back to article 'Our way or the highway' warranty scams shot down by US watchdog: It's OK to use unofficial parts to repair your gear

America's Federal Trade Commission has told "six major companies" to cut it out when it comes to trying to force consumers to only use their replacement parts for repairs. The regulator has refused to name the companies that claim a product's warranty is voided if consumers don't use their special parts but did reveal that …

  1. Woodnag

    Secret?

    Put the 3 examples in Google:

    "The use of" "parts is required to keep your" "manufacturer’s warranties and any extended warranties intact"

    https://www.hyundaiusa.com/myhyundai/manuals-and-how-tos/Getfaq?faqId=2&category=Consumer_Awareness

    "This warranty shall not apply if this product" "is used with products not sold or licensed by"

    https://www.nintendo.com/consumer/manuals/warrantytext_us.jsp

    "This warranty does not apply if this product" "has had the warranty seal on the" "altered, defaced, or removed."

    https://www.playstation.com/en-us/support/warranties/ps4/

    1. mark l 2 Silver badge

      Re: Secret?

      https://www.nintendo.com/consumer/manuals/warrantytext_us.jsp

      "This warranty does not apply if this product" "has had the warranty seal on the" "altered, defaced, or removed."

      I can sort of understand that you would void your warranty if you break a seal that is their to stop you fiddling about in the internals of the device, especially if the device such is one such as a games console where there is no reason for an end user to remove the covers and go poking about inside, and in doing so could cause damage.

      I remember one of my first IT jobs working in the support centre for a company selling PCs. We got a computer back for a warranty repair with just a few days left on the 3 year warranty.

      The customer claimed he smelt burning and it just stopped working. When it was opened up the components and bottom of the case were all covered in candle wax from where somebody had obviously been trying to make it look as though a component had burned out by putting scorch marks on the motherboard. He obviously thought that because his PC was now 3 years old we wouldn't get replacement parts to fix it and he would get a better spec PC as a replacement.

      But funnily enough despite his effort there was nothing actually wrong with the motherboard and once the wax drops were removed and a quick wipe over with some isopropyl alcohol it was all fine, so was returned back to them.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Secret?

        Warranty stickers, removed, defaced or not do NOT over-ride your statutory rights.

        As long as you cause no damage to the internals then the warranty is valid.

        So stripping it down to clean it will not invalidate your warranty. As long as you are "competent" to do the work.

    2. veti Silver badge

      Re: Secret?

      From Nintendo:

      THIS WARRANTY SHALL NOT APPLY IF THIS PRODUCT: [...] HAS HAD THE SERIAL NUMBER ALTERED, DEFACED OR REMOVED.

      Moral: don't let Google do your reading for you.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        FAIL

        You can bet HP are doing this.

        Those f**king printer cartridges and their "Can't read the level" Bu***hit

  2. Aaiieeee
    Facepalm

    I overheard somebody telling his buddy that he "gets 2 free screen replacements a year" under his plan (he pays £70pcm for his phone btw) and felt it was worth it. It amused me that he confirmed he hadn't had to use it yet when the buddy asked how many times he'd claimed so far.

    It then occurred to me it is normal to expect screen damage on a phone, and therefore cover is normal too. This surprised me as I had my first smart phone for 4 years with no screen damage and therefore expect the same of its fairly recent replacement.

    My first phone had a screen made of gorillas and the positive experience meant it became a core requirement for the replacement :)

    1. big_D Silver badge

      I've had many phones over the years, I've been using mobiles since 1991 and smartphones since 2006.

      I was playing with the kids and rolled over and crushed the small display on my old Nokia in 2004 and I knocked a bottle of water over on my desk at work and broke the display on my company Samsung Galaxy S3 in 2015. So it certainly was cheaper to pay for the replacement screens than have insurance...

      I hope I'm not jinxing myself!

      1. Baldrickk

        Broken screens

        I somehow once broke the internal LCD on one of my old Nokias by dropping it - about two inches from the top of my pocket to the bottom of my pocket... Fixed under warranty - no additional cover needed.

        The only other screen I have broken was my LG G3 - a phone I thought was brilliant. I managed to knock my elbow against a door frame in a sports centre, flinging it from my hand. It managed to land perfectly horizontally on the polished concrete floor - cue an exquisitely fractured glass panel.

