Apple Fined By Italy For Misleading Customers About Warranty Terms 218
beaverdownunder writes "An Italian watchdog has fined Apple 900,000 euros ($1.2m, £750,000) for failing to inform Italian shoppers of their legal right to two years of technical support, recognizing instead only a one-year standard warranty. This had led people to pay extra for Apple's own support service, AppleCare, which overlapped with the government-mandated guarantee."
Not surprised... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Apple got off lightly... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Perfect Match (Score:5, Informative)
Tho years of guarantee on consumer goods is not just an Italian law, it is a European Union directive [europa.eu].
Re:Apple got off lightly... (Score:5, Informative)
In the EU, companies still aren't people, so it's not bullying.
Re:AppleCare (Score:5, Informative)
Sure but thats not the point. If they had informed their customers of the 2 year warranty that they were entitled to by law, that would have informed their decision as to whether to go for the extra AppleCare or not. The thing is, they thought the choice was between AppleCare and a 1 year warranty.... but it wasn't. They were misinformed, by the same party who was profiting from decision, and thus had motive to mislead them.
Re:Apple got off lightly... (Score:4, Informative)
No, the mandated two year warranty has to be given by the seller of a product, not the manufacturer.
It's the italian Apple Store that is liable, and this is an italian company. That the italian Apple Store is owned by Apple Inc., doesn't change anything.
Re:Not surprised... (Score:5, Informative)
Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament (Score:3, Informative)
DIRECTIVE 1999/44/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 25 May 1999
on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 95 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(2),
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty in the light of the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on 18 May 1999(3),
(1) Whereas Article 153(1) and (3) of the Treaty provides that the Community should contribute to the achievement of a high level of consumer protection by the measures it adopts pursuant to Article 95 thereof;
(2) Whereas the internal market comprises an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is guaranteed; whereas free movement of goods concerns not only transactions by persons acting in the course of a business but also transactions by private individuals; whereas it implies that consumers resident in one Member State should be free to purchase goods in the territory of another Member State on the basis of a uniform minimum set of fair rules governing the sale of consumer goods;
(3) Whereas the laws of the Member States concerning the sale of consumer goods are somewhat disparate, with the result that national consumer goods markets differ from one another and that competition between sellers may be distorted;
(4) Whereas consumers who are keen to benefit from the large market by purchasing goods in Member States other than their State of residence play a fundamental role in the completion of the internal market; whereas the artificial reconstruction of frontiers and the compartmentalisation of markets should be prevented; whereas the opportunities available to consumers have been greatly broadened by new communication technologies which allow ready access to distribution systems in other Member States or in third countries; whereas, in the absence of minimum harmonisation of the rules governing the sale of consumer goods, the development of the sale of goods through the medium of new distance communication technologies risks being impeded;
(5) Whereas the creation of a common set of minimum rules of consumer law, valid no matter where goods are purchased within the Community, will strengthen consumer confidence and enable consumers to make the most of the internal market;
(6) Whereas the main difficulties encountered by consumers and the main source of disputes with sellers concern the non-conformity of goods with the contract; whereas it is therefore appropriate to approximate national legislation governing the sale of consumer goods in this respect, without however impinging on provisions and principles of national law relating to contractual and non-contractual liability;
(7) Whereas the goods must, above all, conform with the contractual specifications; whereas the principle of conformity with the contract may be considered as common to the different national legal traditions; whereas in certain national legal traditions it may not be possible to rely solely on this principle to ensure a minimum level of protection for the consumer; whereas under such legal traditions, in particular, additional national provisions may be useful to ensure that the consumer is protected in cases where the parties have agreed no specific contractual terms or where the parties have concluded contractual terms or agreements which directly or indirectly waive or restrict the rights of the consumer and which, to the extent that these rights result from this Directive, are not binding on the consumer;
(8) Whereas, in order to facilitate the application of the principle of conformity with the contract, it is useful to introduce a rebuttable presumption of conformity with the contract c
Re:Apple got off lightly... (Score:3, Informative)
Its not just the EU, Australia, New Zealand and Japan also have heavy consumer protection laws.
The US is just a free for all fuck the consumer kind of country. Its no wonder then that american companies think they can act with impunity everywhere else.
Re:Same with Best Buy, Home Depot etc all.... (Score:4, Informative)
That is not so simple. Misleading bit is that Apple advertises "included 1 year AppleCare, + extra 2 years for extra money," while saying nowhere that customers actually by law have 2 years of warranty.
Now, the simplest distinction of AppleCare and standard support is that former is international, latter is local.
IOW, there are some extras AppleCare covers, but they avoid mentioning how precisely it differs from the standard support, what's covered for 1 year, what's covered for 2 years, what's covered with the optional AppleCare.
Re:Not surprised... (Score:5, Informative)
Apple Care is better though
No, it's really not.
They have stores all over the world
Yeah, just like most big brand stores, but this is not very relevant because the store you bought an item at is presumably local to you, so who cares if they also have a location in East Jabyyp? Unless you regularly travel a lot, the chances of this being useful is pretty low.
if you are supported, they an tell you that
There's the problem. It's not like Apple Care is one of those cell phone insurance plans where it covers anything that can go wrong. Plenty of things can go wrong that they will be happy to tell you is not covered - even stuff that is not a wear-and-tear fault. Try to get a reasonably expensive part replaced, such as a video card, and they'll tell you how they found some dust in your chassis, so it overheated and it's your fault for not keeping it clean (nevermind that you can't open the chassis on most modern macs without voiding the warranty anyway). At least that's what they told me for my wife's 3 month old iMac.
Likewise my brother's 1 year old Macbook Pro had a recognized fault with its video card. It would sometimes just refuse to produce any video, sometimes to the built-in LCD, sometimes to the video out port, sometimes to both. Plenty of people with the same generation MBP had the same problem. He took it in to get it repaired, and was initially told it was covered since it was a known problem. When he went to pick it up a week later, they wanted $800 in parts in labor - even though he had been told it was going to be a covered repair. Their reason? The chassis had a scratch on it - seriously. They claimed this scratch (in an aluminum chassis) had caused the damage. They went ahead and made the repair without consulting him, and now refused to return his laptop until he coughed up the cash.
Also, if it's not this year's model, they're not going to have replacement parts on hand, and it's going to be 1-2 weeks before you can get that replacement part.
But it seems like a good idea for someone who isn't tech savvy and doesn't want to bother their friends for help
That's probably true. If you don't know how to use your computer, the Geniuses can tell you how to double click. Make sure to call ahead for an appointment, they're booked until next week, but they'll be happy to let you sit in their gallery store for 45 minutes after your appointment time while you have nothing else to do but decide if maybe buying a new one is a better path than being without a computer for two weeks while your old one is getting fixed on your own dime despite having an extended warranty.
What actually happened, under all the fluff (Score:2, Informative)
What really happened:
1. EU mandates 6 month + 18 months of warranty for manufacturing defects. Six months the burden of proof is on the seller, 18 on the consumer. There are some exceptions and the rules are defined quite well, but this is the general way it works. This warranty doesn't cover wear and tear (unless wear and tear is caused by manufacturing defect).
2. Apple complied with the warranty, but tried to market apprecare plan by obfuscating the fact that customer had the right to warranty during two years anyway.
3. Apple got fined for illegal form of marketing.
Re:Perfect Match (Score:5, Informative)