How Sony, Microsoft, Apple And Others Violate Federal Warranty Law

[HardOCP News]

How many of you guys knew this? I think most people have no idea what their rights are when it comes to warranties and that's why they let themselves be pushed around by manufacturers on stuff like this.

In addition, big manufacturers such as Sony, Microsoft, and Apple explicitly note or imply in their official agreements that their year-long manufacturer warranties—which entitle you to a replacement or repair if your device is defective—are void if consumers attempt to repair their gadgets or take them to a third party repair professional. What almost no one knows is that these stickers and clauses are illegal under a federal law passed in 1975 called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

 

[amddragonpc]

Opportunity for the government to levy fines against these companies then.

 

[Sonicks]

"These warranty agreements and stickers exist almost entirely to help manufacturers maintain a monopoly on repairing the devices that they sell us"


Yeah right..... A monopoly on reparing devices is why they do this?

They do this so people won't open their devices 2 days before the warranty expires to purposely break the device and get a free replacement. It's that simple. No one would be in business if the average Joe can get free shit anytime they want.

This law was passed in 75 when most anything was still very analog and very repairable. In this day and age, very few things can get repaired, most things cannot, and even determining what caused a malfunction or failure is damn near impossible with the complexity of digital devices. This law either needs revision for digital devices or there needs to be a new one put in place but I doubt that invoking this law, as it is, will help any consumer should they go that route.

 

[Z3r0k3wl]

Maybe to the untrained eye. There are plenty of techs out there who can repair today's electronics with ease.

 

[Sonicks]

Maybe to the untrained eye. There are plenty of techs out there who can repair today's electronics with ease.

Oh, so if I bust out my iPhone 6S's mainboard, rub a balloon on my head, touch it to the mainboad, and put it back together you can determine that a static short killed it? I doubt it.

Even still, could you determine that the static short occurred by fault of the device or by purposeful harm? I doubt it again.

The fact that you can swap out the mainboard on your own is not the issue companies have but rather determining whether or not the product was defective on its own is what companies can't prove unless they know for a fact that the device was not tampered with (stickers!). And that's main reason companies employ these warranty clauses. So they don't foot the bill for someone that has intent to fraud them.

 

[Galvin]

I thought warranties expire right after your device fails?

 

[munkle]

"These warranty agreements and stickers exist almost entirely to help manufacturers maintain a monopoly on repairing the devices that they sell us"


Yeah right..... A monopoly on reparing devices is why they do this?

They do this so people won't open their devices 2 days before the warranty expires to purposely break the device and get a free replacement. It's that simple. No one would be in business if the average Joe can get free shit anytime they want.

This law was passed in 75 when most anything was still very analog and very repairable. In this day and age, very few things can get repaired, most things cannot, and even determining what caused a malfunction or failure is damn near impossible with the complexity of digital devices. This law either needs revision for digital devices or there needs to be a new one put in place but I doubt that invoking this law, as it is, will help any consumer should they go that route.

You don't really have any idea what you are talking about. The majority of repairs that would fall under a warranty are easily done. On consoles its usually the disk drive, fan, or some port needs to be replaced. On phones its a battery, button, or some port. All of those are fairly easy to replace (with the exception of desoldering a port, that may be a little more difficult). Occasionally you'll get some random part failure that is hard to diagnose. Other repairs such as liquid/drop damage wouldn't be covered under warranty, replacing a cracked screen shouldn't void your warranty on the other parts.

I worked for apple for about a year and I can tell you its probably 80% about profit off of repairs (so keeping their monopoly) and maybe 20% about fraud. When I worked for apple the policy was that they would repair iPhones that have been opened by a third party as long as there are no 3rd party parts in the phone. For example: if you broke your screen and a 3rd party replaced the screen, apple would deny the warranty on a bad charging port. If you then put the original broken screen back in the phone and sent it back, apple would force you to repair the broken screen (which you already repaired but had to put the broken screen back in) and pay for the broken screen replacement (which is usually much more expensive than a 3rd party or doing it yourself) and then they would fix the charging port at the same time under warranty.

The fraud you are talking about usually happens most when people try to get a device replaced when nothing is wrong with it. I dealt with that far more often than people intentionally damaging a device. People claim the device malfunctions in such and such way and they should get a replacement, and it actually doesn't but works fine.

Also you don't need to open a device to intentionally damage it to get it replaced under warranty. It would be fairly trivial to stick something in one of the various holes in devices to short something out or give it a static shock.