        In that case, my contract was almost up, Black Friday was two weeks away and I had a spare phone I could use in the meantime. I ended up with an S7, a sizeable upgrade to my contract (unlimited minutes and 6x as much data) and a smaller monthly bill. Not as small as it might have been if I had gone Sim-only as I was planning, but the difference between that + fixed screen vs new contract was pretty much pennies.

        In neither case have I actually been in a position where the cover would have really helped, and so it would not be worth it to me.

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: Broken screens

          It managed to land perfectly horizontally on the polished concrete floor - cue an exquisitely fractured glass panel.

          Did a similar thing with a Gorilla glass phone, knocking it off a table on to a hard lino covered floor - about a 3ft drop on to the screen; the gorilla glass didn't help...

          However, an unintended repeat - with its like-for-like replacement - which had a cheap and simple silicone gel skin cover with a 1mm lip so the screen didn't touch the floor, survived.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Broken screens

            My first Galaxy G3 fell of the top of the fridge (2M) to the ground, it landed perfectly flat on the display.

            No damage to the display, but the shock dislodged all the antennas. Luckily failed radios are covered by the warranty, broken display not.

  3. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    You don't have to stretch to Apple iPhone screens

    Their DRM-encrusted Lightning charger cables are a bigger issue, especially a few years ago when the correctly licensed cables (with the embedded Apple Tax) were quite expensive.

    An iOS update, and BLAM!, the 3rd party charger cable is suddenly rejected by the phone. That stinks of criminal behaviour. It's cost me personally at least $40.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: You don't have to stretch to Apple iPhone screens

      Amazon basics lightning cables have never been expensive, nor caused problems, and have been available for a few years as well.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: You don't have to stretch to Apple iPhone screens

      (Disclaimer: I work for a company that is involved in Apple repair (in an independent, unofficial capacity), but I'm not involved with that personally. My apologies if this comes across as pro-Apple, because I'm really not a fan at all, but...)

      As far as I'm aware, there *is* a major difference between official Lightning cables (original Apple or officially-certified MFi-certified third-party) and unofficial ones, and it's not DRM alone.

      The original/MFi cables include two chips. One is a "load switch" IC that filters out several potentially damaging power discrepancies (including current/voltage ripples and surges, excess current, overvoltage, reverse polarity etc.) coming from the USB charger.

      The other is a "handshake" IC that essentially says "yes, I'm genuine and it's safe to drop your defenses for charging".

      The non-MFi cables include an imitation handshake IC that says the same thing... but they *don't* include the load switch IC at all. Instead, the unfiltered current is passed direct to the phone. To cut a long story short, you might get away with this in the short term, but having spoke with my colleagues, I know that phones can be- and frequently *have* been- damaged by this unfiltered current, particularly if you're charging via a car battery adaptor.

      Yes, I know that Apple always have their own self-interest at heart to some extent. But that doesn't mean the cheap, non-MFi cables are just as good. Especially as genuine MFi-certified third party cables can end up costing not much more than completely unofficial generics. (##)

      Also, while I'm here, the Apple quote in the article says:-

      "Non-genuine replacement displays may have compromised visual quality and may fail to work correctly."

      Some self-serving in there? Certainly, but it's true that a lot of compatible replacement screens are of *significantly* inferior visual quality to the Apple originals. (#)

      Worse, because they aren't of the same spec as the original, some of the crappier compatible displays can overload the driver circuit and damage it over time. (Yes, we've seen this happen).

      Although we offer cheaper "copy" screen repairs at a cheaper price- because our local competitors all use crappy copy screens and we need to compete on price with them- we always advise our customers to have a refurb/original display fitted. (And we fit the original anyway if they want the inferior "copy" because we're in a position to do so, and don't want someone coming back with a fried iPhone from a lousy display).

      "Apple-certified screen repairs are performed by trusted experts who use genuine Apple parts"

      Again, self-serving on Apple's part, sure, but this says nothing about unofficial repairs, only the ones that they're happy to certify.

