Danish court rules Apple not allowed to dole out refurb iPhones for service swaps

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 71
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    This is pretty dumb.

    This is like buying a car. Then your car has a recall 2 years latter. And you demand a brand new car.
    If your new car can't be repaired then doesn't Lemon Law require it be replaced with a new one? Not entirely sure but I thought so. 
    Typically,  the  car owner is entitled to either a "replacement" vehicle or a refund of one's purchase price. 
  • Reply 42 of 71
    Ouch.....

    A simple solution to the result of law suit: No more exchanges, back to old school of send in for repairs and be without the same phone for days or weeks (dependent on kind of damage where it may be required to send back to factory to get it repaired). And consumers start keeping spare phones again. 

    Isn't that great? A win for danish folks, a win for Apple and its service centers.
  • Reply 43 of 71
    lerxtlerxt Posts: 185member
    Apple giving our second had phones to replace a phone under warranty has a very real effect on Hong Kong. There is a thriving trade in industry where you can get cash for your old phone to be resold on. They will not buy a phone that is not a HK serial number, and Apple give out phones that were originally sold in other countries. 
    I have been caught by this and was unable to sell my iPhone 6. 
    Apple have an obligation to replace the phone with a new phone imho. Consumer protection should be upmost. Apple have billions in reserve to look after customers in a civilised way. 
    HPDK
  • Reply 44 of 71
    sog35 said:
    This is pretty dumb.

    This is like buying a car. Then your car has a recall 2 years latter. And you demand a brand new car.
    No, that is not the same thing. In fact if your car is a lemon, you will get a new car.
  • Reply 45 of 71
    Apple has not designed its phones for easy repair.  Why not?  Because that would not maximize their profit.  
    Incorrect. They design them to be small as fuck. This has a consequence of making them more difficult to repair yourself. 

    Kinda like the advancements in the auto industry -- makes them pretty much impossible to repair by normals. 
    edited December 2016 radarthekatnetmagedasanman69
  • Reply 46 of 71
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    This is pretty dumb.

    This is like buying a car. Then your car has a recall 2 years latter. And you demand a brand new car.
    If your new car can't be repaired then doesn't Lemon Law require it be replaced with a new one? Not entirely sure but I thought so. 

    Lemon Law isn't about not being able to repair. It's about getting a car that has an unusually high number of problems. That is, a lemon. 
  • Reply 47 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,291member
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    This is pretty dumb.

    This is like buying a car. Then your car has a recall 2 years latter. And you demand a brand new car.
    If your new car can't be repaired then doesn't Lemon Law require it be replaced with a new one? Not entirely sure but I thought so. 

    Lemon Law isn't about not being able to repair. It's about getting a car that has an unusually high number of problems. That is, a lemon. 
    Wrong.

    "The Lemon Law covers defects or conditions that substantially impair the use, value or safety of a new or demonstrator vehicle (these are called "nonconformities"). These defects must be first reported to the manufacturer or its authorized service agent (usually, this is the dealer) during the "Lemon Law Rights Period," which is the first 24 months after the date of delivery of the motor vehicle to the consumer. If the manufacturer fails to conform the vehicle to the warranty after a reasonable number of attempts to repair these defects, the law requires the manufacturer to buy back the defective vehicle and give the consumer a purchase price refund or a replacement vehicle"
    edited December 2016 dasanman69
  • Reply 48 of 71
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    This is pretty dumb.

    This is like buying a car. Then your car has a recall 2 years latter. And you demand a brand new car.
    If your new car can't be repaired then doesn't Lemon Law require it be replaced with a new one? Not entirely sure but I thought so. 

    Lemon Law isn't about not being able to repair. It's about getting a car that has an unusually high number of problems. That is, a lemon. 
    Wrong.

    "The Lemon Law covers defects or conditions that substantially impair the use, value or safety of a new or demonstrator vehicle (these are called "nonconformities"). These defects must be first reported to the manufacturer or its authorized service agent (usually, this is the dealer) during the "Lemon Law Rights Period," which is the first 24 months after the date of delivery of the motor vehicle to the consumer. If the manufacturer fails to conform the vehicle to the warranty after a reasonable number of attempts to repair these defects, the law requires the manufacturer to buy back the defective vehicle and give the consumer a purchase price refund or a replacement vehicle"

    No, I'm right. It's right there in the text you quoted. "reasonable number of attempts". I also left one word out of my post which changed my intent. I should have said "isn't just about not being able to repair".

