Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued By Belgian Consumer Association For Not Applying EU Warranty Laws
An anonymous reader writes "Following the recent Italian case, Apple is now being sued by the Belgian consumer association 'Test-Achats' (french/dutch website) for not applying the EU consumer protection laws by only giving a one-year warranty on its products. At the same time, Apple is not only refusing to give the mandatory two-year warranty but is also selling the additional year of warranty with its Applecare products. If the consumer association wins its case, Apple could be forced to refund Applecare contracts to its Belgian customers while providing the additional year of warranty for free."
If they lose, basically all they have to do is do what they should have been doing already? No fine or anything? I'm surprised more people aren't trying to get away with it.
As a Belgian I've seen Test-Achats do many very good things in the name of the consumers to protect them over time. It's no surprise either that not everything that gets accepted in the US gets through in Europe. My question tho would be if the US has anything similar that actively defends the consumers? Non-governmental that is.
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
If the consumer association wins it's case, Apple could be forced to refund Applecare contracts to it's Belgian customers while providing the additional year of warranty for free.
Wouldn't they have to honour it in all of the EU, being EU law..?
I'm rather surprised they have been getting away with this, as it is. I thought EU was pretty strict with consumer rights, and would deal with it directly (as opposed to this independent organisation suing). Hrmm...
"If the consumer association wins it's case,..." Doesn't sound like a big if.
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
>it's Belgian customers
IT IS BELGIAN CUSTOMERS.
Speaking of which, Belgian Customers could have Marauder Shields in a fight.
Isn't it unreasonable to require a warranty longer than a year for a consumer product? Realistically, if the device you bought is defective you should realize it within a few months. But certainly a year is long enough to notice a defect and get a replacement/repair.
Are you kidding me? I mean, the EU has some pretty solid consumer and worker protection laws that I like quite a bit, but let me get this straight, they mandate the duration of warranty? Does this mean secondhand sales are illegal? What about consumer products not intended to last two years, are those just banned outright?
Nobody says you have to buy Apple's products. Your opt-out is your wallet. I'm sure there are smartphones, computers, and tablets available with more favorable terms of warranty. What is the justification for this kind of heavy-handedness?
Thank God you've got France right there, or else you might not have enough cheese to go with all that whine.
Belgium...
And everyone was so offended that they forgot about the lawsuit entirely.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
its its its, goddamnit
See above. Typical Slashdot editing moan/bitch etc.
Market dictates that if Apple products sold in EU countries come with 2 year Apple care and the ones in a non EU country do not, the ones sold from the EU countries should be worth more then the ones that are sold in non-EU countries if the warranty is included... meaning the price will have to reflect that and will likely be passed to consumers or a side market will be created. The same happened in the UAE where North American iPhones are sold here due to the lack of Facetime on UAE version...
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
I think Test-Achats is just mad that Apple products don't make waffles...yet.
The problem isn't that Apple has been getting away with it, if you insist, Apple folds pretty damn quickly, the problem is that you got to fight them. Sony tried to pull a similar stunt with the PSP and its lousy display with lots of dead pixels, Holland was the only place in the world where Sony officially agreed to replace any PSP with any malfunctioning sub-pixel. If you insisted yourself in a shop in another country you would probably have had it replaced BUT the law states that this should be the norm, not just for the customer who insists on his rights.
Apple is one of the worsed performers in this area, they have no problem charging far higher prices in the EU for the supposed thougher regulation but then try to withold the extra support that is needed. Probably because Apple is an extremely American company and they just can't grasp that in some parts of the world, they can't have it all their way.
The odd thing is that Europe is far easier to deal in, yes, there are longer warranties but then again, nobody can sue for millions for trivial cases. Warranty costs can be easily calculated and avoided with good QA (haha, Apple and QA) but frivolous lawsuits can come out at your right out of the blue.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Longer warrantees directly translate to higher costs. So Apple just needs to add 50 euros to the price to cover the increased warrantee. But I wonder what a typical consumer would choose: higher price or smaller warrantee. I know that I always turn down the offers for extended warrantees... What's the diff? except in EU, no choice in the matter...
