Slashdot Mirror
Belgian Consumer Organization Sues Apple For Not Respecting Warranty Law
New submitter thygate writes with news of more trouble for Apple with its warranty terms complying with E.U. regulations. From the press release: "For many years warranty issues are at the top of the charts of complaints dealt with by consumer organizations. One of the recurring problems are the complaints about Apple. 'Test-Aankoop/Test-Achats' found major problems fixed on the information provided by Apple and its authorized distributors regarding the legal guarantee, the commercial one year warranty, and the warranty extension through the 'AppleCare Protection Plan' of 2 or 3 years. A lawsuit against Apple has been filed (English translation; original)) with the Commercial Court of Brussels. In a precedent in Italy, The commercial practices of Apple were found to be misleading. Apple was sentenced to pay € 900,000 and was obliged to change their contractual legal warranty and guarantees to consumers."
In Brussels, from an Italian court? I thought the EU countries (except England, which is still Common Law) were civil law jurisdictions, which don't recognize stare decisis (i.e., no "precedent" from prior decisions)...?
geek. lawyer.
I hardly think that Apple was obliged to change anything. Probably obligated, but not obliged.
for his iPad. Kept it in a heavy duty switcheasy cover and everything. One day, in front of my eyes, he opened the cover, set the iPad sideways down on the inside of the cover's padded surface, and a huge crack occured, running the length of the screen. Luckily it was only on the black bezel, so it didn't impact use at first after putting duct tape over it to protect the fingers.
The entire machine was mint, no scratches, no dings on the side, since it was in a case in it's entire life, the crack itself was some long weird trench that imploded. It was apparent that it wasn't some outside force, no center impact spot nor spiderwebbing outwards.
Even with Apple Care, Apple wouldn't replace it other than to say it would cost $250 to replace it with same model. Which is kinda ridiculous. The screen worked, it was just the digitizer that I found out later costs $60 on iFixit.
Applecare may have been worth it for past notebooks but not anything else. Most other venders extended warranties attempt to provide some value for the money. The current line of notebooks in the office seem solid, back in the mid-00s, it seemed some Powerbook would blow their motherboard every so often, and some 2-3 times in a row.
See http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/01/apple-stores-warranty-approach-contradicts-australian-consumer-law/ for more detail.
I'm a fruit pirate. I bought a watermelon once, and spat the seeds in the back yard. They grew into another watermelon,
All Apple has to do is build in the price of AppleCare into every new purchase. That's all. Like everyone else who sells stuff in the EU - the extended warranty price is built into the price EU customers pay. Just like sales taxes and other stuff needed to comply. It just becomes another reason why US prices are "lower" than EU prices.
Though, there is a *slight* difference between AppleCare and just a bog-standard warranty - since AppleCare offers support as well (you get 90 days of phone support standard, it extends to the full AppleCare period if you buy it).
Perhaps Apple will just offer an "AppleCare lite" for the EU that extends support and all that extra stuff it gives other than a warranty.
Though, the easiest way though is to just scrap AppleCare in the EU, and say all Apple products sold in the EU come with a standard 2 year AppleCare built in and adjust the prices accordingly. Or if the law says 3 years, then the 3 year AppleCare price gets built in. Or 5 years, or whatever.
Would there be any reasonable reason otherwise? I mean, instead of trying to convince probably 10% of people to buy it, just build it in so 100% of people get it and comply with the law at the same time.
A summary that merely states that Apple has a warranty, and that Apple is misleading customers.
OK, fine, but... how is Apple misleading customers? Neither the summary, nor the linked article give any clue.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Before Apple does what it should have done from the start and changes its warranty document to mention 2 years as required by European law?
For example, the court in Brussels could reasonably decide that Apple has been made aware of the European warranty requirements after the court decision in Italy and that its more recent neglect in updating its documentation is a willful violation of what it is required to do by law in Europe and thus the penalties will be somewhat more harsh.
I think you forget what insurance is.
If everyone pays insurance by the risk that they personally pose, we all just end up paying for our own costs. Thus, "insurance" in that sense becomes just a middle-man who takes a percentage of what we have to pay anyway.