 

[Sonicks]

You don't really have any idea what you are talking about. The majority of repairs that would fall under a warranty are easily done. On consoles its usually the disk drive, fan, or some port needs to be replaced. On phones its a battery, button, or some port. All of those are fairly easy to replace (with the exception of desoldering a port, that may be a little more difficult). Occasionally you'll get some random part failure that is hard to diagnose. Other repairs such as liquid/drop damage wouldn't be covered under warranty, replacing a cracked screen shouldn't void your warranty on the other parts.

I worked for apple for about a year and I can tell you its probably 80% about profit off of repairs (so keeping their monopoly) and maybe 20% about fraud. When I worked for apple the policy was that they would repair iPhones that have been opened by a third party as long as there are no 3rd party parts in the phone. For example: if you broke your screen and a 3rd party replaced the screen, apple would deny the warranty on a bad charging port. If you then put the original broken screen back in the phone and sent it back, apple would force you to repair the broken screen (which you already repaired but had to put the broken screen back in) and pay for the broken screen replacement (which is usually much more expensive than a 3rd party or doing it yourself) and then they would fix the charging port at the same time under warranty.

If I open my Xbox One to replace the Hard Drive and my cat inadvertently kills the mainboard somehow (maybe static, maybe something else, who knows) and the malfunction doesn't present itself until much later in the product's life....how is MS to prove that my hard drive replacement procedure was not at fault even though the hard drive is the only difference?

There is no way that companies can prove their product was defective on it's own unless they can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that it wasn't tampered with. Say what you will and be sour about the repair-ability situation but I guarantee that it is not the motivating factor for companies to add these clauses.

You're just like the source they got on this article: "Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of the Repair Association, a group lobbying for right to repair laws around the country, told me"...You're projecting your disdain after working for Apple of the situation by assuming companies are after the repair market when it's simply not true.

Again, repair and part replacement is not what this is about. This is about determining root cause of failure as a defect. Not about repairing the failure.

I do however understand that 9 times out of 10, the screen is the issue and the end user just wants it fixed for cheap. Again, however, there is no way for you or Apple to prove that nothing else was tampered with when the screen repair was done (for you, maybe you can replace it yourself, but for Apple, they have no clue about you). So it is very reasonable that they would have lockout stickers for them to know that there was no funny business done.

 

[munkle]

If I open my Xbox One to replace the Hard Drive and my cat inadvertently kills the mainboard somehow (maybe static, maybe something else, who knows) and the malfunction doesn't present itself until much later in the product's life....how is MS to prove that my hard drive replacement procedure was not at fault even though the hard drive is the only difference?

There is no way that companies can prove their product was defective on it's own unless they can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that it wasn't tampered with. Say what you will and be sour about the repair-ability situation but I guarantee that it is not the motivating factor for companies to add these clauses.

Well you're wrong, my own experience working at apple and setting up repairs says you are wrong. You guarantee is wrong, otherwise apple would have never repaired opened devices at all.

I never said fraud wasn't a concern, but its not the majority of their concern when it comes to opened devices. The major fraud concern comes from people wanting stuff replaced and there is nothing wrong with the device.

They might not know you damaged your device, but most people that just want a replacement are too lazy or don't want to risk a denied warranty to intentionally damage a device. There will be some people who accidentally damage a device while replacing another part, but like I said it isn't a huge concern of theirs and its a relatively small number of people that would commit fraud that way, instead of just claiming a working device is defective to get a replacement.

 

[Sonicks]

You're on about something else entirely.

It is easy for the general public to assume that a company has no interest for them since it's the Big guy vs. the Little guy. I'm simply trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and to me their reasoning behind these clauses is perfectly reasonable.

I guess I'm in the minority in that I couldn't care less that my device is only serviceable at the manufacturer. I've repaired my own iPhone screens in the past but only if it was out of the warranty. When it's within the warranty I bite the bullet and get it fixed the proper way, at their store. (Here is where your profit assumption takes center stage).

 

[thesmokingman]

How many of you guys knew this? I think most people have no idea what their rights are when it comes to warranties and that's why they let themselves be pushed around by manufacturers on stuff like this.

In addition, big manufacturers such as Sony, Microsoft, and Apple explicitly note or imply in their official agreements that their year-long manufacturer warranties—which entitle you to a replacement or repair if your device is defective—are void if consumers attempt to repair their gadgets or take them to a third party repair professional. What almost no one knows is that these stickers and clauses are illegal under a federal law passed in 1975 called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Man this brings me back to the days when XFX brought out those stickers, and some other AIBs followed suit.

 

[munkle]

You're on about something else entirely.

It is easy for the general public to assume that a company has no interest for them since it's the Big guy vs. the Little guy. I'm simply trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and to me their reasoning behind these clauses is perfectly reasonable.