Warranty is simple, it is the period of time in which you can REASONABLY expect a product to keep functioning. 2 years isn't even the upper limit, for things that you can expect to function for longer, like a washing machine, a car etc etc, it is far longer. However, after 2 years, the warranty does go down, cosmetic issues are no longer covered but if after two years your washing machine falls apart, it should STILL be repaired for free.
What the little sheep mosb1000 doesn't get that warranty is NOT about DOA, devices that are broken when you buy them, but about devices that break down to fast. Warranty is repair of any issues in device that occur that are not part of its normal deterioration of its expected lifetime.
Simply put, if I buy a oLed tablet, the blues going out after a period of time is not covered under warranty since this is to be expected. The paint on my car going off after a decade (if that is still normal) is not covered since that is expected. Rust holes forming after 5 years in a decent car IS covered since this is not to be expected anymore.
This also allows some devices to fall under 2 years, under 1 year and even shorter. If you buy a led blinker for your bike, coming back in 1 year that the battery is empty isn't covered of course. Complaining that paper decoration runs after only one winter in the rain is likely not to covered either no matter how much you sue.
But a normal customer should be able to use a device in a good condition under normal use for a reasonable amount of time and if that isn't possible, this should either be reflected in the price, have a very good reason or the producer should repair it.
Only complete and utter sheep think otherwise.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
They do cost more in Europe. What is your point?
For an easy compare, see EU and US prices in iTunes compared against exchange rates.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yeah my reaction is the same. I think it's pretty typical for makers just starting out to warrant their products not by repairing them locally but by just replacing them with a new device. After a year you aren't even making the same device anymore. You can't just repair it without a lot of costly local infra structure of parts inventory and training of repair people.
The EU is just making things expensive and slowing innovation just to implement a protectionist trade barrier against non local merchants.
Only in the short term. Longer warranties translate to products designed to last longer which then have a lower cost of ownership. Of course, if all you care about is getting the latest shiny object from the factories in China, then you probably don't care about the warranty. But, consider that if you plan to sell your device and buy a new one, longer product lives translate to higher resale value.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
In countries where they have been forced into longer warranties, they simply raised their prices, essentially including the additional warranty in the base price.
Boy the EU seems to be run by magical thinking. Why not pass a law outlawing death? you can't just wave your wand and say products must now be problem free.
One might want to counter argue that is apple can afford to sell a 2 year warrantee then they could afford to bundle that into the original price. That is to make everyone pay extra even if they don't want to pay extra for a 2 year warrantee.
Moreover if apple were just making products for the EU perhaps they might adjust their products a bit to accomodate that. Use less advanced components, derate processor speeds, use faster lourde fans. But they are making products for the world and also selling those in the EU.
Man, people think the US is arrogant but they sure don't have a sense of entitlement like the Europeans seem to. I bet the EU has outlawed raaaain on your wedding day.
This is the text of the law:
Hush, little citizen, don't say a word,
Papa's gonna buy you a mockingbird.
And if that mockingbird don't sing,
Papa's gonna buy you a diamond ring.
And if that diamond ring turn brass,
Papa's gonna buy you a looking glass.
And if that looking glass gets broke,
Papa's gonna buy you a billy goat.
And if that billy goat don't pull,
Papa's gonna buy you a cart and bull.
And if that cart and bull turn over,
Papa's gonna buy you a dog named Rover.
And if that dog named Rover won't bark.
Papa's gonna to buy you and horse and cart.
And if that horse and cart fall down,
Well you'll still be the sweetest little baby in town.
"you can't just wave your wand and say products must now be problem free"
*whoosh*
I have to agree. Makes you wonder though if less warranty == better longer lasting product why offer one at all? It's not like other places in the world would force a company to offer a warranty.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
The law is supposed to ensure that when you spend £150 on something, it is supposed to work for at least 2 years (excluding anything you do to break it). That is not an unreasonable expectation. Any company that is unable to promise that their high-end electrical products will last for 24 months really don't deserve any sympathy.That is already quite a low expectation of build quality.
You might have a point if you're talking about throw-away cheap electronics which you don't need to last 2 years; but Apple certainly don't fall into that category.