      (#) Some people don't seem to care about this... despite the fact that the few quid's difference between a genuine and compatible screen replacement is minor compared to the cost of a several-hundred quid iPhone sold on the basis of its pretty display in the first place! Seems odd to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar like that- but my boss noted that most people get them as part of a contract, so they probably forget how much they paid.)

      (##) We've disassembled ours to confirm that they're genuine MFi (as labelled on the box) and those sold by one of our rivals to confirm they're definitely *not*!

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Devil

    > My first phone had a screen made of gorillas

    Was it hairy when you swiped?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Enough with the replacement part conspiritards.

    Does anyone think Apple's management (favorite punching bag here) is sitting around the boardroom going "You know we could be making an extra 0.0000345% more profit if we just got rid of those unauthorized repair manufacturers?" Umm, no. They don't give a shit. More likely: the cost - both in terms of money and bad publicity - of dealing with every cheap grey-market knockoff part that some back-alley repair shop decides to slap into a phone or tablet is getting to be absurd. Or even a nice storefront repair shop that decides to use nonstandard or unauthorized (from a cryptographic standpoint) parts. One of the points of having a closed ecosystem is increasing reliability due to the relatively small number of part combinations you have to support. Another point is that controlling the specific parts used for authentication creates the most reliable chain of trust that's reasonably possible.

    So the question is: how much of this do we want to throw away so that someone can save a few bucks? There's no good way to both have your cake and eat it too here.

    On the downside for Apple (and whoever else is being targeted), they don't have authorized repair facilities everywhere. If they're going to be this way, then they really should provide a clear roadmap for acceptable repairs that aren't performed by them. Phones and tablets are critical devices for most people, and mailing them in for service is not acceptable. This probably means creating a certification process for third-party repair shops and individual technicians. I'm all for this, but from an economies of scale standpoint it would probably mean that it would be extremely difficult for those shops to compete with Apple on price in areas where Apple has stores. They will be able to compete on convenience and possibly customer service.

    1. JimC

      Re: Enough with the replacement part conspiritards.

      Oh come on, every damn company in the world is on the cheap initial purchase, expensive parts game. For sure the manufacturers would like to eliminate all competition so they can minimise the purchase price and make a good living on consumables. Like it or not that's standard business pricing these days.

      Having said that I'm also completely in line with the companies too. If you pay xyz manufacturing a premium price so all your parts and spares are very tight QC and low tolerance, and then the customer fits crap that you would never pass for use, and then you have to fix it, that's going to be pretty galling. Seen quite a few problems failures caused by second rate pattern parts in my time in the bike trade.

      Short of legislation to enforce the same profit margin on new kit and spares though I haven't got a clue what the solution is, especially as any such legislation would be a major vote loser since it would put headline prices up.

      1. JassMan
        Trollface

        Re: Enough with the replacement part conspiritards. @JimC

        Oh come on, every damn company in the world is on the cheap initial purchase, expensive parts game. Except, Apple as a supplier of veblen goods, is on the expensive initial purchase, expensive parts game.

        FTFY

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Enough with the replacement part conspiritards.

        "the customer fits crap that you would never pass for use, and then you have to fix it,"

        That's not how it works. You break the screen in a way not covered by the warranty, then you have the right to replace the screen with a non-Apple part if you so choose. But allegedly Apple have been refusing all subsequent warranty work based on that one non-Apple part even if that non-Apple part is completely unrelated to any further faults which should be covered by the warranty, (say, for example, the radio chip(s) fail.)

        Apple are still entirely within their rights to not repair or replace a failed, 3rd party replacement screen that the customer chose to fit or have fitted for them. Likewise, if Apple can prove that the 3rd party screen was the cause of a subsequent failure, they can still refuse to repair under warranty.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Enough with the replacement part conspiritards.

          Simple remedy.

          Apple have just built a new $Bn headquarters. Just require that all repairs and maintenance on the building is done by the original contractors - at whatever price they choose

          1. VikiAi
            Boffin

            Re: Enough with the replacement part conspiritards.

            Bad example: While the building is in warranty, yes, that is likely exactly the case right now. Most large building works operate like that.

        2. kain preacher

          Re: Enough with the replacement part conspiritards.