    You will never get a car replaced through the Lemon Law until after it has been to the dealer several times, depending on the defect. Which is a grey area since the term "substantial" is used. You can also get a replacement car if your car has been in the shop for too long (like 30 days) within the first year. Another way to get a replacement is having your car in the shop for an unusually high number of repairs even if they were all fixed (which is where the phrase "I must have got a car built in Friday afternoon" comes from). This is the most common reason cars get bought back (in my experience with who I work for).

    The idea a vehicle can't be repaired is ridiculous. You can ALWAYS repair a vehicle (excluding accident damage). Lemon Law is more about the inconvenience of getting the repairs done, not that they can't fix it. As in time in shop, number of visits or number of defects.
    netmage
  • Reply 49 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,291member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    This is pretty dumb.

    This is like buying a car. Then your car has a recall 2 years latter. And you demand a brand new car.
    If your new car can't be repaired then doesn't Lemon Law require it be replaced with a new one? Not entirely sure but I thought so. 

    Lemon Law isn't about not being able to repair. It's about getting a car that has an unusually high number of problems. That is, a lemon. 
    Wrong.

    "The Lemon Law covers defects or conditions that substantially impair the use, value or safety of a new or demonstrator vehicle (these are called "nonconformities"). These defects must be first reported to the manufacturer or its authorized service agent (usually, this is the dealer) during the "Lemon Law Rights Period," which is the first 24 months after the date of delivery of the motor vehicle to the consumer. If the manufacturer fails to conform the vehicle to the warranty after a reasonable number of attempts to repair these defects, the law requires the manufacturer to buy back the defective vehicle and give the consumer a purchase price refund or a replacement vehicle"

    No, I'm right. It's right there in the text you quoted. "reasonable number of attempts". I also left one word out of my post which changed my intent. I should have said "isn't just about not being able to repair".

    You will never get a car replaced through the Lemon Law until after it has been to the dealer several times, depending on the defect. Which is a grey area since the term "substantial" is used. You can also get a replacement car if your car has been in the shop for too long (like 30 days) within the first year. Another way to get a replacement is having your car in the shop for an unusually high number of repairs even if they were all fixed (which is where the phrase "I must have got a car built in Friday afternoon" comes from). This is the most common reason cars get bought back (in my experience with who I work for).

    The idea a vehicle can't be repaired is ridiculous. You can ALWAYS repair a vehicle (excluding accident damage). Lemon Law is more about the inconvenience of getting the repairs done, not that they can't fix it. As in time in shop, number of visits or number of defects.
    You said it required an unusually high number of problems. You're wrong. It requires only one problem, as proven by at least three unsuccessful repair attempts. 
    edited December 2016 dasanman69
  • Reply 50 of 71
    sog35 said:
    avon b7 said:
    dysamoria said:
    Good. There's no telling what's potentially wrong with a refurb that's been missed and when you paid for a new device, you should not be given a not-new in exchange after finding out your brand new device has a defect.

    This should be standard, everywhere, for all "replacement as warranty service" situations. If you start with a new product that has a defect, you should end up with a new product without defect as warranty protection against defect.

    For mobile devices and laptops/desktops.

    No, I don't think it should be mandated for repair instigated by damage. Give the customer an option between actual repair or replacement with refurb. Oh wait, Apple doesn't have the will to do component level repair even though we know it's possible...
    I pretty much agree with this stance. If the manufacturer makes a product 'unrepairable' for certain defects, it should provide the user with a new phone, not a phone that has left the manufacturing chain and been re-channeled as certified good.

    The same goes for any repair. Apple never guarantees you will get unused, new parts in repairs. They  reserve the right in most jurisdictions to use reconditioned parts. They should also be obliged to hand over the defective piece unless the user expressly states that is not wanted.
    Disagree.

    They should get reimbursed for the market value of the phone.  If they used the phone for 1 year they should get cash back for a 1 year old phone, not a brand new phone.

    This is basic common law. The customer already had the benefit of 1 year of use. They do not deserve a brand new phone.
    The problem is, Sog, that you don't know what you're talking about. WTF is "common law" ? And please spare me your american interpretation because it's completely irrelevant. Whether you, with no standing in Danish law, like it or not, the competent judicial authority in this case is the danish court. Arguing the point using an american legal context to comment on danish law is simply purile. The EU 2 Year guarantee obligation applies in 27 and a half countries in Europe or just off the coast ;-), so if apple wants to be childish (which I don't believe for a moment they will) then they should pull out of the EU market entirely.
    gatorguynubusnetmagecropr
  • Reply 51 of 71
    volcan said:
    There's some confusion here. At least in the US, Apple doesn't have anything refurbished available in their brick and mortar stores. You can only get refurbs online. 
    Nope. They have them right in the store as exchanges. True, you can't go in to a store and ask to buy a refurb. 
    That is a common misconception. Service replacement iPhones/iPads/iPods are not refurbished. That's why they are referred to as service replacements and not as refurbished. 