You may be surprised that a summary on /. is less than correct ... OK I'll leave the snark out.
Repeat after me: *There is NO “mandatory 2 years warranty” in the European Union*
What there is, is a “Maengelhaftung”, which is usually translated to “Liability for defects”. This is to be granted by the *seller* of a consumer good to a consumer. It is valid for 2 years from the date of purchase. Any defect showing in the first 6 months is assumed to be a manufacturing error, burden of proof of the opposite is with the seller, for the remaining 18 months the customer has to proof that the defect was already present at time of purchase.
As Apple sells its products in its own stores in europe (online included) it adheres to EU law, if Apple products are sold through a third party, the consumer has to deal with that third party.
Apple grants a voluntary 1 year warranty. This actually strengthens the purchasers position, because the above mentioned “burden of proof” now lies with Apple for the first *12* months. No consumer advocacy group in Europe has a problem with this.
But Apple additionally sells “Apple Care” contracts, which extend Apples warranty to three years. If you read closely this far, you'll notice that this is a much better protection for the consumer than the mandatory “Liability for defects” the EU imposes and absolutely doesn't touch this EU Directive. Regardless of any voluntary or sold warranty the EU Directive still stands.
Now, what the european consumer advocacy groups say is that Apple misleads the already (through the “Liability for defects” EU Directive) fine protected consumer into believing they wouldn't be protected after 12 months without buying Apple Care. If people are very stupid, and often they are, this could very well be the case.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:HTML
No. Just the opposite. If Apple will adapt ( finaly) their warranty they can never ever justify the 249 euro Applecare ( on a MacBook Air) for the third year.
besides, those consumer protection laws have been on display at the protection law office down in a cellar for a year now... does apple have any idea how much damage that union would suffer if they let this lawsuit run straight over them?
starting in 1930, although they lasted more than 2500h in 1925? Because the manufacturers came together and decided they wanted to sell more light bulbs.
Some hardware is just made to break after a certain time, like printers that stop printing after a certain number of pages, or maybe the Imacs that have capacitors specced for 85 degrees C right next to the CPU, where they could just as easily used ones specced for 115 degrees for a couple of cents more.
So the 2 year mandatory warrenty in the EU can really screw up your business modell when you depend on selling a new gadget to your customer every year.
You don't even grasp the slightest bit of that law (and thus you are the one with the magical thinking).
It goes like this: For two years, a consumer has the right to return a good (and either replace it with a similar product or get a refund), if it was already defective at the time it was sold. For the first six month after the sale, it is assumed, that any defect occuring was already present at the time of the sale, and the seller has to prove that the buyer didn't handle the product with care. For the remaining 18 month, it's assumed, that the product was mishandled, and then the buyer has to prove that the defect was present already at the time of the sale.
So nowhere this law assumes that products are faultfree for at least two years.
But AppleCare's warranties cover, what is already mandated by law, and the law requires that all warranties have to inform the prospective buyer about the legal protection he already has. And this is ommitted by AppleCare, thus it fraudulently sold a product to the buyer the buyer didn't really need.
I believe that the warranty length does have an effect on product design though. If you only have to worry about maintaining something at your own expense for 1 year, you'll design it differently than if you have to support it for 2, 5 or whatever.
Because you want to sell at the lowest price possible, if you have to warranty it to the point where repair/replacement costs become too significant, building it better is actually cheaper than providing warranty support.
Now, I'm normally free market as all heck. But look at the environmental chain - building a fridge that has an average lifespan last a decade might cost 10% more than one that will only last 5. But 2 fridges, each with 90% of the resources of the long lasting one, is still 180% of the resources. Sure, they might be 90% recyclable, but you're still down.
Where does the problem come in? Nobody really offers the longer warranties by choice. I'm forced to go by brand name, consumer reports, and hopefully luck. Brand Name - quality ebbs and flows. Consumer reports doesn't get enough time to test, especially since quality varies over the years. That leaves mostly luck.