Insurance is intended to cover lots of people because the 1% who actually have an accident that month are covered by the 99% who didn't but still paid a (small) premium anyway.
The problem is not the equality, but the way the insurance companies DO NOT PASS those savings on to customers (i.e. if they have 50% male and 50% female drivers, say, the female drivers will pay and subsidise the males and, by comparison, the males pay the same but have more accidents so get a better deal). The question is really why does a bad woman driver get a better insurance than a good male driver when everything is recorded and added up? That's the problem that was solved by the equality legislation, and the insurer's profiteering from it is the INSURER'S being arseholes.
Any "insurance" where you end up paying more than others isn't insurance (US medical insurance is another example - if I have to pay more because I have condition X, then why would I pay it to an insurance company when I could just put it in a bank and pay it direct? Hence most people who need insurance, don't have it, which ruins the point of medical insurance - it just becomes easy-money for the insurer's because the high-risk pay their own bills, effectively, and the low-risk pay every month for nothing).
It's just red-tape around paying what you owe anyway. And most modern "insurance" is exactly like that. If we ALL paid flood insurance, it would cost us 2p each a year. If only those who live in flood plains pay it, they might as well just put it in the bank and pay costs of each flood as it happens because it's only the high-risk people who are subsidising the majority of the insurance anyway. Some countries have blanket car insurance, because of this - every driver pays exactly the same and is insured to the same level. They can buy MORE insurance if they want, but everyone benefits from the basic insurance and pays less than they otherwise would.
And then people wonder why there are areas of London, say, where you cannot get insurance for your car because NOBODY there has insurance (Tottenham was in the news just last year for this - it's so hard to get insurance, because nobody else has it in the local area and it costs the insurer's money to pursue them when there's an accident, that nobody has insurance - something like 40% of drivers registered to Tottenham addresses are uninsured!).
Insurance isn't about "you cost me more, so I charge you more". Insurance is a blanket cover that covers the total costs of everyone it insures, paid for by everyone contributing an equal amount. Anything else is red-tape and bullshit. Notice, then, that car insurance rising because women have the pay the same as men now (i.e. closer to "real" insurance), is red-tape and bullshit and not related to the legislation at all.
Just wait for the trials about age discrimination on the same thing - why should someone get discriminated against because they are 20 with 10 years of driving experience, compared to someone who is 50 with 5 years of driving experience? And then they'll be a trial about where-you-live not being good enough to judge your insurance risk (especially if you drive around the country a lot), etc. etc. etc. and we'll slowly creep our way back to "proper" insurance.
Apple fans always bang on about how Apple stores go the extra mile to fix problems and replace broken products. Customer care is always pushed as a big plus and one of the justifications for the 'premium' cost of the products.
Are they lying? Or have the courts got it wrong?
An unexpected move from apple..
No, American companies are too ignorant to respect the local laws. If they sell millions of devices they are 'reminded' by a court ruling with a ridiculously small fine (given the extent of the infringement) and get a chance to correct their behaviour. Often they fail to do so and end up paying huge fines.
On the other side, American companies see the Europeans as cash cows. What costs 500USD in the US often costs 500EUR=670USD in the Euro zone and often comes to the market later.
Over here in the US, there is no equality in insurance. For example, there are different rates for men/women and young/old based on historical evidence. But if a bad woman drive has a few accidents, her rates are going to explode. Not sure where you're getting your medical insurance info from, but my wife who has diabetes pays the same amount as her healthy coworkers. And in the US you don't have to buy flood insurance. The thing is, if you pay your $5/month for flood, and you house is destroyed, the federal government comes in and pays the few $100k to fix you up, garnered from the whole country's tax dollars, so essentially everyone ends up paying for the flood insurance. If you don't buy it, and get wiped out, I hope you have stashed that few $100k in the bank, rather than paying $600 over 10 years for insurance.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
You have not the slightest idea of the concept of insurance but yet you try to explain it.
Insurance is not a social safety net. Insurance is based on personal risk.
Forcing people who are not living on flood plains to buy flood insurance so the premiums of those people living in risky areas has nothing to do with the concept of insurance. It's a subsidy for taking flood risk.
