Australian regulator alleges Apple misled iPad/iPhone users over consumer rights
accc.gov.au
accc.gov.au
This is an issue inherent in trying to apply consumer rights laws that were written (or at least initially conceived) when the KitchenAid mixer was the pinnacle of household technology to the age of smartphones.
As a consumer, I would love to have a better legal framework for situations like this. As a guy who has manufactured and sold a mass market tech hardware product, I have no idea how to realistically make that work.
If you replace safety critical (and in Apple's case, security critical) functionality on your car and it causes bodily harm, who do you think is going to end up in the news with a negative headline? Furthermore, should a car manufacturer be able to implement measures to prevent this from happening?
This issue is already solved for cars. If you make major modifications to a car, or even small modifications to some parts, it's already not considered roadworthy unless you get a qualified engineer to sign it off. Note that the qualified engineer does not need to be associated with the original vendor.
ABS, if not your brake system, on current cars is a critical safety system and repair centers across the US (and likely similar in other countries) can make these repairs safely and within manufacturer requirements. We accept this because no repair facility is going to want to lose business by installing bad parts or doing a job improperly and the last point of contact; the repair shop; is on the hook legally.
With regards to parts on the phone. Apple simply needs to be forced to make replacement parts available to non Apple repair facilities. They could have an authorization process or whatnot but it needs not to be burdensome.
My only concern with this would be, wouldn't that be a great way for the intelligence services of the world to finally backdoor the Apple's iDevice security.
A badly done brake job is quite likely to result in injury, if not death, of not only the occupants of the vehicle, but other people as well who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And yet doing it yourself is legal and socially acceptable, and attempts to change that would (rightfully) be met with strident opposition.
The worst that would likely happen with a miscalibrated LIDAR is that the car wouldn't be able to drive until it was calibrated.
So yeah, the safety argument isn't just FUD, it's transparently ridiculous FUD.
I guess if it can be proven it was because of the mod then responsibility should transfer to the modder.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-to-ban-fake-news-...
A better example from the automotive industry would be losing your engine warranty for having an "unauthorized" mechanic swap in an aftermarket oxygen sensor.
That's an obvious and important distinction, but it can't be solely left up to the manufacturer to determine what was coupled or related enough to void the entire warranty or absolve the manufacturer of all liability. If it's left up to them, they have a strong incentive to prohibit any third-party repairs of any kind. A good regulatory policy would need to ensure that the incentive is for the manufacturer to be the cheapest and easiest provider of repair services, so that poorly-executed third-party repairs are less likely to happen in the first place.
In today's world I wouldn't bet on that always being the case.
Your audio system might send audio data to your speakers over the same network your car tires uses to tell your engine that the road is slippery.
Also, your car's engine in a wider sense might want to use your audio system to communicate with you, for example if your chair has detected that you are dozing of.
Modern car electronics really are integrated with each other.
Edit: source http://www.caranddriver.com/features/faking-it-engine-sound-...
My point is, that cars are incredibly complex machines, and it's very hard to say with absolute certainty that "changing component X won't affect component Y".
If you are buying a new car with a passkey system, make sure to extract the code before you sign the papers.
They cannot say, "somebody else touched this, so tough luck." If they can demonstrate that your problem is a result of someone else touching it, then they can say tough luck. If they can't, then they have to fix it even if you didn't do things the way they want you to.
I think it's important to remember that these consumer protections aren't some random government overreach. They were put in place as a reaction to abuses by manufacturers. Without them, we'd probably have Apple charging $50 for a charger, with the threat of voiding your warranty if you use an unapproved charger, or similar tactics.
To bring it into another realm where the problem might be more obvious, imagine if your car manufacturer could void your warranty if you installed unapproved (and un-overpriced) tires or brake pads. Again, if those tires or brake pads cause your problem then they don't have to fix it, but they can't just void your warranty because of their mere presence.
The interesting part of it is how hard it would be to prove them wrong if they say it could have been caused by behaviour x. Eg, if I chip my car and run it at non stock settings - the manufacturer can probably attribute almost any issue at all to that and I'd be hard pressed to disprove that assertion.
The question of proof is an interesting one. I guess that, like most things, it'll come down to who's willing and able to prove their case in court, or convince the other side they can't win.
That's one reason I find this case to be interesting. Companies often try really hard to mislead customers about their rights, which seems to be why so many people think you can void your entire warranty by making a small change. They usually get away with it as long as they cave in when they encounter someone who actually knows their rights. But all those people who don't know get screwed over.
It's an interesting issue, particularly around how warranties apply to things like firmware updates and security patches. HP have previously run afoul of the ACCC, due to their policy of making customers pay extra for firmware updates after their 1 year warranty period expires (https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/hp-to-pay-3-million-fo...).
These protections were put in place because companies have proven that they will be abusive with their warranties without the protections. I see no reason why these protections shouldn't still apply to smartphones, and lots of reasons why they still need to.
> This is an issue inherent in trying to apply consumer rights laws that were written (or at least initially conceived) when the KitchenAid mixer was the pinnacle of household technology to the age of smartphones.
I actually think it makes more sense having these laws now than before. A consumer buying a $3k television or $1.2k phone would expect it to be high quality and last many years, but has no way of actually telling it will only last warranty + 1 month because of x,y,z - so needs help from consumer protection. With a mixer it was probably easier, a simpler machine and easier to judge quality for the average person.