I don't read AC A human right
I full agree,
My brother recient had a $1500NZD dell laptop fail after 15 months, he called dell and they said (paraaphrase) unlucky buddy that only has a 12 month warranty. He called the consumer protection agency (New Zealand consumer watchdog), they said someone can "reasonably expect" a laptop to last longer then 15months and essentially ordered dell to repair or repplace the laptop.
So they replaced the failed motheroard and all was well with the orld
@Random_Adam
Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
Ok my dodgy laptop keyboard, makes me sound like an idiot :(
They were supposed to be: reciently and paraphrase.
@Random_Adam
Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
Oh, are we trolling and yapping nonsense? Alrighty then:
US corporations shouldn't release such shitty products that constantly die within a few months to purposely defraud people and generate excessive amounts of toxic waste.
reciently
It's not your keyboards' fault ;)
Seriously though, your brother was lucky Dell listened to the agency. Usually when such situations arise your only recourse is to go to court, which usually costs more than the product's value (even when you get legal expenses paid).
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
:( I feel like you should have proofread this post a little more carefully, good sir.
Apple doe the same in the Netherlands. The consumer organisation (consumentenbond) has warned Apple to inform customers about the minimum of 2 years of warranty wich is guaranteed by law (as opposed to the 1 year Apple is offering, and they also offer the 2 and 3 years extended 'AppleCare Protection Plan' at a price in the Netherlands).
The "consumentenbond" is contemplating legal actions if they don't change their ways:
http://www.consumentenbond.nl/actueel/nieuws/nieuwsoverzicht-2012/apple-moet-duidelijker-zijn-over-garantie/
Some explanation about the 2 year warranty in Europe. This was a 1999 EC directive ( (Directive 1999/44/EC) . From 2005 it became law in a lot of European countries. Initially this directive was to curb cheap imports from Asia. Manufacturers - like Apple and others - were not targets. In fact , retailers are solely responsible for all warranty repairs. Now comes the tricky bit: in lot's of cases retailers were not covered for the second year warranty by their suppliers. That why they forced the unnecessary Applecare upon their clients. But now : If you buy an Apple product online they become a retailer , so they had to comply with the EC directive. Which they did not. The headline is somewhat misleading. It's not only Belgium. There are 10 other countries involved.
So why is the iPad $US399 in USA and 399 euro in Europe? Why are they paying 25% more? They're made in China, so the shipping costs won't be much different.
So, you're saying that Apple products are so shitty compared to other products sold in the EU (including those made in china), that they can't afford to follow warranty laws.
Additionally UK citizens have additional rights. Anything over £100 paid for on credit card makes the credit card provider liable as if you you had bought it from them, meaning you can always pursue them for warranty claims or a refund even if the retailer goes bust. In fact you don't need to even pay £100 on the card, the item simply has to cost over £100, i.e. you could pay £99.99 in cash and 1p by card and still be covered. Some women are now getting faulty breast implant refunds this way after having paid small deposits on card.
We also have the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) which says that goods must last a "reasonable length of time", which for things like computers and TVs is considered to be around six years. If the device fails before that time you are entitled to a partial refund based on how much use you had out of it, or of course the retailer can choose to replace the item.
It is also worth noting that your warranty is with the retailer, not the manufacturer. Of course Apple is both in this case, but it is worth remembering as many manufacturers try to fob customers off with "contact the manufacturer" when in fact they are required to handle the whole process.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
For the remaining 18 month, it's assumed, that the product was mishandled, and then the buyer has to prove that the defect was present already at the time of the sale.
So nowhere this law assumes that products are faultfree for at least two years.
What you are forgetting is that in civil matters such as this the burden of proof is the "balance of probabilities". In practical terms that means that unless there is a dent in it then any court is going to side with the consumer who says that the product stopped working during normal use. There mere fact that the product is undamaged (aside from normal wear) is enough, and failure is deemed to be because of poor quality or workmanship.
So yes, the law does assume that products must be fault free for two years. Even though technically the onus is on the consumer to prove that the fault existed from new they already have strong evidence so the retailer still needs to show mistreatment.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If only there was some way to measure the value added to a product and tax it...