          John it's worse than that. If you replace he screen on the new Iphones with a non apple part then update the os it will not work.

      3. Black Betty

        Re: Enough with the replacement part conspiritards.

        And some idiots put no-name brand oil in their Testarossa, so what's your point? You do the repair and pocket your profit.

        We're not talking about products sold at (or below) cost here, but products often sold with a huge margin, and policies deliberately formulated to discourage repair and encourage (if not outright force) replacement when those products fail.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Enough with the replacement part conspiritards.

          "some idiots put no-name brand oil in their Testarossa"

          When I'm replacing the oil in *my* Testarossa, I always go for a big name like Mazola.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Enough with the replacement part conspiritards.

        It's so common, there's a name for it: the loss leader

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Enough with the replacement part conspiritards.

      The purpose is to make more money. Giving reliability is a plus, no doubt, but make no mistake: what they want is to mark up. That is the purpose of a closed system.

    3. Chronigan

      Re: Enough with the replacement part conspiritards.

      Does anyone think Apple's management (favorite punching bag here) is sitting around the boardroom going "You know we could be making an extra 0.0000345% more profit if we just got rid of those unauthorized repair manufacturers?"

      Yes. Yes I do.

    4. Black Betty

      Re: Enough with the replacement part conspiritards.

      The only problem with that theory is that it's bullshit.

      Apple authorised 3rd party repairers are not permitted to perform component level repairs, only swap out faulty modules.

      Apple refuses to supply certain critical proprietary parts to anyone, including their authorised repair chain.

      Apple has consistently gone out of its way to make repair and/or upgrades increasingly difficult with time.

      - disappearing expansion ports; proprietary connectors and fasteners; glued in batteries; cameras welded to the case; solid state drives integrated onto the main logic board.

      Apple's recycling policy is that everything, even perfectly good parts must be shredded.

      Software updates which "break" previously working devices that contain non-Apple parts.

      Their products were/are still highly susceptible to liquid damage years after other manufacturers solved that problem in products sold for less than half the price of Apple's. Oh, and liquid damage voids all warranties.

      Apple's crusade against 3rd party repairers has little to nothing to do with ensuring a perfect "Apple experience", or lost repair revenue. It's that each successful repair (particularly of devices deemed unrepairable by Apple) is a lost sale.

  6. John 104

    @AC

    You might want to ask yourself the questions in the first paragraph while pondering that this is the same company who blamed users for holding their phone wrong to cover up a shit antenna design.

    If any company has people sitting in a board room brainstorming on how to screw over customers, its Apple.

    Seriously, why do people buy their crap? They give two shits for their customers, unless they are buying something new that is.

    1. veti Silver badge

      Re: @AC

      At least with Apple (and Microsoft, for that matter) you have an option to be the customer, not the product.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @AC

        At least with Apple (and Microsoft, for that matter) you have an option to be the customer, not the product.

        For Microsoft with the new WaaS (Windows 10 ads ID, unblockable phoning, force updates), the users are the product. The enterprise are the customers. In addition, users without the necessary technical skill (getting WSUS update working, buying the minimum 5 seats enterprise license, finding the setting to turn off telemetry) can never become Microsoft customers.

  7. redpawn

    Because Apple Loves You,

    like the controlling spouse who will hit you and lock you out for parking the car in the wrong direction or purchasing petrol from the wrong station. Understand it might appear to be abuse, but it is just love in another form.

    1. Tessier-Ashpool

      Re: Because Apple Loves You,

      You're first in the pub after work, aren't you?

  8. Fihart

    Apple being stupid.

    My brother's laptop bought from an Apple dealer in Belgium was refused repair under Apple warranty because the memory installed was not supplied by Apple. He pointed out that the memory had been installed by the Apple dealer -- and anyway the repair issue could have had nothing to do with what brand of memory had been fitted. As I recall, Apple relented.

  9. Stevie

    Bah!

    Oh dear, Kieren McCarthy has suggested that Apple charges more money just because it can. The so-called "Apple Tax" is a fiction. The extra cost is due to all the Quality infusing whatever it is. Apple have spent years telling people so, and you can't deny facts like that.