    As I mentioned earlier, refurbished items have a defective part removed and replaced (and technically that isn't entirely accurate. Aside: did you know that if you purchase, say, a MacBook Pro, leave the store with it, never actually use it and then return it that it cannot be sold again as new? Apple could sell that brand new computer as a refurb but not as new). That is not what you get with a service replacement. 

    So, if you take an iPhone to Apple and it has a bad logic board they take your non-working phone and give you a service replacement. The old phone gets shipped out. In a refurb situation the old phone would be opened, the logic board would be replaced, the phone tested and then sold as a refurb. No new battery, enclosure, display, etc, just the part needed to fix the phone. 

    That is not what you get with a service replacement. Service replacements are newly manufactured, possibly with parts salvaged and tested from another phone, but with a new battery, enclosure and display. 

    It it may seem like a subtle difference but that's how it works (at least in the US). 

    Again, there are no refurbished products in a physical Apple Store. 
    radarthekatnetmage
  • Reply 52 of 71
    So FYI, I would love this deal given what I was faced with at the Apple store this weekend.

    I went in for a 6s battery exchange and was told that because there was a small crack on my screen I would have to pay $130 to fix it if they broke the screen during the battery replacement.  The screen works perfectly as is and the crack is off in the lower left corner near the home button... but if they screw it up fixing their battery problem.... tough... I could either walk out with a broken screen and a functional battery or pay $130 to have them put in a new screen.

    Any other company I would just say "eh... I guess..." but I really expected more from Apple.


    netmage
  • Reply 53 of 71
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,150moderator
    sog35 said:
    apple ][ said:
    spice-boy said:
    Apple must do the same when selling in other countries. 
    Not necessarily.

    Apple has a lot of weight to pull around, and just because certain countries have anti-business rules and practices in place, that does not automatically mean that Apple must consent.

    Apple has various options, such as getting them to change their rules or raising the prices of devices in that country to cover the added costs of their retard rules.
    Or just leave the country entirely. 

    Losing sales from Denmark is a drop in teh bucket
    Less than one year after taking the helm at Apple, the mysterious Sog35 has pulled the company out of both China and Denmark, and shut down all social responsibility initiatives. Customers and investors can only wonder what might be his next move.  Research firm IDC, which Apple recently retained, believes the company should take itself private.  
    nubusglynhsingularitynetmage
  • Reply 54 of 71
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    sog35 said:
    This is pretty dumb.

    This is like buying a car. Then your car has a recall 2 years latter. And you demand a brand new car.
    You're mis-reading this.

    It's like having a recall 2 years later on your car, and they repair your car with "new old stock" parts. They're obviously not making any "new" iPhones of the previous model two models later. Since a phone is basically only three pieces now (front, back, and battery), it's less labor to replace the entire thing.

    A "refurbished" device is often just a repaired device. If Apple doesn't want this to happen, they should make their devices more repairable. 

    Let me explain the refurbishment process:
    1) You give your bought-new device to the tech guy, or mail it off somewhere, you're given the option to accept a refurbished device or wait for your device to be repaired, you might be without it for 6 weeks if you pick the latter, naturally people are forced into the former. (Here's why you always keep a spare device)
    2) They send you a "refurbished phone" from their repaired stock
    3) They fix your phone you send them, and then add it to their repaired stock.
    4) Repeat.

    When I worked for AT&T Warranty replacement over a decade ago, some people would go through two refurbishment devices before they would be allowed to get a new phone.

    The problem isn't the refurbishment process, but the quality of the device. In the case of the iPhone, it doesn't have a high defect rate (except with the iPhone 6S touch disease) , and some "bendgate" issues. When people called into the WEX queue at AT&T, it was always the cheapy free phones, and the most fragile (Motorola flip phones) that were exchanged, and the latter (where the screen breaks) users were told that if the device was wrecked, no exchange.