The guideline you linked to states:
Article 2 Conformity with the contract
1. The seller must deliver goods to the consumer which are in conformity with the contract of sale.
2. Consumer goods are presumed to be in conformity with the contract if they:
(a) comply with the description given by the seller and possess the qualities of the goods which the seller has held out to the consumer as a sample or model;
(b) are fit for any particular purpose for which the consumer requires them and which he made known to the seller at the time of conclusion of the contract and which the seller has accepted;
(c) are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same type are normally used;
(d) show the quality and performance which are normal in goods of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect, given the nature of the goods and taking into account any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the seller, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling.
Article 5 Time limits
1. The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods.
Any device that stops working or has big malfunctions within 2 years is no longer conform to the contract, and the consumer shall be entitled to have the goods brought into conformity free of charge by repair or replacement
1. Shops are in historical centers, making them more expensive to run and rent, so profit margins must be higher,
2. People who sell it earn more than in US, and they have full health coverage and a pension plan included. So the overhead is more. The same accounts for all the middleman on European soil (truck driver, shop assistant, logistic operator, ....)
All in all, it is not a given deal if Apple itself has more profit on the 399 Euro as opposed to the 399$ Note also that on amazon.de the ipad 2 is now 403 Eur, and they don't have cost 1. They do however have the extra shipping cost to put it in the hands of the customer. I suppose they just put on the typical price of the shops and have a higher profit margin.
Maybe you should read the Directive? If repairing imposes "disproportionate costs" on the seller, he can just give the money back.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:en:HTML
Dilbert RSS feed
I also missed the bit where is 399EU for the old iPad 2 and 399US for the "new" iPad.
If you compare Australia and USA, they both have new iPads, its $429AU which is around $450US. Here in NZ we pay $475US for the iPad 2. It would be cheaper to have an American friend buy one and send it via courier.
No. The law just requires that products have to be faultfree at the time of the sale, and it assumes, that goods which within the first six month are flawed already at the time of the sale. It further gives consumers the chance to prove that products that fail within the first two years were flawed from the begin and gives them the right to a replacement or a refund, if they are able to prove it.
The "balance of probabilities" you quote and you base your argument on is not part of the law. It is up to the courts to decide about it. I've seen decisions in Germany where faults occuring during the first two years were deemed normal tear and wear and the right for replacement or refund was denied. And many sellers (the law only decides matters between seller and buyer of a technical good, the manufacturer has nothing to do with it) have a section in their Terms and Conditions where they reserve the right to attempt up to three repairs first before replacing or refunding the good, and those have been considered within the limits of the law by the courts.
I'd say it's the opposite; with warranties, products may have flaws and break, it's just that it's the seller's responsibility that it gets fixed if it does.
If there was no warranty at all, *then* every product must be fault free; why buy anything ever if you can't even have a reasonable expectation of lifetime?
That's just because in the EU is illegal to post prices to consumers without including taxes.
What a load. The OP is talking about online prices. Open the Apple store and EU products are 30% more expensive. Don't tell me that the shipping in the EU is 30% of the retail price because shipping is charged separately. Apple has mandatory prices for the iDevices.
Also, the historical center argument is void as well, because by your reasoning all US products would be far more expensive in the EU. Guess what. Prices are quite equal.
Then your other argument is also untrue. People cost about the same but a higher percentage of gross income per capita is spent on 'commie hobbies' like public healthcare, retirement and schooling, where in the US this is spent on credit card loans, a 3rd car or insane amounts of unhealthy food.
If you order from the US in Europe, customs will force you to pay VAT of 21% in Belgium. They have the right to ask a fine too, because you tried to dodge VAT, but I'm told that if you work via UPS or other official shippers, they have an aggreement to only add VAT.
http://svn.eadsware.com/blazer/blazer/ml.hpp
Actually, they're not. Apple stores are a different commercial entity from (for instance buying online). If you get a faulty laptop from the online store and try to get it returned under the saled of goods act, the stores won't take it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
EU still sticks to dictating what people and companies can do within it's own borders. Meanwhile, the US is trying to dictate laws to the entire world.
We also have the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) which says that goods must last a "reasonable length of time", which for things like computers and TVs is considered to be around six years. If the device fails before that time you are entitled to a partial refund based on how much use you had out of it, or of course the retailer can choose to replace the item.