I guess I'm in the minority in that I couldn't care less that my device is only serviceable at the manufacturer. I've repaired my own iPhone screens in the past but only if it was out of the warranty. When it's within the warranty I bite the bullet and get it fixed the proper way, at their store. (Here is where your profit assumption takes center stage).

What as wrong with your screen? I'm going to assume it was a cracked screen, if so you would have to pay to replace it, that isn't covered under the warranty so your argument doesn't work for this one. If it was a defect then that's covered under warranty. I think you're on about something else, because you don't seem to have a handle on what you are actually saying. You say you "bite the bullet" and get it fixed the proper way? That makes no sense, its free and they are doing the work, that isn't "biting the bullet".

 

[Sonicks]

What as wrong with your screen? I'm going to assume it was a cracked screen, if so you would have to pay to replace it, that isn't covered under the warranty so your argument doesn't work for this one. If it was a defect then that's covered under warranty. I think you're on about something else, because you don't seem to have a handle on what you are actually saying. You say you "bite the bullet" and get it fixed the proper way? That makes no sense, its free and they are doing the work, that isn't "biting the bullet".

By 'bite the bullet' I mean the exact thing this article is in reference to. I had to pay Apple $150 at the store for them to replace my broken screen. I ate this cost, even though 3rd parties can do it MUCH cheaper, because I wanted the original warranty intact. I bit the god damned bullet.

We all know broken screens aren't covered by the warranty but this article argues that, if 3rd parties can replace screens for you, it shouldn't void the warranty if it's still within the warranty period. But it does void the warranty and that's why this author screams 'repair monopoly!'. You're off the mark here man.

I can't say it any other way now. This article is only referencing the simple act of opening your device as it pertains to voiding the warranty and argues that it shouldn't void based on the fact that some things can be serviceable, like a screen, outside of the original manufacturer.

I'm arguing that it is perfectly reasonable for companies to implement these stickers because, to them, it is the only way they can be sure that a qualified person made a repair and in the 'correct' conditions.

If I built a PC for a non-techie and then they suddenly they come to me with an issue, I would hate it if someone else took a peek inside and did god knows what before me and jacked things up because then I wouldn't know what was going on at that point. You see it now? This is the same line of thinking companies take with the general public with these stickers.

 

[raz-0]

There is no way that companies can prove their product was defective on it's own unless they can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that it wasn't tampered with. Say what you will and be sour about the repair-ability situation but I guarantee that it is not the motivating factor for companies to add these clauses.

Boo Fucking hoo. The law doesn't give a shit about that. You make a product that is that problematic to troubleshoot or service, don't warranty it, don't sell it in the US, or deal with the law as is. You don't get to pretend the law is something else because you'd prefer it is not so.

Some things, there are legit reasons for the stickers. Like hard drives. The suckers are supposed to be clean room clean inside, and most places aren't. The act of opening it in your every day environment can break it. Also, if you break anything opening it, that's on you, but that's not that hard ot prove.

As for the article saying litigation is prohibitive, just get denied and take it to court locally yourself. Sue for the cost of replacement, court costs, lost work hours, labor, etc. Do it right, and for most consumer goods the total will likely be WELL under a company's greenmail threshold. They lose, and they likely will due to MMWA and not showing up, then you just put a lien on them or some of their assets.

 

[munkle]

That's what I mean by bite the bullet. I'm choosing to stick with Apple's repair price for screens because I DON'T want to chance another part of my device, that isn't easily serviceable (or even a truly defective part), to go bad and suddenly I'm shit out of luck on the warranty.

Reading comprehension.

You are all over the place, at first you say you say in a previous post you are getting your screen covered under warranty as "biting the bullet" then you say you are "biting the bullet" and paying for the repair.

I'll quote you:

When it's within the warranty I bite the bullet and get it fixed the proper way, at their store.

You are stating an in warranty repair. An accidentally cracked screen is never within the warranty terms, so this leads one to believe you are talking about a defect. If you mean an out of warranty repair on a device that still has a manufacturer warranty you need to say that.

Now you change:

That's what I mean by bite the bullet. I'm choosing to stick with Apple's repair price for screens because I DON'T want to chance another part of my device, that isn't easily serviceable (or even a truly defective part), to go bad and suddenly I'm shit out of luck on the warranty.

You are mixing situations up (you may have not meant that but thats how it reads), don't tell me reading comprehension when you are all over the place with what you are trying to say.

Lets start over:

First you replied to the article saying it was BS and companies aren't about keeping a monopoly on repairs, that devices aren't easily repairable, and that people damage stuff to get a replacement.