    Some funny things happen with WEX. Like someone getting what was basically a bedazzled phone back. That makes you wonder if they fix these at all or just send phones that they test as "works for me" back to the refurbish stock without actually qualifying it as refurbishable in the first place. If you sent back a "customized" device, WEX would bill you for the price of a new phone, EVEN if you were sent a refurbished one.

    Hence, going back to the original issue. If a refurbished device has the same value as a new device, then just give the user a new device and sell the repaired refurbs on eBay/Amazon or something. In many cases a "refurbished" device is simply one that was unsealed and returned unused or barely used (eg returned for refund) and hence those are still new devices, just without the original warranty.

  • Reply 55 of 71
    Danish or EU rules aren't as good as people are thinking. We have 6 month garanti(warranty) but 24 month of reclamation on factory problems. It's up to consumer to prove that is this after the 6 month. Since Apple has acknowledged the problem, then the consumer has right to repair (in reasonable time) or a NEW product or money back, I believe in that order. If Apple wants to follow the refurbished, which I don't mind, then also make it possible to repair your device for a reasonable price. I had an iPhone 5 battery exchange (in New York) for free (more than 2 years old); didn't solve the problem of shutdowns. I got the main board of 2012 retina replaced due to factory problems. Apple are very slow to acknowledge such factory problems, but sometimes they do
  • Reply 56 of 71
    It is EU consumers law, not only Danish. In the Netherlands Apple must pay the full price back on a 9 month old iPhone 6s. Can also happen in the other 28 countries of the EU + Norway and Switzerland.
    And the 2 year is for all you buy by Apple (store or website) , not only with Apple brand. A iPhone from your mobile provider then the provider is responsible and you have nothing to do with Apple. Your provider must claim it back by Apple. Same for a shop were you buy it.
    Samsung (and others) have the same problem.

  • Reply 57 of 71
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,026member
    apple ][ said:
    spice-boy said:
    Apple must do the same when selling in other countries. 
    Not necessarily.

    Apple has a lot of weight to pull around, and just because certain countries have anti-business rules and practices in place, that does not automatically mean that Apple must consent.

    Apple has various options, such as getting them to change their rules or raising the prices of devices in that country to cover the added costs of their retard rules.
    You must have bought into the Trumps idea of if you are bigger you can just ignore their rules and bully them into submission. 
    singularitybaconstang
  • Reply 58 of 71
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,026member
    Notsofast said:
    Good. If I was Apple, I would henceforth tell all Danes that instead of giving them a refurbished phone with a new battery, new shell, and completely reconditioned with a new warranty, we will simply hold on to your phone and repair it under warranty and then send your repaired phone back to you with its old, up to two year old battery, scratched case and non-reconditioned with whatever is left of your old warranty.   How many Danes do you think will be happy with the greed of this person causing all of them to suffer?  How many Danes are going to be happy knowing they have to pay more for Apple Care and phones since they are now guaranteed a brand new phone whenever anything goes wrong with it?

    Maybe this is was done in retaliation since Apple won't open a store in Denmark and the Danes are among the last in Europe to get new Apple products. 
    Mr Trump is that you?
    singularity
  • Reply 59 of 71
    I understand both sides of the argument. But a recent personal experience would have me lean against refurb units, or at least prefer Apple to give us the option.

    I've had AppleCare Plus on every device I have purchased since it's been offered. 2 years ago I bought a 6 Plus. I dropped it getting out of my car, one time about two months after I got it, causing a very small crack at the bottom corner. With the AppleCare set to expire early September, I took it to the local Apple Store to have it swapped.

    Two weeks after the swap, the refurb unit developed the infamous "touch disease". When I took it to the Apple Store I was told that technically, I was just out of warranty  on the original purchase coverage, but since refurb units have a 30 day warranty, they would cover it. But she warned me that "apparently there was a problem with the 6 Pluses over time and this one would not get a new 30 day warranty" and suggested I upgrade if I had that option. 

    Honestly, I was pretty pissed. Luckily my carrier (AT&T ) had a promo at the launch of the 7, and I was able to do the Next plan for a new iPhone for free (monthly credits) if I turned in the 6 Plus. 

    All that being said, I would have rather had my original iPhone repaired than being given a defective refurb. It would be nice to be given the option.
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 60 of 71
    croprcropr Posts: 966member
    sunman42 said:
    I don't even play a lawyer on TV, much less speak Danish, but what remedy would the judges suggest if someone brought in a one year, 364 day old phone for warranty replacement? A brand new phone, or a refurb?
    Danish law is very simple.  Either repair the device, either give a new one.
Sign In or Register to comment.