Belgian Consumer Organization Sues Apple For Not Respecting Warranty Law 168
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."
Precedent? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)...?
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Informative)
Even then, Belgium and Italy are fully independent judiciaries. What is law in Italy is not necessarily law in Belgium. Though of course with the EU slowly but surely laws in the various member countries are getting aligned.
A much better expression would be "a similar case".
Nevertheless, court cases are sometimes filed to test or clarify the law in those jurisdictions. If a court rules one way in one case, it will likely rule the same way in a highly similar case.
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Informative)
There is also the fact that even where precedent does not apply judges do look strongly at what other judges in similar cases elsewhere had found and consider their rulings very highly when making their own determinations.
It's still quite common for example for Judges in the US to look at rulings under British case-law where similar cases were decided although British courts have no precedent-power over US ones, the findings of those judges are useful. For starters if there are evidentiary differences it may well be useful to ask "why" (particularly when the same companies are involved).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That would be because US has largely derived its system from British case law.
Tell that to an Italian who worked in the system, and you'll be laughed out of the room as an "ignorant yankee". And he'll be correct.
Remember, while Old World's legal system are generally derived from combination of Roman justice system, Catholic courts and to an extent Napoleon Code, they have extreme nationalist pride of thousands of years that they in fact represent justice in their own country, and other country's justice has
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the law that in question is derived from an EU directive. It being a EU directive, meaning that that law should, in theory apply equally for all EU citizens. If the case fails in Brussels, it can be tried in a EU curt, because two countries came to separate conclusions about an EU directive and as a result either the law in Italy or the law in Belgian must be altered. It is true that there is no law that forces a precedent to be taken into account in this case, except that if it is not taken int
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Now ask yourself, what is the directive, and why is it called a "directive" and not a "law"?
Once you find the answer to that question, you'll understand my statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Funny)
We have a gay Italian as prime minister in Belgium - might have changed things a bit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
No but Apple are *selling* 3 year 'warranties' in a way that is misleading as they don't cover the failures and repairs that the buyer is told they do at point of sale.
At best this is a description of goods issue which is a big thing here in the EU and can attract large fines if proved to be intentional. At worst it is deliberate criminal fraud which could see someone going to prison.
Also while the EU only mandates two years several countries have different definitions which go beyond what the EU directives
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
WOHHHHH!!! Stop there. What bit about not imbuing any law-related implications on the term are you misunderstanding? Maybe you should put down your law-books, they're clearly clouding your mind, and just look at an English-language dictionary for a definition of the word:
PRECEDENT n.
1 : an earlier occurrence of something similar
Case closed.
Re: (Score:2)
Parent's point is that it occurred:
1. In a different legal system.
2. In a different country.
3. Based on a different law.
Re: (Score:2)
Any self-respecting court will look at the intent behind the law, not the word of the law. This is why we can compare the results from completely disparate legal systems in considering how to weigh in on a domestic law.... It is not a legal precedent, because as you point out the Italian and Belgian systems are different, but it is still a ruling on a law with the same basic purpose set in a country with the same basic values.
Re: (Score:3)
But they don't use the same basis - that's the point. Basis lays in the law. Laws are different, as they are based on legal framework of each country.
This is why for example, Spain still allows for download of copyrighted media for free for personal use in law which is in accordance with copyright directive, while many countries made it illegal with different penalties. And yet everyone is in compliance with the directive. Because that's how EU works, directive is not a LAW, it's a DIRECTIVE for countries'
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Informative)
The case starts in Italy (=state law) and is passed up to the European court in Brussels (=federal law). Do not let a Europhile read those terms but that is what it is equivalent to. It does not matter what is decided at local level, if Brussels decides otherwise the local law is trumped.
It is not passed up to an "European court". It is a Belgian court seated in Brussels which will have to rule according to Belgian law. Both The Italian and Belgian courts have some common ground, because the national laws are based on EU directives. EU directives are legal frameworks, but leave it up to national laws to decide on fines, for example.
The European court of justice is seated in Luxembourg, and has no business in the present case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
both cases are based upon a UE directive that states that every item sold in the UE has to have 2 years warranty while Apple tell its users that they have only 1 year warranty and can buy an extention to 2-3 years so both cases have a common ground (the UE directive) but the actual results, fines and such can differ as per local laws.
Re: (Score:2)
But that directive is old, like at least 10 years now...