    The answer for the angst is obvious: people should stop buying the stuff that costs too much. For a little more than the $199 extended warranty I can buy a behind-the-bleeding-edge Samsung in my local AT&T store. Just did a few weeks ago in fact.

    I'll admit my music app (neutron) has required more fiddling to get working properly with my earbuds, car etc than my iPod did, but Apple no longer make the iPod I like (mostly - the controls are still over-converged) so that is immaterial. I slapped a 256 gig card in the phone and now I can carry all my music around and still have more memory available for pix than I could afford in an iDevice.

    I would like to put in a word for iClever. They offer a two-port, 2.4 amp per port charger that works great on my iPad air and phone and cost about a third of what the official charger does. I also use third party cables to connect it to the iPad (Made by "Aonlink", a daily special from Amazon) that cost half (for three cables) what a single cable from Apple cost. None of these products have failed to work, burst into flame or given off vile and/or toxic fumes when in use. Just thought I'd mensh, if you're looking.

  10. Jellied Eel Silver badge

    Paging Mr Musk

    There's a brave chap on YouTube who's been rebuilding written-off Teslas. He's had problems in the past with Tesla refusing to supply parts, service manuals etc. Because Tesla control the service chain, accident repairs work out extremely expensive, so cars get written off by the insurers, then picked up as salvage titles. Various US states will happily recertify the vehicles per their legislation.

    But he discovered a new challenge. Teslas were fitted with Takata airbags. Those had a manufacturing defect that meant their gas generators also generated shrapnel, which has killed and injured drivers. So naturally there's been a recall. The US mandated this via the NHTSA, and Tesla offered to replace airbags for free.

    Except if the cars aren't officially approved vehicles, then Tesla want $1,500 up front to recertify the car. In the video, they claim safety due to high voltages, but there are fuses for that.. As the guy shows in his other vids where he takes out and takes apart battery packs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8jSZReDOKk

    But I suspect this also falls into the kind of vendor lock-in the FTC is trying to prevent. Tesla has to replace the airbags as it's a Federal requirement.

    1. Bryan Hall

      Re: Paging Mr Musk

      Exactly. When I saw this article I was thinking - Tesla.

      They won't even sell you parts to fix your Tesla if it isn't certified. Not the same thing as using 3rd party parts - but just as wrong. For a "green" car company, they sure aren't pro restore and repair.

  11. a_yank_lurker

    How About Abusive EULAs?

    Now if the ferals really want to help, crack down on abusive software EULAs that allow the vendor to ship crap without customers having recourse.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Trollface

      Ferals:

      "You keep voting for us, and you keep clicking 'I Agree'. Problem?"

  12. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

    Will no one think of the printers?

    Shirley, the attitude of "you'll use ONLY our ink and we've chipped the cartriďges to make damn sure" comes under just this heading

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Will no one think of the printers?

      And what happens when the necessary tech is PATENTED, meaning they can use patent law to counter warranty law?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Will no one think of the printers?

        Can't patent prior art

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: Will no one think of the printers?

          >Can't patent prior art

          Not familiar with the US patent system:

          prior art + in a mobile/pocket/wearable device = US utility patent

    2. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: Will no one think of the printers?

      the attitude of "you'll use ONLY our ink and we've chipped the cartriďges to make damn sure" comes under just this heading

      Agree, one of the issues/fun-and-games with Thinkpads is that practically everything is chipped and contains a product id. If the Bios doesn't see the right id being returned from the LCD, battery, HDD, keyboard etc. it will raise an error and often fail to boot.

      So yes I can buy a standard replacement LCD panel from a wide range of third-party vendors, but for it to work, I need the variant that has the IBM/Lenovo product id., for which there is typically a price premium.

      1. Fihart

        Re: Will no one think of the printers? @Roland6

        Samsung laptop recovered from the trash and extensively repaired (keyboard reassembled, screen resecured to lid, lid reattached to computer, hard drive replaced) *. Optical drive damaged so replaced, but BIOS refuses to list replacement drive in boot sequence -- BIOS will list the original damaged drive but not the off-brand replacement. Result -- otherwise now working laptop goes back in the trash. Highly irresponsible of Samsung -- and, as you say, they aren't alone.