I quoted the relevant part of SOGA at Apple when my laptop battery failed after four years. I pointed out that their advertising said it would last 300 complete discharge cycles, and therefore the legally mandated 'reasonable length of time' was 300 discharge cycles. I called them at 4pm and the (free) replacement battery turned up at 9am the next day. Somewhat depressingly, I got much better service from this than any of the repairs or replacements I've had from them under warranty...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
But AppleCare includes technical support for other issues other than hardware issues. That is not mandated by law.
AppleCare is not a scam, or not even a program where you are paying for getting the same rights as you have from applicable consumer laws.
It is a service and support contract.
BUT that Apple is not honouring European consumer laws is of course a terrible thing.
I can say though (from experience), that Apple has people and procedures for working with the European consumer law. They don't seem to be doing the job right though.
BS. Lots and lots of electronics is being sold in the EU with the mandated warranty, and yet none of them come even close to - let alone exceed - Apple's products regarding pricing.
But hey, enjoy your failing and unreliable electronics (or your applecare). I'm sure that's not actually more expensive at all than the imaginary costs added by a mandated minimal warranty period.
Biggest reason: VAT.
US prices are ALWAYS given without tax.
Euro prices are almost always given INCLUDING tax.
The iPad is 399€ in Germany, including 19% tax and the legally-mandated (but ultimately useless) two-year warranty.
I don't see how Belguim thinks it's fair to impose this two year warranty law on a manufacturer who's products are designed to only last for one.
I've helped friends similarly who had broken ps3/xboxes and the retailer wouldn't do shit to help. As soon as you quote the relevant law they realise that they can't pull the wool over your eyes and give up.
Two things need to happen in the UK. We need better education of consumer protection laws, starting at school but also through government advertising and we to crack down on retailers who tell consumers it is out of warranty when legally it isn't.
Prices in the US online store are listed without any sales tax. All products sold in the EU have the VAT (sales tax) included into the price. The VAT in the UK is 20%.
We also have the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) which says that goods must last a "reasonable length of time", which for things like computers and TVs is considered to be around six years. If the device fails before that time you are entitled to a partial refund based on how much use you had out of it, or of course the retailer can choose to replace the item.
And what you forgot to tell people is that this is the case if the defect was present when the item was sold to you; and for the first six months it is assumed that this is the case, while after six months you have to prove it. So it is not "if the device fails before that time", it is "if the device fails before that time because of a defect that was present at the time you bought it, and you can prove it".
But AppleCare's warranties cover, what is already mandated by law, and the law requires that all warranties have to inform the prospective buyer about the legal protection he already has. And this is ommitted by AppleCare, thus it fraudulently sold a product to the buyer the buyer didn't really need.
In the UK, basically Apple would have to change their wording from "instead of the one year warranty you get a three year warranty", to "instead of the one year warranty plus your legal rights, you get a three year warranty plus your legal rights". They may have done that already.
I'd also say that it isn't "a product the buyer didn't really need", it is just "less than the buyer thought they would get". For example, if you take a MacBook from the UK to the USA and it breaks down there, you can have it fixed in the USA and AppleCare covers it. Your UK legal rights obviously wouldn't cover that, you'd have to wait until you are back in the UK. Or if the MacBook breaks and it was your fault but Apple cannot prove it, then Apple Care will fix it but your legal rights wouldn't cover that.
"For two years, a consumer has the right to return a good (and either replace it with a similar product or get a refund), if it was already defective at the time it was sold. For the first six month after the sale, it is assumed, that any defect occuring was already present at the time of the sale, and the seller has to prove that the buyer didn't handle the product with care. For the remaining 18 month, it's assumed, that the product was mishandled, and then the buyer has to prove that the defect was present already at the time of the sale."
Are you sure this is the standard implementation across Europe? In the UK it's defined as the reasonable life as the product, which would normally be more than 2 years, and in fact the UK sets a maximum of up to 6 years meaning past that initial 6 months you have another 5.5 years on more expensive consumer products to file a claim if you can prove fault in the product. The UK had this in place before the EU's 2 year warranty came into play, and so hasn't changed it's law because it already offered stronger protections.
