5 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, but that "If you can read this, your warrantee is gone. Sorry." label on the ribbon cable is probably not legal in the US. https://consumer.

by elihu 2y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but that "If you can read this, your warrantee is gone. Sorry." label on the ribbon cable is probably not legal in the US. https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2022/07/ftc-says-companies-warranty-restrictions-were-illegal https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2022/07/ftc-says-co... https://www.engadget.com/2018-04-11-ftc-warranty-warning.html https://www.engadget.com/2018-04-11-ftc-warranty-warning.htm...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
observationist 2y ago
Such stickers are expressly illegal in the US. They mean nothing here. Something something "The power of freedom compels you!" Anyway, any such "warranty void if removed" and other labels don't mean anything in the US. It should be illegal to even sell anything with those labels, but somehow they still pop up. Despite that, they 100% mean nothing. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2018/04/ftc-staff-warns-companies-it-illegal-condition-warranty-coverage-use-specified-parts-or-services https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2018/04/...
bmitc 2y ago
> The FTC says the choice is yours, and companies that void your warranty for choosing an independent shop or to fix it yourself may be breaking the law. That's a very strange decision to me. While a customer should be able to choose what they do with their device, I don't see why a company needs to uphold a warranty on a product modified by someone other than them. No wonder hardly anyone provides a warranty long enough to even matter.
- lxgr 2y ago
  Arguably companies providing short/no warranty periods long predates that FTC ruling.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  If a piece breaks in a way unrelated to the modifications, why should the company get to skip out on fixing it? If it's within the legal minimum, they should be held to the standard of making their product work. And if they want to draw in more customers with a longer warranty, they need to be held to that. Arbitrary exceptions don't save them much money in comparison to the harm it does to purchasers. Also if they can force first-party repairs then that's an instant overpriced monopoly. I don't think this rule has much to do with companies deciding to have bad warranties.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bambax 2y ago
Legal or not, it's mean and incredibly unfunny. What are they thinking.

by elihu 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

observationist 2y ago

Such stickers are expressly illegal in the US. They mean nothing here. Something something "The power of freedom compels you!" Anyway, any such "warranty void if removed" and other labels don't mean anything in the US. It should be illegal to even sell anything with those labels, but somehow they still pop up. Despite that, they 100% mean nothing. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2018/04/ftc-staff-warns-companies-it-illegal-condition-warranty-coverage-use-specified-parts-or-services https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2018/04/...

bmitc 2y ago

> The FTC says the choice is yours, and companies that void your warranty for choosing an independent shop or to fix it yourself may be breaking the law. That's a very strange decision to me. While a customer should be able to choose what they do with their device, I don't see why a company needs to uphold a warranty on a product modified by someone other than them. No wonder hardly anyone provides a warranty long enough to even matter.

lxgr 2y ago
Arguably companies providing short/no warranty periods long predates that FTC ruling.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Dylan16807 2y ago
If a piece breaks in a way unrelated to the modifications, why should the company get to skip out on fixing it? If it's within the legal minimum, they should be held to the standard of making their product work. And if they want to draw in more customers with a longer warranty, they need to be held to that. Arbitrary exceptions don't save them much money in comparison to the harm it does to purchasers. Also if they can force first-party repairs then that's an instant overpriced monopoly. I don't think this rule has much to do with companies deciding to have bad warranties.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bambax 2y ago

Legal or not, it's mean and incredibly unfunny. What are they thinking.