Slashdot Mirror
Companies Can't Legally Void the Warranty For Jailbreaking Or Rooting Your Phone (vice.com)
Reader Jason Koebler writes: Manufacturers that threaten to void the warranties of consumers who jailbreak or root their phones are violating federal law.
Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975, manufacturers cannot legally void your hardware warranty simply because you altered the software of an electronic device. In order to void the warranty without violating federal law, the manufacturer must prove that the modifications you made directly led to a hardware malfunction.
"They have to show that the jailbreak caused the failure. If yes, they can void your claim (not your whole warranty—just the things which flowed from your mod)," Steve Lehto, a lemon law attorney in Michigan, wrote in an email. "If not, then they can't."
Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975, manufacturers cannot legally void your hardware warranty simply because you altered the software of an electronic device. In order to void the warranty without violating federal law, the manufacturer must prove that the modifications you made directly led to a hardware malfunction.
"They have to show that the jailbreak caused the failure. If yes, they can void your claim (not your whole warranty—just the things which flowed from your mod)," Steve Lehto, a lemon law attorney in Michigan, wrote in an email. "If not, then they can't."
These days, try to flash new firmware w/o a new boot loader... Good luck, most of this stuff is now starting to require the firmware image to be signed, which is enforced by the boot loader. Unless you happen to know the private signing key that the boot loader's public validation key matches so you can sign the new firmware, it will brick your device.
It is not on all devices yet, but you can bet it won't be long..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It would not hurt to mention the country in the summary, even if this is a US-centric site.
The author appears to be unaware that laws are not the same in all countries.
It would be interesting to compare, as most developed countries have a warranty by law (statutory) that cannot be disclaimed.
The US has implied warranty , but that does not cover failures if it works at first??
The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act offers the cop-out of letting companies choose a full or limited warranty. So guess what Apple does? Do many US companies offer a full warranty? So what's the point? It seems Apple/Samsung just needs to say the magic words limited warranty and do whatever the hell the want.
The issue with efuses is like welding the hood shut, so you cannot service the engine.
It forces "physical damage" to become necessary to gain the access you should have been able to get anyway. In the case of the welded hood: you have to cut through the welds. In the case of efuses protected boot loaders: the boot loader enforces strong crypto against custom kernels, preventing boot of devices without the magic number baked into them, and if you flash a new boot loader, bam, efuses blown.
When the hardware that gets damaged is little more than a "warranty void" sticker, just in digital form, the oems are stretching things pretty thin.
I would love to see them be told that they cannot do these kinds of things. Sadly, that is not how the world works today.
If the blown fuse allows the device to still work, then why would the warranty be void for when the device stops working. Voiding the warranty about the security OK since by your actions you compromised it.
If the blown fuse bricks the device, wouldn't that be ground for suing in the first place? I hope this wouldn't be legal to brick a device just because the manufacturer doesn't like what you are doing with it. Otherwise, do we draw the line? What if computers start blowing their fuse because you visited a website about homosexuality or a religion the manufacturer didn't approve of...
Your analysis of the statute is excellent. However, the code of federal regulations extends it a bit.
See 16 CFR 700.10 - Section 102(c).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cf...
Quoting the Code of Federal Regulations:
--
such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of âoeunauthorizedâ articles or service.
--
The phrase " warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability ... where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of âoeunauthorizedâ articles or service" may apply.
The quoted CFR text is saying why a manufacturer may not void a warranty due to repair by unauthorized service centers, or using unauthorized parts. The text itself does *not* limit the "cannot, as a matter of law" to only unauthorized parts, though, and it could well be argued that "unauthorized firmware" is an "unauthorized part" which may not void a warranty.
Actually, no they won't. Unlike most consumer protection laws, Magnuson-Moss actually has teeth. You don't HAVE to sue them in court and prevail. All you have to do is file a claim with the Federal Trade Commission, and THEY'LL do the grunt work for you. After reviewing your claim, they'll forward it to the manufacturer, who has a limited amount of time to respond and either 1) agree to cover the repair, or 2) file a rebuttal that explains the legal basis for their refusal.
As a practical matter, manufacturers almost NEVER do anything besides meekly grunt an apology at the FTC & agree to cover the repair, because challenging the FTC and losing is WAY more expensive than grudgingly eating the cost of a warranty repair they would have otherwise refused.
With Magnuson-Moss, the deck is stacked VERY heavily against manufacturers in favor of consumers. It's probably one of the best consumer protection laws ever passed, because the members of Congress who wrote the law weren't just going through the motions to appease voters... they were as personally pissed off at the automakers as the general public was, and they wanted the automakers' blood to metaphorically flood the streets of Detroit.