Why don't you at least look up Wikipedia. You and the people who modded this Insightful.
This article is not based on any court papers that this Belgian consumer organization filed, but just on a press release! Since it is just a press release, they can add all the fluffy bits, like confusing "warranty" and "statutory rights", calling a case in Italy "precedent" when it is no such thing, and so on.
And of course there will be tons of complaints about Apple's handling of warranties, because any bloody idiot dropping his iPhone into the toilet wants a free replacement from Apple and complains when they don't get one. (And insurers have found that the number of "accidentally" damaged iPhones more than doubles when a new model is released)
In some countries (your mileage may vary) there is an implied statutory warranty that the product will operate properly for the reasonable lifetime of the product. This is ADDITIONAL TO the express manufacturer's warranty. It doesn't cover wear and tear and obviously doesn't cover abuse either, but does mean the product must function properly and do what it is supposed to do. If it doesn't, you are entitled to a remedy: a refund, replacement, etc., to be mutually agreed between you and the seller.
Most consumers are ignorant of their statutory warranty rights, so when a manufacturer provides a 12 month warranty consumers think if it breaks a day after that they aren't covered. Not true, though they may have to approach the manufacturer directly instead of the retailer. Another is that when a manufacturer advertises "a lifetime warranty" you already have one by law anyway, so they are only telling you what they have to give you anyway. And finally it means that Extended Warranties are usually a complete waste of money: They are getting you to pay for a right you already have by law anyway.
Again, your mileage may vary. Talk to your local consumer affairs bureau to find your local rules. Be warned that retailers can be real pricks about warranties , and sometimes consumer affairs will need to come in with a baseball bat and remind them if your statutory rights. Manufacturers would prefer it if you didn't know any of this. Also sometimes a manufacturer will insist you pay for return shipping or drop off at your own expense. Check your local laws: they might be obliged to pick up the cost or do this for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code Implied Warranties US
http://www.apple.com/au/legal/statutory-warranty/ Statutory Warranties AU
http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showtopic=84941 Statutory Warranties AU
http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/the_acl/downloads/consumer_guarantees_guide.pdf Most Recent Laws AU
http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/consumer/article/-/9803967/worthless-warranties/ Extended Warranty
One bonus tip for reading this far: Merchants often trick people into accepting warranties with clauses waiving your statutory rights, no returns signs and the like. It often works by dissuading from trying, but if it goes to a small claims court the judge will draw a big line through them.
Apples commercial practices are misleading?!?! Next you'll be telling me they didn't invent the MP3 player, my mind is blown!
The EU has remedies that protect the majority, the US that protect the minority. Broken almost 2 year old phone? Your better of in the EU where the 2 year BTW is a MINIMUM. For a washing machine, you can expect free repairs for the entire economic life of the device if it is reasonable to expect that it should last longer. Cars for instance have far long warranties mandated by law because a car is expected to last at least 10 years.
In the US you are better off because you can sue if you sustain serious harm... of course, in the US you ALSO pay for your doctor needing to pay for massive malpractice insurance.
It would certainly help if for instance the Dutch system allowed multi-miljoen dollar judgements, we are having a current case with a horror doctor where it has become clear that the institution supposed to regulate doctors failed completely and might even have outright conspired with the person that if he just left Holland and went to Germany to continue to subject patients to unethical treatment, they wouldn't try to stop him. A few millions awarded by the courts might... oh wait... that isn't how it works is it. The US is NOT a place nobody makes mistakes or is corrupt, instead all the lawsuits do is force doctors to cover every case, do every test regardless of cost because if they don't they are sued out of business. It is the SUE happy culture of the US that is the major reason its healthcare costs are so high.
The real world is sadly to complex to say Y is better then X. Both the EU and the US got their massive downsides on this subject and in reality all you can do is hope IT doesn't happen to YOU or anyone you care about.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Apple is in the wrong, and will likely be found to be guilty as it was in Italy. But this will happen in a different court, in a different country and based on a different law.
If we ALL paid flood insurance, it would cost us 2p each a year. If only those who live in flood plains pay it, they might as well just put it in the bank and pay costs of each flood as it happens because it's only the high-risk people who are subsidising the majority of the insurance anyway.