Re: (Score:2)
You can't compare it like that.
I don't know exactly how it works (it's far too complex for a layman to understand well), but afaik most European laws have to be implemented in every single country before they become valid there, and as a result there are diffences between countries. European laws do not necessarily trump local laws, especially when it concerns local issues, like this warranty case.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
It should basically be a translation. Any differences would be accidental. Countries certainly can't intentionally rephrase them to grossly change their effect; there'd be no point having EU directives if that were the ca
Re: (Score:2)
Fun thing, I bring it back to my retails and demand it fixed... Now it is not my problem. If he refuses, small claims it is, where I get my right in under quarter of an hour. The only way they can wind themselves out of it, is if they can prove I did not use the device as intended...
Obligated (Score:4, Interesting)
I hardly think that Apple was obliged to change anything. Probably obligated, but not obliged.
Re:Obligated (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obligated (Score:5, Funny)
Still more likely "Any company that is not obliged to act for its customers will eventually be obligated to close its doors."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I was pointing more to the obliged vs obligated word choice. But yes, the posessive apostrophe is one of the dumbest things in the language.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you modify the word due to the english grammar, you can denote the original core by separating the word and the grammar endings with an apostrophe.
If you put NAZI in all caps, then you can use your precious apostrophe. But now Nazi is just a word in the dictionary, and it's time to let the apostrophe free for other jobs. You're just holding it back.
Re: (Score:2)
... it's still wrong, because it's not an acronym.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you feel at all silly for claiming that Nazi is not an acronym?
An acronym is an abbreviation formed from the initial components in a phrase or a word. These components may be individual letters (as in CEO) or parts of words (as in Benelux and Ameslan). - Wikipedia
A word (as NATO, radar, or laser) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term. - Merriam Webster online.
Nazi - *Na*tionalso*zi*alistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
Re: (Score:2)
Nazi - *Na*tionalso*zi*alistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
Wrong. It comes from pronouncing *Nati*onal in German.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong again: the term "Nazi" was coined after the already familiar term "Sozi", a pejorative abbreviation for socialists.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong again: the term "Nazi" was coined after the already familiar term "Sozi", a pejorative abbreviation for socialists.
So the fact that both terms are based on pronouncing the first two syllables in German somehow proves wrong what I said - namely exactly that?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the "zi" in "Nazi" wasn't taken from the "ti" in "National", as you implied, but from the "zi" in "so*zi*alisten". But another way: "Sozi" stems from "Sozialisten" and "Nazi" was created by replacing the "So" in "Sozi" with "Na" (derived from "National", ofc), hence "Nazi".
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sure, it was taken from So"zi"alist.
And V wasn't taken from Vendetta, but from Moron.
Re: (Score:2)
No you can't. We don't ride double-decker bus'ses (the core coming from Latin omnibus) or wear pyjama's (core word from Urdu or Persian ).
In this case it's being used to indicate that letters have been omitted.
However it's redundant since Nazi is now recognised as a word in its own right.
Re: (Score:3)
Any company that is not obligated to act for it's customers will eventually be obliged to close it's doors.
Oooh, I think you forgot to add "... in Europe", due to their stronger consumer-protection laws.
In United States, several larger companies seem to be doing quite well acting for the politicians and sometimes for the shareholders (in that order).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but that's completely clueless.
The idea that europe has "stronger consumer protection laws" is utterly false in practice.
While yes, in europe you have some statutary differences compared to the USA - for example, a categorical right to return items purchase by post, what you do NOT have in europe, in general, is the ability to sue companies directly and/or seek punitive damages except in extremely extraordinary cases that require a myriad of hoops to be jumped through. rather, the mechanisms to
Re: (Score:3)
The idea that europe has "stronger consumer protection laws" is utterly false in practice.
I will admit that I am not familiar with European laws -- but I refer you to this particular article. Europe apparently has a mandatory 2-year warranty that encapsulates Apple products, yes?
I do not believe that the 1-year that Apple provides in US is required by law here. I suspect Apple could cut this down to 3 months if they felt like it (the only concern would be consumer backlash)
Therefore, in this particular case, Europe clearly has stronger consumer protection laws -- but I was wrong to generalize
Your correct, both systems got their plusses (Score:2)
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 har
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but that's completely clueless.
The idea that europe has "stronger consumer protection laws" is utterly false in practice.