I responded to why that is wrong because devices that are warranty repairs are usually easy repairs, I explained how my work experience shows that it is about all about keeping the money in house, and I explained why people don't just break stuff for replacement, and explained how they really care about you paying for your out of warranty repairs through them and not a 3rd party, they do that by saying your device is out of warranty unless they are the sole provider of any repairs on the device.

Then you responded how you can just break something and they wont know.

Then I responded how that is true but that isn't their main concern, and I explained that from my work experience.

You responded some statement and no supporting logic that it is reasonable for them to assume you broke it if you opened it, and that you'll "bite the bullet" and get it fixed under warranty (see above why this makes no sense).

I responded that you aren't making sense.

You respond by not making more sense (see this post).

The whole point, which according to your more recent post you are proving the point, is that if you still have a warranty left on the phone you are going to pay the maker's repair price to keep the warranty (you even admitted this, but said it was BS before, yet you prove it true). This is where the article is coming from that they are trying to monopolize repairs on devices by voiding your warranty if you don't use them, which is illegal.

I'll quote you so you can see it:

Yeah right..... A monopoly on reparing devices is why they do this?

They do this so people won't open their devices 2 days before the warranty expires to purposely break the device and get a free replacement. It's that simple. No one would be in business if the average Joe can get free shit anytime they want.

Yet you prove the point:

I'm choosing to stick with Apple's repair price for screens because I DON'T want to chance another part of my device, that isn't easily serviceable (or even a truly defective part), to go bad and suddenly I'm shit out of luck on the warranty.

so TLDR:

You proved the articles point and I stated why most people don't just break stuff to get free replacements backed up by my experience working for apple.

 

[Sonicks]

Ok, you seriously lack reading comprehension because your first quote of me is not confusing at all.

"When it's within the warranty I bite the bullet and get it fixed the proper way, at their store."

Let me break this one down for you. I'll let you do the rest since I haven't even read your post past this point.

"When it's within the warranty (as in, if my screen broke within the warranty period), I bite the bullet and get it fixed the proper way (I pay $150 at the APPLE STORE to keep the warranty intact ) at their store."

Holy. Shit. Man.

I'm out.

 

[munkle]

Ok, you seriously lack reading comprehension because your first quote of me is not confusing at all.

"When it's within the warranty I bite the bullet and get it fixed the proper way, at their store."

Let me break this one down for you. I'll let you do the rest since I haven't even read your post past this point.

"When it's within the warranty (as in, if my screen broke within the warranty period), I bite the bullet and get it fixed the proper way (I pay $150 at the APPLE STORE to keep the warranty intact ) at their store."

Holy. Shit. Man.

I'm out.

Reading comprehension isn't guessing what you meant to say when you said something else. Since you failed to read my post where I explained where you went wrong. I'll explain how you continue to error in your further explanation. In my previous post I explained what you meant to say but then explained what you actually said. You do the same thing here (saying one thing but meaning something else):

"When it's within the warranty (as in, if my screen broke within the warranty period, you are currently saying that this is a defect, if you meant to say you cracked or that you damaged it it some way, then you would say: "as in, if I broke my screen in the warranty period"), I bite the bullet and get it fixed the proper way (I pay $150 at the APPLE STORE to keep the warranty intact, again you wouldn't pay to fix your screen if it is broken because of a defect, but you would pay if you broke it ) at their store."

here are some definitions of broke (just in case you need these, because when something "breaks" or is "broke" that doesn't imply or mean you did it, which is what you are assuming):
make or become inoperative,
separate or cause to separate into pieces as a result of a blow, shock, or strain,

You are leaving it up to the reader to determine whether you or defect is at fault for the screen not working. It is not reading comprehension to have to guess which, its called assuming. You never specified how/who broke the screen. I know from working at apple that there are times when screens will just break with a single hairline crack (they weren't dropped, some are like that out of the box and they broke from shipping, some just break in your pocket) and that is considered a defect covered under the warranty as the screen has no impact damage and it shouldn't break that easy.

You still failed as well to prove the article wrong and didn't address any other points because you got hung up on this so called "reading comprehension issue".

 

[EODetroit]

I like Telsa, but they're as guilty of this as anyone, and their cars are expensive enough to justify lawsuits.

 

[rezerekted]

Oh, I knew full well that Microsoft were lying scum when the Xbox 360 was released and on their Usenet group for Xbox some Microsoft mouthpiece claimed the 3 month warranty was "industry standard". They got called out on that bullshit and is the only reason they changed it to one year. Lesson to be learned: never trust Microsoft.

 

[pothb]

So ... do you blame them or the government for not enforcing it? I mean, if this is true, then how have they not have gotten caught earlier? Do the people in government never get anything made by these companies? hard to believe.