Apple issued government warning over repair, replacement practices in New Zealand
New Zealand's Commerce Commission recently warned Apple that it may have misled consumers in that country about replacement rights for both first- and third-party products sold through the online Apple store.
New Zealand's Commerce Commission has issued an eight-page warning to Apple alleging that the company breached that country's Consumer Guarantees Act and Fair Trading Act.
According to an account by the NZ Herald, the commission is arguing that Apple, through Apple Sales New Zealand, circumvented that law by "telling consumers that its products are covered by a guarantee for two years, and for referring them to the manufacturer of non-Apple branded products, excluding Apple's liability for certain products."
Commissioner Anna Rawlings noted the Consumer Guarantees Act does not specify such predetermined expiry periods or other requirements.
The letter is the result of around two years of complaints regarding terms and conditions tied to purchases, as well as repairs and replacements of faulty products. Another point of contention is Apple's responsibility for third-party products sold through its online store.
"We consider that Apple is likely to be misleading consumers by trying to exclude its liability for non-Apple branded products, the letter said. "If this behaviour is continuing, we recommend you take immediate action to address our concerns and seek legal advice about complying with the Fair Trading Act."
Apple cooperated with the investigation and made changes to conform with the commission's findings. For example, Apple employees are now aware that consumer rights laws are not bound by time, the agency said.
The company has long operated in New Zealand. It activated Apple Pay last October and AppleCare and Mac warrantees in January, at the same time that Australia gained access to the same services.
New Zealand's Commerce Commission has issued an eight-page warning to Apple alleging that the company breached that country's Consumer Guarantees Act and Fair Trading Act.
According to an account by the NZ Herald, the commission is arguing that Apple, through Apple Sales New Zealand, circumvented that law by "telling consumers that its products are covered by a guarantee for two years, and for referring them to the manufacturer of non-Apple branded products, excluding Apple's liability for certain products."
Commissioner Anna Rawlings noted the Consumer Guarantees Act does not specify such predetermined expiry periods or other requirements.
The letter is the result of around two years of complaints regarding terms and conditions tied to purchases, as well as repairs and replacements of faulty products. Another point of contention is Apple's responsibility for third-party products sold through its online store.
"We consider that Apple is likely to be misleading consumers by trying to exclude its liability for non-Apple branded products, the letter said. "If this behaviour is continuing, we recommend you take immediate action to address our concerns and seek legal advice about complying with the Fair Trading Act."
Apple cooperated with the investigation and made changes to conform with the commission's findings. For example, Apple employees are now aware that consumer rights laws are not bound by time, the agency said.
The company has long operated in New Zealand. It activated Apple Pay last October and AppleCare and Mac warrantees in January, at the same time that Australia gained access to the same services.
Comments
All offer their own warranties but they are not needed because all products in New Zealand are covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act.
Apple NZ however technically does not exist even if they do have their own offices here. Everything is run out of Australia.
It seems more or less the same legislation that exists in Australia and we don’t see companies imploding here due to its onerous and overreaching nature, as some might make it out to be, mostly because products do, in the main, last a reasonably long time.
Apple has a long history of trying to flout EU consumer law with its selling practices of AppleCare for mobile devices. It is a repeat offender, and AFAIK, never challenges consumer protection demands because it has known from the outset that, in the training phase of store employees and the wording of online marketing, it was misleading purchasers. I think it has had its house in order for a couple of years now although they tried to sell me AppleCare when I bought the iPhone 6 using the same tactics that consumer groups were complaining about.
When I pointed out that the two year coverage the guy was trying to 'sell' me was already included in my statutory consumer rights, he gave a wry smile and conceded I was right but said he had the obligation to offer it to me anyway.
What's absurd about consumer protection laws? The US is behind most of the world in many things regarding add this one to the list.
I am guessing, about the same as Rhode Island, USA.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/12/12/21/italian-authorities-fine-apple-another-264k-over-product-warranties
Extended warranties can be very profitable, and Apple is far from the only company that pointedly promotes them.
Apple just acts like they don't have people that know how to read other countries (NZ being predominantly English language) laws, don't blame anyone but Apple.
Oh, so no it wasn't a big issue for Apple to adhere to NZ laws.
People are reading too much into this. The mere fact that Apple corrected themselves with regards to NZ law is a testament to how awesome Apple really is. This doesn't affect the cost of an Apple product in NZ for that you have to look at exchange rates and GST which is currently 15% and a new law has just passed that forces online sales to charge GST but even that won't affect Apple's prices too much considering the cost online is the same as the cost in the store so Apple is already charging the required GST.
This is really a non-issue being blown out of proportion about an American company being run by an Australian wing that got NZ law wrong... and yet they corrected themselves.