3 ms·
On second thought.. It might be the law already covers this. It would be just the question of somebody testing it. Take a relatively new() device with unpatche
by jpalomaki 7y ago
On second thought.. It might be the law already covers this.
It would be just the question of somebody testing it. Take a relatively new() device with unpatched security hole, try to get it replaced/refunded and if necessary proceed to court to get a decision on the matter.
Although I wonder if any vendor actually wants to go to court arguing that a product with severe security issue is actually working as intended.
() Safe bet should be a device purchased less than 2 years ago, since that seems to be the time the vendor is at least responsible for defects.
- rndgermandude 7y agoSpeaking EU/Germany-centric, the problem with suing a company is that the company can always make the case go away by replacing the faulty product with either a repaired product, a very similar product of equal or greater worth or refunding a customer for the product and any losses incurred. A court will readily accept this even if the plaintiff customer might not want to accept it. And it's better to just silence a single suit this way (or a few) than to get a sentence against you on the books that will encourage everybody else to demand replacements or even sue too.
- ahje 7y agoExactly. I've returned products due to firmware problems in the past, although they were not security related. In one case I was asked to give a written description of the problem before I got a refund. The other store returned the money without questions. It's not really any different from a product that broke under warranty in my experience.