Apple Revises Warranty Policies In Europe To Comply With EU Laws 156
ccguy writes "Apple revised its warranty policy in Italy last year after being hit with a €900,000 fine for not complying with an EU-mandated two-year term. The company has today revised the terms of its warranties in France, Germany and Belgium, specifying that customers are entitled to repairs and replacements of their Apple products for a full two years after purchase, and not just one as previously stated. No word yet on when the rest of the EU will see those changes, but it would now seem to be just a matter of time before other countries get the new terms as well."
Once again, misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing that has changed is that Apple makes more clear on the page where they explain their one year manufacturer's warranty, that you have other rights against the seller. If you look at Dell's website for example, there is not the slightest trace of such information, even though Dell doesn't sell through any store, so if you buy a Dell product, then they are _always_ the seller (whereas Apple is sometimes the seller, and Apple stores also sell other company's products, in which case that Apple store also is the seller responsible to handle your legal rights).
Re:Once again, misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it's correct. The EU statute applies to the manufacturer, not the seller, and most companies simply provide a two-year warranty that meets or exceeds their obligations under EU statute, rather than train staff on local rules. Apple has gone that route.
You're probably thinking of the Sale of Goods Act which applies in the UK, and which does apply to the seller. There are moves to harmonise the EU rules which would essentially remove the UK statute but I (and the government) think it would be a bad idea. I have more power under the SOGA than the EU rule. (I once used it to very easily get a TV replaced that died 8 months out of the warranty. They called me up and gave me store credit equal to most of its value, to account for depreciation.)
Re:Thats a problem for apple (Score:4, Informative)
The iPhone 4 was already obsolete when it came out, as the specs were on par with competing phones that had been released for months already (like, you guessed it, the Desire).
How can something be obsolete after a few months if it's expected to be around for years?
The fact that it's still working for you doesn't mean a thing. My mother-in-law still has a Galaxy S1, which does what she needs and is just a bit too slow for my tastes, though I'm a power user.
Does Samsung still support the S1 with updates? Does it run the latest stable version of Android? Will it run the next major version of Android?
Re:Once again, misleading summary (Score:4, Informative)
Apple often is the retailer of their own products. They were selling people extended warranties that they didn't need because they were already covered.
Re:If they said it was supported for one year (Score:1, Informative)
The problem is that Apple acts as both the manufacturer and the seller if you buy from Apple Store (online or retail). As a manufacturer Apple provides a one year warranty and still do so, that was never the issue. However as a seller Apple also is responsible for hardware defects, and this is something that they have to do for two years; but only if you actually bought from them. If you bought from a reseller then it's the reseller that has that responsibility. That responsibility is very limited in comparison to a traditional warranty and as a customer you essentially has to prove that the defect was the result of manufacturing. As a seller you are also responsible for explaining this to the customer. Apple did not explain this well enough to customers, and that was what the problem was all about.
Re:Thats a problem for apple (Score:4, Informative)
It runs like this: For two years, the vendor (not the manufacturer) has to warrant that the sold object keeps running except for normal tear and wear and the usual refills. The problem is that within the two years, the buyer can misuse the object in a way which causes the object to break preliminary. Thus there arises the necessity to determine who is responsible if the sold object breaks. The law states, that within the first six month, it's assumed that the fault causing the preliminary break was already present at the time of the sale, except proved otherwise (thus the vendor has to prove that the buyer mistreated the object). Within the remaining 18 month, it is assumed that the buyer mistreated the object, thus the buyer has to prove that the object was faulty at the time of the sale.
If the responsibility of the preliminary defect is put to the vendor (either by default within the first six month, or by proof of the buyer), the sale can be reversed, thus either the vendor hands back the money, or replaces the defective object with another one. The vendor still can ask for a repair attempt, but it's up to the buyer to agree.
Apple did offer a warranty that covers some of the above mentioned cases for additional money. This is not illegal. It was illegal not to tell the customer about the rights he had anyway and to make the impression that only with the extended warranty, the customer was entitled to those rights. This was considered a "culpa in contrahendo".
Re:If they said it was supported for one year (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that Apple acts as both the manufacturer and the seller if you buy from Apple Store (online or retail). As a manufacturer Apple provides a one year warranty and still do so, that was never the issue.
Whong. The EU law applies to manufacturers and requires them to provide a manufacturer's warranty for a "reasonable life" of the device. For computers and suchlike, that's 2 years according to the law.
However as a seller Apple also is responsible for hardware defects, and this is something that they have to do for two years; but only if you actually bought from them. If you bought from a reseller then it's the reseller that has that responsibility. That responsibility is very limited in comparison to a traditional warranty and as a customer you essentially has to prove that the defect was the result of manufacturing. As a seller you are also responsible for explaining this to the customer.
Wrong. A seller may provide an additional warranty beyond the legally required manufacturer's warranty. That in no way alters the manufacturer's duty under EU law to provide a 2 year warranty.
Apple did not explain this well enough to customers, and that was what the problem was all about.
Wrong. The problem was that Apple (the manufacturer) does not provide a manufacturer's warranty of 2 years as required by EU law. They insisted it should only be 1 year, in flagrant defiance of the EU laws. The fine they received was a minor wrist slap, but would probably have been repeated in heavier increments if their illegal stance had continued.
Actual Belgian here, and... (Score:0, Informative)
Nobody here would *ever* freeze waffles!
They are only good for about 15 minutes after preparation. (When they're still crispy.) Any older and no self-respecting Belgian would touch them with a pitchfork.
But I live in Luxemburg now (can't beat their worker protection laws and minimum wage height). Their waffles taste *even better*. But you only get them at fairs, street festivals, etc. They call them "Eisekuchen" (iron[-made] cakes).
Crispy like fries, tasty like our Belgian ones. (I think their secrets are greasing the thing with pork rinds or lard, and most importantly: Preparing the dough with *sparkling water*.)
Add powdered sugar on top... or strawberries and whipped cream... and IMO as a Belgian, you have the best waffles in the whole world!
Unfortunately their recipe is a well-kept secret. But for a reason.
Re:Thats a problem for apple (Score:4, Informative)
Apple did offer a warranty that covers some of the above mentioned cases for additional money. This is not illegal. It was illegal not to tell the customer about the rights he had anyway and to make the impression that only with the extended warranty, the customer was entitled to those rights. This was considered a "culpa in contrahendo".
That's exactly correct, but unfortunately much too complicated for most people who can't string two thoughts together in a straight line, and are just incapable of describing a legal situation correctly without muddling everything up.
So the problem in Italy was: When you sell products, you don't usually have to tell people all about their rights; they are supposed to figure that out themselves. BUT if you sell extended warranties, or insurance, or similar things, then you have to tell people exactly what they are getting for their money. And to tell them exactly what they are getting, you must tell them what rights they would have without extended warranty or insurance, what rights they would have with extended warranty or insurance, and what they get for their money is the difference. (Actually, what they get is slightly more; AppleCare will fix problems if the seller goes bankrupt, if you move to a different country, or if the seller is some bastard who won't fix the problem without going to court, even though they legally have to).
Re:If they said it was supported for one year (Score:5, Informative)
Monkey spunk. Your contract is with the seller, not with any of his suppliers, subcontractors etc.
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/consumer_topics/buying_goods_services_en.htm [europa.eu]
"Always try to contact the seller first: under your 2-year guarantee, the seller is liable if the product turns out to be faulty or not as advertised. "
I do hope you're not a practicing lawyer.