While yes, in europe you have some statutary differences compared to the USA - for example, a categorical right to return items purchase by post, what you do NOT have in europe, in general, is the ability to sue companies directly and/or seek punitive damages except in extremely extraordinary cases that require a myriad of hoops to be jumped through.
So Europeans don't have as much rights because they supposedly can't sue a manufacturer when your dog didn't survive being dried in the microwave oven they made.
Re: (Score:2)
>In United States, several larger companies seem to be doing quite well acting for the politicians and sometimes for the shareholders (in that order).
I thought it was always for the shareholders. I don't see a lot of corps acting for the politicians, it's almost always the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
It's = It is. You're welcome. :P
How many European countries will it take (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be clear, you're saying that "obligation" is a word that doesn't come from "obligate".
My dad once purchased Apple Care (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Apple Care is extended warranty, and is not insurance. I doubt you would get a replacement for notebook either.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A warranty covers defects, and Applecare explicitly says that this covers "Defects arising after customer takes delivery [apple.com]" (contrast with statutory warranties which usually only cover inherent defects - not that I'm saying this isn't an inherent defect, my point is that Applecare you shouldn't even have to argue whether or not it's inherent as it should be covered either way).
Unless you're accusing the grandparent's dad of secretly neglecting his iPad, this is clearly a defect.
Re:My dad once purchased Apple Care (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple Care is extended warranty, and is not insurance.
That's the entire point of his post.
It all depends on whether you believe the crack was caused by a manufacturing defect or improper/accidental user behavior. In his case, he clearly believes it was a manufacturing defect. Of course, you can choose not to believe him if you want, that's your call.
I doubt you would get a replacement for notebook either.
That's a strawman. He was asking for the device to be fixed, not be replaced (which according to him at least, could have been easily done).
Besides, an extended warranty doesn't just extend the default limitation of a standard manufacturer warranty, but it's supposed to dictate more advantageous terms than a standard existing warranty (even when a defect is found only within the standard warranty period).
So if one is to truly believe that this was caused by a manufacturing defect, and not user behavior, it wouldn't be unusual to expect better warranty service when one has purposefully purchased better warranty service in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Sure sounds like cause for a small claims suit against apple due to failure to provide repair or replacement to address a defect of a product under warranty.
Same in Australia (Score:5, Interesting)
See http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/01/apple-stores-warranty-approach-contradicts-australian-consumer-law/ [lifehacker.com.au] for more detail.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple still tries these tactics in Australia, even two years after being brought to public attention. In Australia, if a product isn't fit for purpose, you can return it to the store it was bought from, regardless of what Apple try to tell you. This is one small part of the reason for the 'Australia Tax', the other parts being inexplicable.
See
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/01/apple-stores-warranty-approach-contradicts-australian-consumer-law/ [lifehacker.com.au]
for more detail.
Phones are even more of a special case in Australia. For other products the wording of the law is that if you paid a substantial amount of money for something and it breaks before the expected lifespan you can expect replacement from the supplier or manufacturer (can't remember which, the supplier I think). For phones, if you are under contract then the phone is considered under warranty and the phone company is responsible for it.
I'd hoped this would reduce the amount of crap on the market - a store might
Re: (Score:2)
Warranties are handled by the supplier via the Australian distributor. The store has little to do with it. They are in fact in the right not to handle your warranty at all and can simply direct you to the manufacturer. It doesn't cost the store anything (if they are bastards) or very little (if they have good customer service and handle things like warranties) to replace a very cheap TV.
Re: (Score:2)
But the warranty laws in Australia compel the shop to handle the warranty, you are meant to take it back to the place of purchase. For most electronic goods, the retailer really can't do anything, so that's why they have manufacturers warranty, that's all arranged outside what the law allows, but no one worries, because a defective product gets fixed and the customer should be satisfied. The law also allows some reasonable leniency with entry level gear, as it does examine that in "fit for purpose" you buy
Re: (Score:2)
Handle the warranty does not mean pay for the replacement. Again this is a warranty. Warranty is always covered by a the local distributor. The cost to the shop is the cost of shipping if there even is a cost like that. This is the reason why we still have cheap shit products on the market.
Fit for purpose is exactly why the Xbox360 red ring of death is covered regardless if the warranty is there or not. I fully support this. People buy a console expecting to need to purchase only the one in the console's li
Re: (Score:2)
In Australia, if a product isn't fit for purpose, you can return it to the store it was bought from, regardless of what Apple try to tell you.
