Hacker News Reader

Comment by shakna | Hacker News Reader

Waiting to see when this crops up here, and how it'll fly considering Consumer Rights [0]. It falls into minor, so Google will have to:

* free repair, (with a repair notice describing the fault)

* replacement (must be the same condition as the purchase, so no second hand!)

* refund (the same amount you have already paid, provided in the same form as your original payment.)

And of course, the kicker:

> You are entitled to return a product if you believe that there is a problem.

And the business you purchased from has to foot the costs of said return.

All of these things are things Google has tried very hard to avoid, but they're selling the Pixel here, so they have to play by the consumer-oriented laws.

It'd be interesting.

[0] https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...

View on HN

Google does not sell the phone in Australia. You are buying it from Google Singapore and it is shipped from Hong Kong. It is charged in Australian dollars by an offshore credit card processor so you will also pay a non Autralian card processing fee. I did and ended up paying more than what they sell for in Australia. If you buy the phone from an Australian store or through the Australian carrier Telstra, yes you have consumer rights and very strong ones. If you bought it from the Australian Play Store, you have no rights except those in the country of origin. For shits and giggles have a try at getting them to tell you where you bought it from, it seems to be a question that is on script 'don't answer'.

The script may say not to answer, but contact the ACCC. You absolutely have consumer rights here, even if purchased overseas.

They shipped it to you here in Australia, so are beholden to the rules.

Valve, Yellow Pages and other overseas companies have been punished for ignoring those rules.

You probably could mention where "here" is.

They did mention: .au

Australia, judging by TLD

The link points to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

It's probably cheaper for Google to ignore the complaints and foot the lawsuit bill when/if it ever comes due. They have the cash, and it seems like the attitude of companies like Google is to "ask forgiveness, not permission."

Valve / Steam thought that, until their fraudulent refund policy had its day in court.

Their TBD fine could be up to ~$900k US per person they stole from.

http://www.pcgamer.com/valve-loses-australian-legal-battle-o...

* replacement (must be the same condition as the purchase, so no second hand!)

I believe apple & att will replace the broken phone with a manufacture refurbished device.

Under the Consumer Laws I mentioned, manufacturers have more leeway, but a business cannot require you to deal with the manufacturer.

Apple is required, and does if you point out their obligations, to provide a new device if you purchased a new device.

As phones are also guaranteed a "reasonable lifetime" of 5 years, this has led to replacing 4s with 5s and the like.

However, as you mention ATT, you might be American, in which case, almost none of these guarantees applies to you.

Yep. That's "caveat emptor capitalism" at its finest.

If it is not already happening, can we expect more arbitration clauses in purchase agreements, or does the law already rule that out? (There will be different answers in different jurisdictions, I expect.)

Within Australia, Consumer Law overrules any and all conflicting arbitration clauses.

For example, "extended warranties" you pay for are considered useless, and the ACCC recently did a public awareness campaign against them.

Why? Products are guaranteed to last a "reasonable lifetime", where precedent determines reasonableness.

Precedents I know:

* "Dumb" phone, 10 years

* Smartphone, 5 years

* Fridge, 10 years

* Car, 8 years

* Laptop, 5 years

* Tablet PC, 3 years

that... sounds too good to be true. could you provide any references on what the actual consequences of this warranty are?

The guarantees can be seen here [0].

Personally, I've never needed to test it, as mentioning the Consumer Rights Commission is enough to make the worst of businesses suddenly become your best friend.

However, a little research shows:

The ACL will assist if the business refuses to honour the guarantee. [0]

> "If we find that a retailer is not honouring the obligations imposed on the retailer under the consumer guarantee provisions of the Australia consumer law then the ACCC will take action to deal with those issues," Mr Samuel said.

Optus, a sizeable telecom, got a decent fine for hiding stuff in fine print.

> The ACCC has already been busy enforcing a prohibition on false, misleading or deceptive claims, with Optus recently agreeing to pay $178,200 in fines for potentially misleading consumers with some of its phone cap advertising.

There's actually a TV show revolving around this stuff [1], so I'd say its relatively enforced.

[0] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-07/broken-but-out-of-warr...

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/tv/thecheckout/

WOW, 5 years for a smartphone? I'm all for longer warranties but honestly that seems excessive to enforce. There's no way an even 4 year old smartphone wouldn't have at least some consumer caused damage. How do they account for that? If I beat the hell out of my phone but still insist there's "a problem" they have to just eat the cost?

Not guaranteed if you caused the damage.

Its against manufacturing defects, and designed to fight planned obsolescence.

EDIT: Most warranties here don't cover consumer-caused damage either. If they do, extended warranty makes sense, but it's few and far between.

Those times look a little exaggerated to me. My understanding is that it will be up to the magistrate to decide what is a reasonable life expectancy of a device. (Based on how the product was marketed and sold)

Yes, a magistrate decides. The times listed already have a set precedent.

What goes into deciding reasonableness usually involves:

* Cost of product vs average income of average household

* Reliability advertised

* Average income of the targeted audience

* Audience reliance upon the product

As a quick example, an iPhone sells for about $1400, which is about 2% of the average income, and is a daily use item.

The device breaking causes disruption to the consumer, and has already cost a somewhat sizeable part of their income.

They're entitled to the time necessary to offset such a purchase, and interest rates and insurance rates are used as the guide here. Both of which use 4.8 years for 2%.

Do you have to have purchased the items in Australia? I know some people try to only purchase electronics overseas, because they are so much more expensive there.

No, an item sold across the 'net is still being sold to Australia, and beholden to the Consumer Rights.

However, you're pretty much guaranteed to get nowhere unless the company, or a subsidiary, resides within Australia.

But, if in doubt, report to the ACCC, they handle the legal legwork for you, even to see if you have a case.

EDIT: I've had a few Arduinos from dealxtreme be shoddy. The ACCC got them to send replacements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com