4 ms·

a legal battle with a phone manufacturer will cost much more than the phone itself. 99% of retailers will say it's nothing to do with them, take it up with the

a legal battle with a phone manufacturer will cost much more than the phone itself. 99% of retailers will say it's nothing to do with them, take it up with the manufacturer. phones are relatively cheap and transient commodities compared to something like houses, where "consumer rights" might actually mean something

jacquesm 7y ago
If consumer rights don't mean anything for > $500 devices then there might as well be no consumer rights.
rjmunro 7y ago
> a legal battle with a phone manufacturer will cost much more than the phone itself You'd only need to do it once to set a precedent, and everyone can get their phones fixed or replaced. The problem is that the law applies to the retailer, not to the manufacturer. As I didn't buy my phone direct, I'd have to get the retailer to replace it, and as I went to a high street retailer who is suffering from competition from Amazon etc, and closing branches, it feels bad to give the problem to them. If I'd bought the phone from the manufacturer direct, from Amazon, or from a phone network, I'd gladly go ahead with the action because those retailers would have enough clout that the manufacturer would care about loosing their business.
michaelhoffman 7y ago
In the UK it is really easy and inexpensive to file a small claim, and there are limits to how much cases on the small claims track can cost you. https://www.gov.uk/make-money-claim https://www.gov.uk/make-money-claim I've done it myself and got paid by an intransigent phone retailer relatively promptly after that point. My lawsuit was about a contractual dispute rather than faulty goods though.
fulafel 7y ago
Would the dispute be with the manufacturer or whoever sold the phone to you?
- davidgerard 7y ago
  Whoever sold you the phone. Your contract is with the trader.
Someone 7y ago
They will say that and will often get away with it, but in the EU, that doesn’t fly. https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/gua...: ”Under EU rules, a trader must repair, replace, reduce the price or give you a refund if goods you bought turn out to be faulty or do not look or work as advertised.” So, the manufacturer, in the EU, never has anything to do with the consumer, legally. I think a trader could successfully argue they didn’t advertise the device as secure, that the user didn’t suffer from it or, for devices that are out of warranty, that they don’t need to correct this issue anymore. claiming that it wasn’t ‘faulty’ could be harder, but I’m sure they would try. If a vulnerability isn’t known, is it a fault? Depends on whether its cause was generally known, I would think.
- dageshi 7y ago
  Unless I'm missing something, it's only for 2 years after purchase? "The legal guarantee covers any defects presumed to have existed at the time of delivery and which become apparent within a period of two years. However, the crucial period is the 6 months after you bought your product:" https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/faq/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/gua... So I'm assuming the bulk of older phones would no longer be covered?
  - eitland 7y ago
    Here in Norway I think it is, but be prepared to argue for it.
  - tripzilch 7y ago
    That's the absolute EU mandated minimum. Per country it can be stricter. Also, generally businesses are expected to do somewhat better than "the bare minimum that makes you not want to demand your money back".
    - gowld 7y ago
      > businesses are expected to do somewhat better than "the bare minimum that makes you not want to demand your money back". Since when? Economic theory explains that they are expected to do no more than that, or else they'd leave money on the table.

jacquesm 7y ago

If consumer rights don't mean anything for > $500 devices then there might as well be no consumer rights.

rjmunro 7y ago

> a legal battle with a phone manufacturer will cost much more than the phone itself You'd only need to do it once to set a precedent, and everyone can get their phones fixed or replaced. The problem is that the law applies to the retailer, not to the manufacturer. As I didn't buy my phone direct, I'd have to get the retailer to replace it, and as I went to a high street retailer who is suffering from competition from Amazon etc, and closing branches, it feels bad to give the problem to them. If I'd bought the phone from the manufacturer direct, from Amazon, or from a phone network, I'd gladly go ahead with the action because those retailers would have enough clout that the manufacturer would care about loosing their business.

michaelhoffman 7y ago

In the UK it is really easy and inexpensive to file a small claim, and there are limits to how much cases on the small claims track can cost you. https://www.gov.uk/make-money-claim https://www.gov.uk/make-money-claim I've done it myself and got paid by an intransigent phone retailer relatively promptly after that point. My lawsuit was about a contractual dispute rather than faulty goods though.

fulafel 7y ago

Would the dispute be with the manufacturer or whoever sold the phone to you?

davidgerard 7y ago
Whoever sold you the phone. Your contract is with the trader.

Someone 7y ago

They will say that and will often get away with it, but in the EU, that doesn’t fly. https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/gua...: ”Under EU rules, a trader must repair, replace, reduce the price or give you a refund if goods you bought turn out to be faulty or do not look or work as advertised.” So, the manufacturer, in the EU, never has anything to do with the consumer, legally. I think a trader could successfully argue they didn’t advertise the device as secure, that the user didn’t suffer from it or, for devices that are out of warranty, that they don’t need to correct this issue anymore. claiming that it wasn’t ‘faulty’ could be harder, but I’m sure they would try. If a vulnerability isn’t known, is it a fault? Depends on whether its cause was generally known, I would think.

dageshi 7y ago
Unless I'm missing something, it's only for 2 years after purchase? "The legal guarantee covers any defects presumed to have existed at the time of delivery and which become apparent within a period of two years. However, the crucial period is the 6 months after you bought your product:" https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/faq/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/gua... So I'm assuming the bulk of older phones would no longer be covered?
- eitland 7y ago
  Here in Norway I think it is, but be prepared to argue for it.
- tripzilch 7y ago
  That's the absolute EU mandated minimum. Per country it can be stricter. Also, generally businesses are expected to do somewhat better than "the bare minimum that makes you not want to demand your money back".
  - gowld 7y ago
    > businesses are expected to do somewhat better than "the bare minimum that makes you not want to demand your money back". Since when? Economic theory explains that they are expected to do no more than that, or else they'd leave money on the table.