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.
They do. Consumer protection associations all over the EU are working on it in pretty much every member country.
However, the EU only decides on directives, to put these into law, each member country has to write their own law to comply with their own constitution and other legal principles separately. Therefore to stop such an infringement, every country has to have its own lawsuit or other compliance process to rectify transgressions against a EU decision.
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.
Isn't it unreasonable to require your device to work properly for longer than a year. Realistically, if the device breaks down within two years it's poorly fabricated. But certainly if the device breaks down sooner and you have to buy a new one, the company makes more money.
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
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.
That's not the purpose of a warranty - at least, not the sole purpose, and not in my country (Australia). The mandatory warranty period is designed, not only to ensure that the product is fit for use at the time it's sold, but also that it meets a certain minimum level of durability and quality components.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
As far as I know, most "EU law" is actually EU guidelines that are put into national laws by the member states.
Was I correct to read that in a pirate voice?
If there was no regulation on a warranty it would continue the race to the bottom in a short term grab for more cash.
It's *not* heavy-handed at all. If you can't manufacturer a product to last 3 years, or at least within a certain failure rate, you are cutting corners and fucking the consumer.
2nd hand sales have always been exempt, and the warranty has always followed the product. In some cases it took me getting to a few supervisors, but I have never failed to get an RMA for a product in warranty without any proof of purchase. The product itself is proof I am covered under the warranty.
I don't know what consumer products are intended to last less than two years anyways. If you mean some sort of consumable than that is usually exempt from any kind of warranty. In fact, if it is not intended to last for a certain period I believe that is called an expiration date. Products like that clearly do not have a warranty in a classical sense.
What is the justification for this kind of heavy-handedness?
Consumer protection. Enacted by a government formed by the very citizens the law was enacted to protect. You (most likely) and I (for sure) are from the US; we're not use to government working *for us* though, so I'm not shocked you're unfamiliar with the concept.
Does this mean secondhand sales are illegal?
No the 2 year warrenty is only for new goods. And if you sell secondhand within the 2 years the original warranty(The one you got when you bought the product as new) will stil cover the product.
And I need to ask: What kind of electronic products do you buy which are expected to break down within a year?
Anything made by Apple?
Declaration of Interest: posted in part (about 20%) to annoy my daughter who likes her mac.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
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.
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!
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
You see, here in the EU we actually have something called consumer rights. Our politicians are not completely owned by corporations as in the US, and corporations cannot screw over the consumer without consequences.
An electronic device is considered "durable goods", and as such comes with a 2 year warranty in the EU.
Why do you jump to defend the corporations that are trying to screw you with defective or poorly made merchandise?
Heh, only in the US people vehemently argue for their right to get screwed.
These clowns are absolutely unbelievable sometimes. No wonder they get screwed over by companies so badly over there - some of them seem to LIKE it.
I remember this consumer group did this thing for the first iPhone after a rash of complaints where Apple rejected warranty claims, citing water damage. In an attempt to prove that rejecting claims based on faulty sensors, they bought a new iPhone from an Apple store on a day with near 100% humidity. When they cracked it open, the moisture-sensitive tabs were already triggered.
I can't find the exact same story, but here's something that covered pretty much the same thing. http://consumerist.com/2010/08/can-high-humidity-void-your-iphones-warranty.html
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.
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.
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
If only there was some way to measure the value added to a product and tax it...
You can't differentiate fetus from new born or infant for any definition of moral agent and therefore person.
Of course you can differentiate, what you can't do is tell precisely in practice when an embryo crosses that definitional line from blob of cells through fetus into (in your words) moral agent. So I can say that I believe 24 weeks is too late for abortion, and that 4 weeks is definitely okay but inbetween gets tricky depending on your definition of "moral agent". Of course religious folk who believe that "moral agency" begins at conception due to the existence of a a "soul" are begging the question since they assume that moral agency is a property of something that isn't physically detectable in even an adult human. I have great sympathy for those who believe that abortion is murder, it must be awful to believe that. However if it wasn't for religion there could be a useful ongoing debate in society about what constitutes humanness and the obligations that might put on a pregnant woman. There might also be far more done to help women avoid being pregnant in the first place. Imagine a world in which medical science makes it impossible for a woman to be pregnant against her conscious sound informed will. Might not society's expectation of her attitude towards abortion be stricter than I think it should be today? However to move towards such a world requires acknowledging pregnancy avoidance as a legitimate goal of sexually active women and of their right to be sexually active in the first place!
Also a debate about humanness might also inform the debate about death and what it is to say that "a person is dead", something that is also not universally agreed upon.
snake