I agree with everything you said right up to this point. I certainly think that discriminating against people based on something that is out of their control is bad and defeats the point of insurance. However, where something is within your control, there should be a penalty for making the more risky choice in order to incentivise people not to do it. If you're stupid enough to *choose* to buy a house that's built on a flood plain, you shouldn't expect those of us who picked a less risky location to pick up the tab for your bad choices. Building on flood plains is a really stupid idea (not only because you're likely to get flooded, but because it also produces new flood plains downstream, flooding previously safe properties), and the only way its going to stop is if there's a big penalty for doing it (being unable to insure a property would probably make people think twice before buying it, which would make builders think twice before building potentially unsalable properties in a crazy location).
And then people wonder why there are areas of London, say, where you cannot get insurance for your car because NOBODY there has insurance (Tottenham was in the news just last year for this - it's so hard to get insurance, because nobody else has it in the local area and it costs the insurer's money to pursue them when there's an accident, that nobody has insurance - something like 40% of drivers registered to Tottenham addresses are uninsured!).
The state of the UK car insurance industry is insane. The insurers claim that they need to increase premiums to cover the number of uninsured drivers, which only encourages more people to avoid insuring because they can no longer justify the increased price, so the premiums go up again, rinse-repeat. Add to that that the legal penalties if you're caught without insurance are often a fraction of what you would've paid for the insurance in the first place. And this is a huge problem for new drivers - a couple of years ago, out of curiosity, I looked at the price of insurance for new drivers with a 10 year old 1.0 litre Corsa and it was around £2000/year for third party only. What kind of new driver can afford that kind of money? Introducing new drivers to the idea that insurance is unaffordably expensive just trains them to avoid insuring, and they will likely continue for many years.
Notice, then, that car insurance rising because women have the pay the same as men now (i.e. closer to "real" insurance), is red-tape and bullshit and not related to the legislation at all.
I was interested that SwiftCover recently sent round a mailshot demanding that "due to recent antidiscrimination legislation" they require all their customers to provide additional information about themselves. Which I read as "because the legislators have stopped us discriminating against men, please provide more information about yourself so we can find something else to base our discrimination on."
http://blog.nexusuk.org
It's perfectly legitimate to charge less to someone who's less likely to make a claim, and more to someone who's more likely to make a claim. The "higher risk" person might not have an accident, and the "lower risk" person might have an accident. Say an accident costs $100, and there are two people insured. The company might gamble that only one will have an accident. So, they charge both people $50. But maybe one person never leaves home; they could charge him $40 and the other person - who drives a car with underinflated tires and has an auto accident every 2 years - $70. Both people still save money over paying for their own accident, and the company makes money either way.
The key here is that a company who can get a bunch of low-risk people in at a substantially lower rate than what those people would need to set aside, they will probably not have to pay out more than they took in. And that allows lower rates for low risks, which increases the number of low-risk people who may actually pay into the system without taking anything out. This is a self-feeding cycle. It doesn't take a genius to see that, with a large enough risk pool and reasonably accurate risk-assessment processes, everyone pays in less than they take out while the central organization still ends up making money.
But fine, if you, AC, think that saving $100 back every 6 months will provide me with the 250,000 I carry in coverage for someone else's medical costs for car insurance, you go right ahead and think that. Never mind the 100,000 I carry in coverage to me for uninsured motorist damage. Lemme know when you need a place to stay after someone who has state-minimum 25,000 coverage (if anything) hits you and makes you get physical therapy for a few months; I'm sure their insurance and the money you "set aside" will cover all your medical bills and personal car replacement just fine. Have fun putting aside money for your house insurance, too, since everyone is just fine putting aside more than the full amount of their mortgage (to pay for "stuff" too) into a savings account *while* paying off the mortgage and buying stuff.
Let me know when all the countries of the EU agree to finally pay the WW2 debt they owe to the US that every single one of them except the Netherlands IIRC flatly said they were never going to pay.
You are obviously completely ignorant of the fact that the UK paid you back some time ago.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams