Apple Clarifies Warranty Coverage Options for Customers in European Union

[Tali]

It should be quite easy to prove. As long as it has no visible damage on the outside. The water sensors could be a real problem as there have been reports of them going off in humid surroundings. But other than that, you're pretty much home free.

Unless there is visible damage (or water) they can't do a whole lot, as there is no proof that you have not used the product according to the funny piece of paper stating that you shouldn't poke the iPad screen with something sharp.

[manu chao]

Originally Posted by miniroll32

Great document! This would never have been posted in the Jobs era.

That document had to be posted because Apple lost a lawsuit. But as you say, Apple would never have lost a lawsuit in the Jobs era.

[whooleytoo]

Isn't the "defects present when customer takes delivery" bit quite vague?

Let's say I buy a Macbook Pro, which works fine for 13 months, then suddenly stops holding any charge whatsoever. One person could argue this defect is new, it wasn't present on delivery. Another could say the flaw (loose circuitry? Flaws in the battery material? A subtle bug in the power controller?) was present at delivery, it just didn't manifest itself immediately.

Which interpretation is correct? Or perhaps more accurately, which interpretation would hold up if it a lawsuit resulted?

[hafr]

Originally Posted by md63

This helps explain why products are more expensive in the EU than in US. Other than the VAT being included in the price. Longer warrantees and consumer protection is not free.

How about Brazil then?

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by manu chao

But as you say, Apple would never have lost a lawsuit in the Jobs era.

What?

[hafr]

Originally Posted by AustinIllini

Europe regulation bothers me. Now it's just them saying "Hey! Look at us, big scary Apple! We're still relevant!" when any European country outside of Germany is totally hosed.

You mean Apple should always abide by american rules and regulations, no matter in which country they sell their products in?

[zzebi]

I don't think you get it guys.

The table is not about differences between Apple warranties and EU warranties. But in fact these warranties ALL apply in the same time for Apple products purchased in the EU.

Apple simply says that they have always respected the EU laws and never failed to honor the EU mandated warranties. Actually the Italian court also didn't fine Apple for not honoring the EU warranty but because they haven't clarified the difference between different warranty options for consumers.

So again:
When you buy an Apple product in the EU and it gets broken you have ALL of these options to consider.

- If you are sure that the product was shipped broken, then you can return it to the retailer within 2 years or can take it to the Apple for replacement within 1 year.

- If the product got defected in the first year, then you can take it to Apple and get it replaced within 1 year.

- If the product breaks after 1 year, you can take it to Apple for replacement in case you purchased an extra AppleCare warranty earlier.

******
All in all, it means that the default warranty coverage of Apple products is significantly BETTER than the warranty EU mandates because it has ADDITIONAL coverage beyond the mandate.

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by Menel

Should be a none issue sounds like.

Who is going to wait >12 months to file a claim upon receiving a defective product.

Anyone who doesn't know that the product is defective because the defect hasn't caused a problem yet. Let's say you get a MacBook Pro where the defect is that the screen hinges are much weaker than they should be, so the screen falls off after a year. The defect might be completely invisible to you up to that point.

Originally Posted by whooleytoo

Isn't the "defects present when customer takes delivery" bit quite vague?

Let's say I buy a Macbook Pro, which works fine for 13 months, then suddenly stops holding any charge whatsoever. One person could argue this defect is new, it wasn't present on delivery. Another could say the flaw (loose circuitry? Flaws in the battery material? A subtle bug in the power controller?) was present at delivery, it just didn't manifest itself immediately.

Which interpretation is correct? Or perhaps more accurately, which interpretation would hold up if it a lawsuit resulted?

Simple logic: If you buy a MacBook Pro, it will stop working at some point for one of three reasons: Because of a defect that was present when you took delivery, or because a defect that you or someone else caused after taking delivery, or because of wear and tear. If nobody handled the MacBook Pro wrong after delivery, then it is wear and tear or a defect that was present when you took delivery. EU laws also say that wear and tear mustn't stop it from working too early (but that would depend on how much wear and tear you produce; I suppose it is possible to wear out a perfectly good MBP battery within 13 months if you try very hard).

Proving: Normally, in a civil lawsuit a judge would have to decide which side is more likely. However, for selling goods the rules are changed: Within six months, it is assumed that the defect was present unless the seller shows a good reason why it is otherwise. After six months, it is assumed that you broke it unless you show a good reason why it is otherwise.

Originally Posted by manu chao

(1) You don't have to prove it within the first six months. Thus, if you want to read it like this, the EU directive guarantees a minimum of six months of warranty on any product sold inside the EU. Does not really change anything for most products and companies (because they over a longer warranty of their own) but it ensures that no company and no reseller is able to wriggle itself out of any warranty.

Except if the seller goes bankrupt, and any rights you might have against the seller become worthless. I haven't found anything that would give you rights against the manufacturer in that case. Of course the seller warranty protects you if the manufacturer goes out of business.

Originally Posted by jlc1978

A question - does the UK sale of goods (and other countries) provide for a pro-rated refund based on use? For example, a 5 year old TV that would have an expected life of say 6 years would get 1/6th of the purchase price back?

Yes, but the examples given were more along the lines of "if it breaks within two months and it would be too difficult or expensive to repair", you could get back your money minus a small amount for two months use. In your example, it would be very arguable that the first year of use is worth a lot more than the sixth year. My 2006 MacBook was a state of the art computer when I bought it, but now it is really quite slow, with much too little RAM.

[HAL-00]

Originally Posted by whooleytoo

Isn't the "defects present when customer takes delivery" bit quite vague?

Let's say I buy a Macbook Pro, which works fine for 13 months, then suddenly stops holding any charge whatsoever. One person could argue this defect is new, it wasn't present on delivery. Another could say the flaw (loose circuitry? Flaws in the battery material? A subtle bug in the power controller?) was present at delivery, it just didn't manifest itself immediately.

Which interpretation is correct? Or perhaps more accurately, which interpretation would hold up if it a lawsuit resulted?

You don't actually get to argue anything. The way it works is the item in question is then sent to expert evaluation. The catch is that if the expert decides the defect was the consumer's fault, the consumer has to foot the bill.

Also it's worth noting: when the store screws you and you run into trouble, always contact the local consumer protection board. Sometimes a letter from the board is all it takes*.

* A store once sold me an iMac without the keyboard and tried to tell me that I would have to buy it extra. After a letter from the board they didn't even try to come up with a story but just plain gave me the keyboard.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by bbeagle

No.

You do understand that the EU warranty works like this: If you buy an iPad and it has a dead pixel after 23 months of use.... you must PROVE that that dead pixel was there on day 1.

There is no way to do this. The 2-year EU warranty is useless.

With AppleCare, if the dead pixel shows up after 23 months of use, you get a new iPad. AppleCare seems much better.

Not completely correct. Say the screen goes completely black after 15 months. It clearly wasn't dead on arrival, but on the other hand an iPad's screen have a life expectancy that surpasses 15 months - which means you will win the case unless there are clear signs of you being to blame.

[tdream]

Originally Posted by miniroll32

Great document! This would never have been posted in the Jobs era.

Búll**** document more like. The 2 year EU warranty covers anything that goes wrong with an electronic product at any time during the 2 years with standard usage. It's not restricted to the time of receipt of goods.

Who would wait 2 years to return a product that was defective to begin with? That makes zero sense.

People have been returning graphics cards and monitors that have broke down during normal usage over 12+ months. Apple trying to slither it's way out of this one.

[writingdevil]

Originally Posted by zzebi

I don't think you get it guys.

The table is not about differences between Apple warranties and EU warranties. But in fact these warranties ALL apply in the same time for Apple products purchased in the EU.

Apple simply says that they have always respected the EU laws and never failed to honor the EU mandated warranties. Actually the Italian court also didn't fine Apple for not honoring the EU warranty but because they haven't clarified the difference between different warranty options for consumers.

So again:
When you buy an Apple product in the EU and it gets broken you have ALL of these options to consider.

- If you are sure that the product was shipped broken, then you can return it to the retailer within 2 years or can take it to the Apple for replacement within 1 year.

- If the product got defected in the first year, then you can take it to Apple and get it replaced within 1 year.

- If the product breaks after 1 year, you can take it to Apple for replacement in case you purchased an extra AppleCare warranty earlier.

It's not clear to me what "broken" actually means in reality. Does it mean some part doesn't function, that the unit is usable but not fully functional, doesn't work at all? It may protect scams, but also seems like an easy way to game the system and the company depending on what "broken" actually means. It would be easy to have something that doesn't function, use the product for a year and a half, then go in and claim it is broken and get a free upgrade. Repeat yearly.

[androiphone]

Originally Posted by jlc1978

Probably not - since it's not a 2 year Apple warranty but a local legal requirement. In the EU law case, the seller is responsible for complying with the law; so even if it was bought from pile they could require you to present it within the EU to exercise your rights under EU law.

A question - does the UK sale of goods (and other countries) provide for a pro-rated refund based on use? For example, a 5 year old TV that would have an expected life of say 6 years would get 1/6th of the purchase price back?

the sales of goods act only provisions a Repair or Replace not any refund.

these laws are to protect the consumer from defective products that are defective from the start, for example the defective nvidia chipsets in some macs they were faulty when made but could take a year or 2 to stop working, the iMac defective Hard drives - same thing, the iPhone home button on the iphone 3G.

plus, as you have read, you only make a claim to the SELLER meaning this does not in anyway concern or affect apple or apples own warranty.

[Pressure]

Originally Posted by whooleytoo

Isn't the "defects present when customer takes delivery" bit quite vague?

Let's say I buy a Macbook Pro, which works fine for 13 months, then suddenly stops holding any charge whatsoever. One person could argue this defect is new, it wasn't present on delivery. Another could say the flaw (loose circuitry? Flaws in the battery material? A subtle bug in the power controller?) was present at delivery, it just didn't manifest itself immediately.

Which interpretation is correct? Or perhaps more accurately, which interpretation would hold up if it a lawsuit resulted?

The one who defends the consumer and makes sure he gets a new working unit or get it repaired for free.

The consumer is not an expert and does not have to prove anything.

You would never get a lawsuit going on any of these grounds but you are probably going through the consumer watchdogs who will contact Apple and explain how the law works in Europe, which usually ends with the consumer getting a new product or can get a full refund.

[ThatsMeRight]

Originally Posted by gianpan

the screen on my iPhone got a whole lot of dead pixels overnight while I had it in my drawer.
Of course no one cared about it and I was told that it comes with 1 year warranty. The only way I would ever get a free replacement is if I sued the hell out of them, which was not worth it. The telecom companies here (they distribute the iPhone and are in charge of service) don't even honor the 1 year warranty..

Where do you live and where did you buy your iPhone?

[androiphone]

Originally Posted by writingdevil

It's not clear to me what "broken" actually means in reality. Does it mean some part doesn't function, that the unit is usable but not fully functional, doesn't work at all? It may protect scams, but also seems like an easy way to game the system and the company depending on what "broken" actually means. It would be easy to have something that doesn't function, use the product for a year and a half, then go in and claim it is broken and get a free upgrade. Repeat yearly.

see my post above, it covers you for an inherently faulty part/product, eg the inherently faulty nvidia chipsets a couple years ago, or the inherently faulty HDD in the iMacs, stuff like that, and remember you go to the seller only for your Repair or Replace, you don't get an option for a refund.

[BobbyRond]

Originally Posted by ThatsMeRight

And another misunderstanding: warranty laws are different in most EU member states. For example, in the Netherlands you have got the 'right of a proper product', which means you can actually still claim warranty up to five years after you bought a product (it depends on pricing, how it is advertised (high quality or not), etc.)