The European law came in to remove the disparity where some EU states had a more US style attitude of "Aww, your product broke after 6months? tough fucking shit", whilst some had UK style stronger consumer protection laws.
I was under the impression that how that 2 years is implemented is country specific and that some European countries had gone as far as just giving a 2 year version of the afformentioned 6 month rule in the most consumer friendly cases and so some countries do actually assume a product should be defect free for 2 years.
Your explanation is a great clarification to what has been posted but I don't think it's quite correct- certainly in the UK it's more than 2 years at least, and I'm pretty sure elsewhere it is a full 2 years of assumption against consumer fault and in fact the EU's consumer-facing documentation on it does actually imply that it should be a 2 year period of assumption against consumer fault too:
http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/64/index_en.htm
I think it really depends which implementation of the EU law you're living under, but certainly 2 years is only the baseline, and the 6 month thing doesn't seem to apply to every EU country.
One thing to consider is that US prices are usually quoted exclusive of sales tax while EU prices (on consumer orientated sites) are usually quoted inclusive of VAT. In my experiance this usually accounts for some but not all of the price difference between EU and US headline prices.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
It seems that with many companies merely mentioning SOGA is enough to get them to do the right thing. I suppose it makes more sense for them to send you a new battery that probably costs them less than £5 than to risk you taking them to small claims court.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
but yeah, I think they would.
They could even redirect some of the ire unto the law and government itself by simply stating that now all new Apple products come with three years Applecare. There are all sorts of marketing buzzwords and such that they can and will employ. Then you can turn around and watch forums erupt with people complaining about the cost up against those who say "its for your best interest" and like ... and eventually everyone will just accept the new base price.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
ffs get your grammar right.
Wait! & vs. &?!
A company that does not want to provide 2 years warranty should be able to do so ...
ONLY at the condition that it advert it like this :
" Normal products in Europe have a warranty of 24 month, but given we can't certify the quality of the product you buy here, you have to sign this document that will restrict the warranty to X months because the product is not of sufficient quality. "
Because the prices quoted in the EU include your sales taxes, while the US prices don't have the sales taxes included.
Because the cost of doing business in the EU is higher (and the threat of the EU commission randomly charging a large fine against you for silly reasons).
Because the EU consumer protection agencies demand a longer warranty than you get in the US (2 years vs 1 year).
Because the labor cost associated with having a presence in the EU is higher (higher minimum wages, longer vacation times, shorter working hours per week, etc).
I'm sure there are more, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Yeah but Europe is really happy to bitch about that. The US on the other hand should try follow their own laws (or the Geneva convention) for a while before exporting.
Well, that explains. Thanks for clearing that up.
EU still sticks to dictating what people and companies can do within it's own borders.
No they don't.
Generally it's just "prices are higher in Europe". At times it's cheaper to import goods from the US than buy them locally (customs charge you VAT so that's already calculated into the whole deal).
The rules only apply to flights that start or end in the EU. So it's still limited to the EU.
And I don't want to buy anything from a company that employs slaves in China, while it pay billions to shareholders.
Communism, just the same.
If you get legal expenses paid then why does it matter how much they are relative to the product?
In fact, the higher the better - it might act as a deterrent to companies who sell shitty goods and then try to weasel out of their obligations.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It does not have to be working for two years. It just means that they need to replace and/or repair if it doesn't.
Electronic companies already know in great detail the money they need to spend. When the time went from one year to two years, the companies already knew how high the cost would be.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The parent should be rated "Insightful" rather than "Funny", and grandparent "Funny" rather than "Insightful".
On the other hand, you can design a device that does not fail as quickly, then you won't need to have as many replacements in stock.
So why is Electronic goods (laptops etc) only 1 year in the UK when in the entire EU under EU Directives to be implemented into local state laws are not complied with in the UK?
My laptop is 2 years when I bought elsewhere in the EU but if I buy one in the UK it is 1 year warranty, screw the UK, I buy my laptops and import them for this very reason, 2 year warranty which the UK seems to flout.