In California, you can return a defective product to _any outlet which sells it_ any time during the warranty period. Needless to say, some retailers are not too happy about this concept. Some of them cheat brutally to get around it. For example, Sears changes their model numbers every year so that they technically don't have the same product.
Re: (Score:3)
The game was unplayable on hardware it claimed to be playable on. That is
Re: (Score:2)
you can't claim "damages" caused by the fault.
Really? It sounds like NZ law is fairly similar to UK law, where goods must also be "fit for purpose". In that case you can claim compensation if you suffered some loss as a result of them not being fit for the intended purpose, such as if some freestanding shelves that claim to support 100kg collapse and damage 95kg of your stuff.
It is really quite interesting how much you can punish companies for messing you about, lying or simply failing to deliver what they promised. For example if you arrange delivery
EU and US price differences... (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They already do this. A USD 2199 macbook is a EUR 2199 macbook. But the question is why Apple should be allowed to sell hightech junk which needs repair within two years. Hardly value for money.
Re: (Score:2)
In some countries it may be that iStuff can be sold at reduced VAT but it is highly unlikely.
Re:EU and US price differences... (Score:5, Informative)
"What the hell are you talking about? The EU/US price difference doesn't come from this. It's because none of these things are assembled or manufactured here, everything is imported."
What the hell are you talking about? It is long ago that prices are unrelated to costs but to whatever the buyer is wanting to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, costs too.
Let's say a $2200 MacBook Pro which costs EU2200 as well (approximately US$2969, but let's say $3000).
FIrst you have anywhere from 15-20% import duties for foreign made goods ($330-4
Re: (Score:2)
10-15% Sales tax? For electronics it's more like 20% sales tax in most EU countries.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, costs too."
No, not at all.
"Let's say a $2200 MacBook Pro which costs EU2200 as well"
First mistake. Is not "costs EUR2200" but "it's price-tagged EUR2200".
Second mistake is that your MacBook Pro really costs somewhere around 300~500EUR, not 2200.
Price is not bound to costs but to whatever marketing says the prospective customer is willing to pay. If what the customer is willing to pay minus your expected profit is less than the production costs, you don't rise the price, you low your costs or leave
Re: (Score:2)
So what is Apple actually accused of? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
AFAIK EU and Belgian law already mandate certain warrantees regardless of wether you buy AppleCare or not, and Apple is accused of portraying certain warrantees to only apply if you do buy AppleCare.
Re: (Score:1)
Two year warranty presented as an extension. Two year warranty is required by European law. I'm sure that's probably just a start.
Re: (Score:2)
Two year warranty presented as an extension. Two year warranty is required by European law. I'm sure that's probably just a start.
And what you say is nonsense. You are confusing warranty and statutory rights. Any _manufacturer_ is free to give you any manufacturer's warranty that they like under any terms they like. Any _seller_ where you buy an item is responsible that the item is of sufficient quality. Calling that 'warranty' is quite misleading.
Re:So what is Apple actually accused of? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Despite what the law may imply, the 2-year guarantee is not free. The company selling the product still has to pay to provide warranty service, and that cost will be included in the price of the product.
Yet another example of a law taking away your opportunity. Both for the customer and the producer.
Re:So what is Apple actually accused of? (Score:5, Insightful)
espite what the law may imply, the 2-year guarantee is not "free."
The law doesn't imply 2-year warantee should come for free but that must be included in the front price of the product.
"Yet another example of a law taking away your opportunity."
There's a non fair bargaining position on the seller: we knows perfectly what the innards of the product he is selling are, but the seller can't. This way the buyer is protected knowing there's a minimal quality all products needs to abide to. It leverages the playing field for all vendors, hardly a way of taking away oportunities, except for oportunities to abuse the buyer, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the 2-year guarantee is not free. The company selling the product still has to pay to provide warranty service, and that cost will be included in the price of the product
Certainly true. But Apple may not want to extend much the already high price gap between their products and the competition - especially for tablets and phones. For the record, many electronic shops in France (eg FNAC) do not care at all about this 2-year warranty law when selling less known laptop brands, for instance. And nobody complains (besides me :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another example of a law taking away your opportunity. Both for the customer and the producer.
Yep, yet another example of a law taking away a manufacturer's opportunity to sell expensive and badly constructed crap that won't last more than a few months. Honestly, I would be very wary of buying from any manufacturer who has enough concerns about their hardware failing in short-order that they will publically flout the law to avoid having to take on any of the financial risk of it doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Well thanks, roman_mir, for pointing that out.