The amount of years really depends on the product. A washing machine should last for five years, a computer should last for two years. so the 'proper product'-rule is discarded after those two years. But even after those two years you can get a part of the repair costs refunded, but it's not completely free.

Originally Posted by bbeagle

No.

You do understand that the EU warranty works like this: If you buy an iPad and it has a dead pixel after 23 months of use.... you must PROVE that that dead pixel was there on day 1.

There is no way to do this. The 2-year EU warranty is useless.

With AppleCare, if the dead pixel shows up after 23 months of use, you get a new iPad. AppleCare seems much better.

I agree that AppleCare is better, but it is something you need to pay for whereas the EU warranty is free.

Originally Posted by whooleytoo

Isn't the "defects present when customer takes delivery" bit quite vague?

Let's say I buy a Macbook Pro, which works fine for 13 months, then suddenly stops holding any charge whatsoever. One person could argue this defect is new, it wasn't present on delivery. Another could say the flaw (loose circuitry? Flaws in the battery material? A subtle bug in the power controller?) was present at delivery, it just didn't manifest itself immediately.

Which interpretation is correct? Or perhaps more accurately, which interpretation would hold up if it a lawsuit resulted?

That's the problem with warranty. The customer does not want to pay money for repairs and the seller does not want that either. So you always have to battle it out. The consumer has quite some rights though, but it can be a bit of a stretch.

[manu chao]

Originally Posted by whooleytoo

Isn't the "defects present when customer takes delivery" bit quite vague?

Well, it is a law, since when have laws not been a bit vague?

Let's say I buy a Macbook Pro, which works fine for 13 months, then suddenly stops holding any charge whatsoever. One person could argue this defect is new, it wasn't present on delivery. Another could say the flaw (loose circuitry? Flaws in the battery material? A subtle bug in the power controller?) was present at delivery, it just didn't manifest itself immediately.

I think in this case if there are no traces of you having mishandled the battery (connected it to a charger with too high a voltage, no signs of a power surge, no traces mechanical interferences, no sign of freezing or overheating) and if the number of cycles is below the nominal limit, you could have a chance.

I essence you prove that you have not mishandled the device by demonstrating its optical and electrical state, and thus indirectly prove that the defect must have been there at the time of the sale.

The way such things work in the EU, is that there is first a EU directive, agreed upon on the EU level. Then there are national laws that implement that directive. This is not much different to, eg, WTO regulations. From thereon, case law might take over but governments might also publish more detailed regulations on how they think the law should be applied.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by writingdevil

It's not clear to me what "broken" actually means in reality. Does it mean some part doesn't function, that the unit is usable but not fully functional, doesn't work at all? It may protect scams, but also seems like an easy way to game the system and the company depending on what "broken" actually means. It would be easy to have something that doesn't function, use the product for a year and a half, then go in and claim it is broken and get a free upgrade. Repeat yearly.

It's not as easy as you might think. People are constantly trying to (ab)use the system. Just google "how do you break a (product) without it showing it was your fault" or something and you'll find numerous forum threads where people have bought stuff and want to switch for a newer model for free... So they're controlling not only the individual cases, but everything around it.

[pauliaK]

Originally Posted by bbeagle

No.

You do understand that the EU warranty works like this: If you buy an iPad and it has a dead pixel after 23 months of use.... you must PROVE that that dead pixel was there on day 1.

There is no way to do this. The 2-year EU warranty is useless.

With AppleCare, if the dead pixel shows up after 23 months of use, you get a new iPad. AppleCare seems much better.