"Under Irish consumer law, consumers are entitled to a free of charge repair or replacement, discount or refund by the seller, of defective goods or goods which do not conform with the contract of sale. These rights expire six years from delivery of the goods." [1]
My other negative experience was when my iPhone 5 was covered under recalls for the battery [2] and sleep/wake button [3], but Apple refused to fix it without a full screen replacement, for a "crack" so small I hadn't even noticed before sending it in for repair. It became a party piece of mine to challenge people to find the crack.
[1] http://www.apple.com/ie/legal/statutory-warranty/ [2] https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-will-replace-your-defective-... [3] https://www.apple.com/support/iphone5-sleepwakebutton/
I once had a defective SSD in a macbook air out of the 1 year apple warranty period and in the 2 year EU mandated period. Bought on the Apple online shop. There were warnings on the website that it might end up costing money and it really seemed like apple was disliking the EU mandated warranty. I was sent that evening to an authorized repair shop. There they told me that the repair will take longer (up to a week) as the device does not have the 1 year warranty anymore and needs to get cleared by Apple to get repaired. On the next morning at around 8 AM I got a call that I can pick my device up.
However, it's up to you to show that something is a manufacturing fault - an incorrectly assembled iPhone case for example, you can expect Apple to fix that within 6 years of buying the phone, and they can't say it's out of the original 1 year warranty so they won't fix it. But if your phone dies 2 years after buying it, they don't have to fix it by law, unless you can prove that it died because of a manufacturing error.
however, to cover all bases, within the first six months of device life it's the manufacturer that has to prove the fault was not caused from a manufacturing defect.
Apple _already_ is capable of diagnosing faults, and finding out which component is causing the problem. If it turns out that the problem is a third party part, they can offer to replace the part. This is standard procedure everywhere.
This is not analogous. The analogy here is that the aftermarket stereo or different garage caused the faults which your Subaru is experiencing, and you are expecting Subaru to fix them.
Predatory pricing is a separate issue, but this is about whether Apple is obliged to make good on repairs to devices (both under warranty and at cost) where widespread component failure could have been caused by another repair shop or component. Would Subaru repair your engine if it stopped working after you replaced the camshaft with a different type of camshaft?
The example is relevant.
Also lets not forget that legal frameworks are perfectly capable of handling exceptional circumstances. So even if it was the case that the part caused damage to other parts, it would be an argument that a court would be sympathetic to.
This happens _all_the_time_. Especially in complex precision-engineered electronics products.
If a third-party repair shop is making repairs using Apple certified components then that's fine. If it's any aftermarket component then clearly Apple should not have any sort of responsibility to the device, which has been fundamentally altered.
In the second paragraph, you present a scenario where the third party repair could have been responsible for the fault.
These are not the same. Apple is not legally obligated to repair a device that's been damaged by a third-party repair, and nobody is saying they should be. Apple is legally obligated to repair a defective device, even if it has been repaired by a third party, unless the defect was caused by that repair.
They can't just say "this could have been caused by the third party, so we're not going to look at it." They have to actually figure it out.
No. Perhaps I could have been clearer, but the emphasis in that sentence is on 'widespread', not on 'could'. Which is to say that third party repairs can do significantly more damage, and if you have your TouchID sensor replaced or repaired by a third party, and a connected component fails, Apple may rightfully feel aggrieved if they're on the hook. The component may have failed anyway, but it also might be due to the third party repair or unofficial component.
> They can't just say "this could have been caused by the third party, so we're not going to look at it." They have to actually figure it out.
Which is what this is all about. It's very hard and very time consuming to do that.
I don't see that a requirement to continue to honor the warranty after third-party repairs has been made represents any sort of undue burden on Apple, let alone one so terrible that it justifies overturning hard-fought consumer protections and returning to a system where companies are allowed to screw over customers pretty much at will.
Apple always has the choice to err on the side of caution and honor the warranty even when the third-party repair is at fault. That caps the cost to whatever it costs them to provide a replacement device. Which is probably something like $200 if your phone isn't brand new.
If they feel it may be worthwhile, they can try to determine whether a third-party repair is at fault for the problem at hand. But they don't have to.
Here in NZ stated warranties mean nothing the actual warranty is what is a reasonable expectation, I'd expect a laptop to work for at least five years and so my expectation is Apple or an Apple authorised repairer would service or replace it for the entirety of those five years.
It's amazing how companies try to get away with things though.
[...]
- misused a product in any way that caused the problem
[...]
- asked for a service to be done in a certain way against the advice of the business or were unclear about what you wanted
source: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...
Good luck with that.
Also, Apple (US) licenses all their software to you without any warranty.
If you wish to keep using their device, you have to accept that the very first time you turn it on.
By this, Apple tries to protect your privacy (which is coincidentally also now basically their core business value) by not letting 3rd parties compromise your phone's security.
As for misuse, that applies only if it caused the problem. The ACCC's case is that Apple refuses to do any repairs, even when they would be guaranteed (such as a manufacturing fault in the speaker), when the phone has been repaired in any way (such as the screen being replaced). If Apple can prove that these third party repairs do affect their ability to comply with the law, then they may win. I doubt that's the case personally.