the EU’s broader right-to-repair policies makes it kind of impossible that an outright prohibition of unlocking the bootloader could happen. But of course, nuance doesn't make people click article titles on the web...

• by Ayesh on 8/2/25, 9:57 AM

  https://www.riskinsight-wavestone.com/en/2025/07/radio-equip...

  This page (cited by the article at the bottom) has a lot more context and somewhat detailed technical. Information.

• by robin_reala on 8/2/25, 9:51 AM

  I’m trying to read the law[1] on this but I’m having difficulty finding the part that forces Android devices to have locked bootloaders. There’s recital 19 that talks about “verification by radio equipment of the compliance of its combination with software”, but there’s nothing stopping a vendor from using a seperate modem / baseband and CPU (like Apple does) right?

  [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/53/oj/eng

• by hilbert42 on 8/2/25, 10:50 AM

  Why was this story flagged? This story raises important issues about smartphones that need discussing.

  The story may be hyped but the underlying issues are very relevant.

• by JdeBP on 8/2/25, 10:14 AM

  A quick chase around the company information leads to a shell company that is pretty much typosquatting Meta, and seems to be in either Türkiye or Wyoming. So there are a few red flags that this is at best a very low quality news source.

• by amelius on 8/2/25, 9:55 AM

  What does the law say about vendors that include a special code for "servicing" the device, and the code leaks out?

• by jjani on 8/2/25, 10:01 AM

  This sets a new record for worst AI slop posted on HN so far.