Well, I'd say that a dead pixel is a proof itself that a display in this case had a manufacturing defect and thus didin't last as long as it supposed to. Because of this reason I'd be expecting to get a replacement or to have mine fixed. I'm from EU.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by androiphone

the sales of goods act only provisions a Repair or Replace not any refund.

these laws are to protect the consumer from defective products that are defective from the start, for example the defective nvidia chipsets in some macs they were faulty when made but could take a year or 2 to stop working, the iMac defective Hard drives - same thing, the iPhone home button on the iphone 3G.

plus, as you have read, you only make a claim to the SELLER meaning this does not in anyway concern or affect apple or apples own warranty.

Yes, but the seller can take it to Apple after having replaced it (even resellers are protected in the EU ). And if you've bought it in an Apple store or online, Apple is the seller.

----------

Originally Posted by pauliaK

Well, I'd say that a dead pixel is a proof itself that a display in this case had a manufacturing defect and thus didin't last as long as it supposed to. Because of this reason I'd be expecting to get a replacement or to have mine fixed. I'm from EU.

A dead pixel isn't the same as a completely defective screen. It is definitely possible that dead pixels can be expected to appear long before a screens life expectancy runs out.

You will get a new phone, iPad or whatever if it's DOA (and within the six months), but I have no idea how long after the purchase a dead pixel would be enough for a replacement.

[joeconvert]

Originally Posted by jonnyb

How on earth do you prove that a defect that manifests itself 18 months after you purchased the product, was present from the start? The EU two year thing seems useless.

No idea why this was voted down. The EU reg appears to be feel good BS as presented in the table. Assuming the table is accurate.

[SilenceBe]

Apple simply says that they have always respected the EU laws and never failed to honor the EU mandated warranties.

When something is broke after a year they will *always* point to the one year warranty. To get them comply with the law it always involve a consumer organisation or a threat with a lawsuit. There is a reason why different consumer organisations now bundled forces and imho rightfully. Apple is one of the few companies that doesn't comply with the law completely regarding warranties.

The fact how Apple handles warranty is even used as a marketing point by some shops why you should buy Apple products from them instead of buying them at Apple stores. The german Mediamarkt (which operates in a lot of European countries) explicitly advertises with it 2 year (and the funny thing it is really the law that mandates that) warranty in comparison with Apple. When I bought my new Ipad this week the salesperson even bragged about their 2 year warranty which I wouldn't get with Apple.

The whole way they explain the EU warranty is kind a shady and even borders to FUD. When your products gets defective 1,5 year after you bought it you are entitled to a repair or a replacement. The reason is that if something breaks it is because of a shady component that has been there from the beginning. As a consumer you don't need to literal proof that the defect was there from the beginning because common sense dictates that. It is only after you abused a product that you lose that right.

And no you aren't entitled to a "free" upgrade and it isn't so that when an item is repaired or replaced you are entitled to another 2 years of warranty at that point. When something breaks a company has the possibility to repair the item or in the situation it can't be repaired replaced by the same product or a product with the same possibilities.

And in a lot of countries the law even goes further as there are directives where the law expect that certain products have a certain life expectancy. A laptop shouldn't break after a year for example which from my POV seems very logical.

No idea why this was voted down.

I'm European and it sometimes really baffles me how somebody from more then 5000 km away tend to have to educate me how things are handled here or how things are going here. I think as a citizen I know the local laws and situations a bit better. Maybe that is the reason.

[androiphone]

Originally Posted by hafr

Yes, but the seller can take it to Apple after having replaced it (even resellers are protected in the EU ). And if you've bought it in an Apple store or online, Apple is the seller.[COLOR="#808080"]

and apple in turn would go back to their suppliers, it's the company that ultimately made the faulty product that pays, just like the faulty nvidia chipsets http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10063844-37.html nvidia set aside the cash to fix it.

[Aetles]

Originally Posted by jonnyb

How on earth do you prove that a defect that manifests itself 18 months after you purchased the product, was present from the start? The EU two year thing seems useless.

If something breaks after 18 months that shouldn't break under normal usage, then you can argue that this was defekt from the beginning. That's how this "warranty" usually works.

The seller then could accept your claim as reasonably or they could put up a fight and refuse.