        *probably a misguided attempt by original owner to secure his data, but perhaps just a tantrum.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Will no one think of the printers?

        If you have ever repaired a IBM think pad you know that if you don't use the exact part number you run the risk of destroying some thing. I learned this the hard way. I order part part based on the FRU (inverter) and IBM sent me what the call and equivalent FRU. The customer went from from having laptop with a no video on the screen (external video worked) to fried mother board.

      3. Solmyr ibn Wali Barad

        Re: Will no one think of the printers?

        "So yes I can buy a standard replacement LCD panel from a wide range of third-party vendors, but for it to work, I need the variant that has the IBM/Lenovo product id"

        Most certainly isn't the case with IBM Thinkpads. Nor earlier Lenovo machines like T400 to T430. I have done plenty of screen/HDD/SSD/memory replacements for those. Anything with a compatible interface can work.

        Exceptions:

        - IBM and Lenovo have always used BIOS whitelists for internal Wifi/Bluetooth/3G cards. Smells more like a FCC certification issue. This whitelist is actually easy to bypass. Search for BIOS error 1802 and off you go.

        - T43 had a whitelist for suitable ATA harddisks. That was due to shoddy SATA/ATA bridge design. Again possible to bypass.

        - There is a slim possibility that Lenovo has sneaked something into their very latest models. I haven't dissected them much. But in this case we have no reason to talk about IBM device ID's, because IBM hasn't been involved in design decisions since 2006.

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: Will no one think of the printers?

          >Most certainly isn't the case with IBM Thinkpads. Nor earlier Lenovo machines like T400 to T430.

          Much of my experience predates the T400 series, namely T60/61... and like yourself I've not had cause to dissect the more recent Lenovo offerings; perhaps Lenovo has exercised some common sense and made things much simpler.

    3. Ivan Headache

      Re: Will no one think of the printers?

      It's not the chipping of the ink carts that bugs me it's the fact that it's different ink cart for every printer.

      Client has just had to replace an Epson but has a draw full of "apple' inks, New Epson printer requires "strawberry" inks. Another client has an Epson that requires "orange" (or is it "daisy") inks so I can't sell them on to him.

      We have 2 Canon printers. They both require different carts - and to make sure that we can't mix'n'match they are physically different in size. And I still have a bag full of assorted carts for 2 earlier Canons.

      As well as calling these firms on repairs Epson, Canon and HP should be mandated to to make their domestic/consumer printers all use the same ink carts across their range. It's only the 'pro' machines that need anything different.

      1. Roland6 Silver badge

        Re: Will no one think of the printers?

        >It's not the chipping of the ink carts that bugs me it's the fact that it's different ink cart for every printer.

        The ever-changing and proprietary chipping irritates me - really need someone (the EU? ! :) ) to step in an get a Standard defined, just like they did with mobile phones and use of Micro-USB for charging.

        Brother have taken different ink cart. to another level. For one range of MFP, they effectively have Shipped with(*), Standard(ie. small), Large and XLarge cartridges. However, whilst all models will take the S cartridges, not all will take L or XL. Hence for some reason, my (upper range) model won't recognise a Large cartridge, as it only accepts S and XL. Naturally the Brother value packs generally consist S and L cartridges...

        As for HP 'Pro' printers, it would be nice if these actually used the 'Pro' ink cartridges that HP sell in their printers for the print industry offerings.

    4. Schultz

      Re: Will no one think of the printers?

      Everybody thinks about printers:

      http://mobile.gmarket.co.kr/Search/Search?topKeyword=Ink%20cartridge

      https://m.aliexpress.com/wholesale/Ink-cartridge.html?keywords=Ink-cartridge

      Local rules and regulations may apply... So check with your federal trade commission before ordering.

  13. Cynicalmark
    Happy

    Goods in the UK &EULA

    The EULA is irrelevant since it is not incorporated into the sales contract before purchase, and even if it were it could not exclude rights under the Sale of Goods Act.

    An EULA cannot form a second contract on installation of the software or commissioning of any sort (as the maufacturers claim it does) because their consideration is past, i.e. you have already paid to use it, so clicking 'I accept' is a "bare promise".

    We don’t have to give a toss about the reams of garbage lawyers cook up to confuse everybody. Someone in Parliament had a moment of sanity a few years back.