There we were, thinking those free peanuts at the bar were dropped from the sky by unicorn-piloted Zeppelins.
Re:So what is Apple actually accused of? (Score:4, Interesting)
[...] since a couple of schools are starting to make iPad a basic necessity for education and others are looking at them as an example instead of going for the open-source android communities.
Not to mention the income from fixing 15% of the school iPads every year: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Viden/Teknologi/2013/01/Crashtest_af_ipads_soroe.htm [www.dr.dk] ..or when kids end up spending 2000 euros on stuff "by accident": http://www.dr.dk/P4/Aarhus/Nyheder/Odder/2012/02/02/02134329.htm [www.dr.dk]
(Danish links - use google trans)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the Ã900,000. The judgement stated that Apple needs to bring their warranty in line with EU Law. If they fail, I wouldn't be surprised if there are significant repercussions (Import / trade ban until it's sorted, for instance).
Apple didn't have to change their manufacturer warranty at all. The consequence of all this is apparently that Apple is going to stop offering Apple Care in Italy. I'll try to explain what _actually_ happened, in case some slashdotters have the brain power to understand it:
The manufacturer can offer any warranty they like. The seller has to fix faults under certain conditions for a certain amount of time. A manufacturer or a store can also offer to sell an extended warranty. Now when you buy extended war
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the details that everyone else is ignoring. I gather, from your last paragraph, that you are fluent in both English and Italian. So I find myself wondering then:
>Note that the only people that Apple has to inform
>are those buying Apple Care, because when selling
>Apple Care, Apple has to accurately describe what
>the customer is getting. In all other cases, the onus
>is on the customer to inform himself about their laws.
Does something in the AppleCare documentation get lost in trans
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe there is a consumer law that demands that the sales person of a electronics device is required to give 2 years guarantee for free.
So what our consumer-organisation is suing for is that apple only give 1 year and sells the other year for a profit while this should be free.
(Or roughly something like that)
Than your consumer-organisation would be a bunch of morons, because Apple will most certainly grant the two year EU Statutory Warranty if they are the seller (and if they aren't, then that's non of their business anyway).
http://www.apple.com/uk/legal/statutory-warranty/ [apple.com] http://www.apple.com/benl/legal/statutory-warranty/ [apple.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Not entirely true.
The product has to last a "reasonable time". What's reasonable depends on the product - nobody expects a bunch of bananas to last two years, for example.
In any event, "reasonable time" is there to cover defects present at time of purchase. Certainly in the UK (don't know about elsewhere) the rule is: under 6 months old, it's assumed that the product was faulty from the day it was sold and the burden of proof is on the retailer to show it wasn't. Over 6 months, the burden of proof is on the
Re:So what is Apple actually accused of? (Score:5, Informative)
how is Apple misleading customers?
Probably the same way they were in the UK [wired.co.uk] and Italy. [bbc.co.uk] Apple was using false and misleading advertising to sell unnecessary "AppleCare" coverage when EU law required a 2-year warranty built into the price of the product.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple Care isn't just an extended warranty. It includes tech support.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what tech support is.
Re: (Score:2)
If you bought it from Comet or Jessops, better take a big hammer with you[1].
http://www.retailresearch.org/whosegonebust.php [retailresearch.org]
Cripes-a-mercy, it'd be quicker to list the ones that haven't gone tits-up.
[1] I believe the warranty liability in fact moves up to the next member of the supply chain - usually the importer or manufacturer. If they're still operating.
I'm confused (Score:3)
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?
It's a bloody press release! (Score:2)
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 w
Know Your Implied Statutory Warranty Rights (Score:4, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org] Implied Warranties US
http://www.apple.com/au/legal/statutory-warranty/ [apple.com] Statutory Warranties AU
http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showtopic=84941 [dtvforum.info] Statutory Warranties AU
http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/the_acl/downloads/consumer_guarantees_guide.pdf [consumerlaw.gov.au] Most Recent Laws AU
http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/consumer/article/-/9803967/worthless-warranties/ [yahoo.com] 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.
Wait what? (Score:3)
Apples commercial practices are misleading?!?! Next you'll be telling me they didn't invent the MP3 player, my mind is blown!
Re:Gender-equality (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 c
Re: (Score:2)
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.