From the various complaints I've read on the internet, either the Apple system fails somehow in the first year or just keeps chugging along. Yes, I've also heard several complaints when something died in the 13th month. Just change it; a few $10,000s won't matter much to you, Apple.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
I don't get it, if the law says two years and Apple is only giving one year and then illegally charging for the second year, how do they think they have a snowballs chance of winning?
From the Apple Store: "De voordelen van het AppleCare Protection Plan zijn een aanvulling op de wettelijke rechten van de consumentenwetgeving die van kracht is in je rechtsgebied. " That's the same as in the UK Apple Store where it says "AppleCare Protection Plan benefits are in addition to any legal rights provided by consumer protection laws in your jurisdiction.".
This makes it absolutely clear what Apple is selling when you buy AppleCare: You have your one year warranty, you have whatever legal rights consumer protection laws in your country give you, and AppleCare provides the difference between these two rights and three years of warranty (plus a few other things). And I think it is obvious that Apple can sell whatever additional warranty they want to sell, at whatever price they want to sell it, and customers have the right to buy it or not to buy it. The important thing is that Apple states correctly what you get for your money.
Two things need to happen in the UK. We need better education of consumer protection laws, starting at school but also through government advertising and we to crack down on retailers who tell consumers it is out of warranty when legally it isn't.
And if we had better education then you wouldn't have written the second part as you did. First, you are confusing "warranty" with the Sales of Goods act. "Warranty" is whatever the manufacturer gives you voluntarily, which is whatever they decide, according to whatever rules they decide. The Sales of Goods act gives you statutory rights, which may be less or more than the manufacturers warranty, and it is the store which is responsible.
The important things are: The store is responsible to fix defects that were present when the item was sold, for a reasonable amount of time, and "reasonable" depends on the nature of the product. And after six months, _you_ have to prove that the product was defective when sold to get it fixed, while during the first six months, the store would have to prove that the product was not defective.
And this is why no-one likes Americans.
For those of you who actually can think for yourself without spouting the "pinko commie" bullshit, for a start this rule is imposed on every merchant, not just "non-local" ones. Second, if it's anything like the one where I am in New Zealand, it also allows for the relevant statutory agency to make a decision on what is considered a reasonable lifespan based on many factors - for example a $1100 iPhone (that's what it costs here) would likely be covered by consumer law for 5+ years on the basis of the price of the product, the manufacturer's claims to quality, and the purpose for what it was designed (yes, our law includes price as a factor for whether you can expect it to last longer). A $40 Nokia crap-phone you're likely covered for about what the manufacturer said, and that's it. You want to charge $1000+ for your product, you best make damn sure it's worth it, especially if you justify it based on perceived quality.
To claim that it's another EU protectionist trade barrier is also bullshit. It's standard consumer protection laws in the entire European and Asia Pacific regions. Just because you North Americans will tolerate companies selling you shit and claiming it's gold doesn't mean the rest of the world will.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Disputes Tribunal. Filing fee is ~$20, and their judgement has the full force of law, so can't be ignored - offhand I think taking legal representation is also a no-go. Also, our courts can order the loser to pay the winner's reasonable expenses.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Can't contract out of the law. THAT even applies in the USA.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Why aren't they sueing these fuckers for requiring the use of itunes!? WTF! I dont want to use itunes. I don't want to buy everything through apple's app store. I want consumer choice!
I want to buy music from Amazon! For that matter, I want to bring my I-gadget home, turn it on, and use the fucking thing. Not load itunes on my home computer to unlock it! Why do we tollerate this shit!
It's "warranty", you fucktard.
I also live in NZ. The problem here is that the reasonable lifespan is decided on a case by case basis making it very difficult for a consumer to go through the process, with the manufacturer arguing their case against you.
Apple has not been taken to court yet. A cease and desist letter has been sent to the Apple European headquarters in Ireland by 11 consumer organizations. Apple has 1 month to reply. If they ignore this cease and desist letter, this thing could go to European Commession but most likely they (Apple) will be sued on a national level.
In Europe, most prices already include sales tax, while it in the US seems to almost never be included on the sticker price.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Indeed. But once one person's through, you've got something approximating precedent.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".