    I can, with confidence put the shittiest screen and battery pack replacement in my phone, watch it melt when plugged in to my third party charger that emits sparks every few seconds and feel smug that I was a totally tight moron when selecting parts based on price rather than quality:)

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Goods in the UK &EULA

      But that just means some savvy businessmen will get a new Parliament together to pass a law turning policies the other way.

      1. israel_hands

        Re: Goods in the UK &EULA

        That's highly unlikely. There's no benefit to being seen stamping on consumer protection so it's a pretty suicidal position for an MP to take and would require changing quite a few laws that have been around for a very long time. Particularly the EULA garbage. You can't bind someone into an agreement they don't have a chance to read until after they've opened the box, and once they've purchased the product there's no reason for them to agree to anything after the fact.

        As mentioned earlier, a moment of sanity.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Goods in the UK &EULA

          There is if you get a kickback from the businesses and lull your constituency to sleep meaning they become zombies who don't care anymore. It's working in the US.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Goods in the UK &EULA

            And when has the US ever been concerned with common sense or consumer protection?

            In the UK, consumer protection is a big thing, and any government trying to screw it over probably wouldn't be in government for too much longer.

            1. Charles 9

              Re: Goods in the UK &EULA

              "And when has the US ever been concerned with common sense or consumer protection?

              In the UK, consumer protection is a big thing, and any government trying to screw it over probably wouldn't be in government for too much longer."

              Does The Jungle ring a bell? The US DID care about its citizens once, but times change. Don't think Europe is immune. They just need time to dumb down the populace.

  14. tom dial Silver badge

    I think if I were a manufacturer, I would warrant the product only against malfunction caused by defects in assembly or of original parts or repairs by my authorized agents using replacement parts I approved. I see no reason to compel a manufacturer to extend a warranty to cover a product repaired by agents not under his control or supervision, or using parts, even if they exceed original specification, that were not explicitly approved for the purpose when installed.

    The Teslas described above might better be handled by requiring Takata to provide the rebuilt salvage Tesla owner a replacement air bag and the same compensation it would provide Tesla if they were doing the installation. On the other hand, the law governing recalls may require otherwise, as may the laws of various states that cover rebuilt salvage cars, which normally seem to require a specific title as a result of being declared a total loss and fairly extensive detailed inspection before approval before retitling for road use. Those laws might dictate a result.

  15. Lost it

    Apple know the cost of everything and the value of nothing?

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sort of...

    The Magnuson-Moss act allows people to use non-OEM replacement parts but if those parts cause damage, the warranty does not have to be honored by the OEM. So if the warranty is important it's best to use equal or better quality replacement parts. Equal or better doesn't mean meritless advertising claims it means objective, documented engineering derived performance metrics.

    Automotive engine oils are a perfect example of the warranty issues. Most engine manufacturers require engine oils that meet certain industry or OEM performance test specifications and viscosity. The type of oil is specified as required in the new vehicle/engine warranty. The OEM does not require that a consumer use a specific brand of oil, but they do require the consumer use the correct specification of oil or the warranty can and usually will be voided. The MM Act does NOT protect the OEM warranty if the consumer does not use the required specification engine oil or replacement component.

    This oil issue is common on Euro vehicles from Mercedes, Porsche, Audi, BMW, VW and other mfgs. The oil requirements between standard Euro engine models and Diesels are often different as are high-performance engine models such as the AMG, M, R or RS series vehicles. Using the incorrect spec oil can literally cause the engine to be severely damaged or totally destroyed.

    So a word to the wise: Do not believe the Magnuson-Moss Act claims of boutique oil purveyors who claim that you can use ANY oil you chose in your engine and retain the OEM warranty because this is UNTRUE. You must use the correct specification and viscosity oil as stated in the warranty.

  17. joemarion

    ASCDI's multi-year battle is seeing results

    This is a battle that we have been fighting for years. It is great to see that the FTC is doing something about it. Thank you all for your support in helping us wage the war. www.ascdi.com/join

  18. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    30 days?

    So, if I "mis-interpret" a law, I have 30 days to "make good" before I get arrested and charged? Good to know.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like