Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Loses Appeal in Italian Warranty Disclosures Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow, I wasn't aware of the distinction between their online store and their bricks and mortar retail shops. I have criticised Apple on this topic but I'm still very pleased with the terms they implement when you buy within their UK Education scheme.
I believe he's trying to say that the company wanting to sell their products should understand the laws of the Country in which they want to sell their product in.
I'm not sure that I got this right. When there was the 3G lawsuit from Samsung against Apple, one statement I read was that Apple Inc would be prohibited from shipping iPhones and iPads to Germany, but the units that are in the country could be sold because it's a different company.
http://www.internet-law.de/2011/11/...-und-ipads-mehr-in-deutschland-verkaufen.html (in german)
The two relevant parts here are:
"The 'Apple Store' (online?) is run by Apple Ireland."
"The Apple retail stores do not belong to Apple Inc (US)."
Whether the retail stores belong to Apple Ireland or to yet another sub-company is something I don't know.
What Apple has to do is to add a note to the AppleCare ads that clarify how the warranty situation without AppleCare. This would be an ugly solution, so they might opt to offer 2 years warranty (and include the cost in the price).
Your first paragraph is a contradictio in terminis. But the bottom line is simple : whoever is the seller has to conform to the laws that were outlined in directive 1999/44/EC. A lot of people who knew about this law , thought they were covered by this law and consequently didn't buy Applecare. That's why 11 consumer organisations from Belgium, Holland, Italy, Spain, Portugal , Germany, Luxemburg, Denmark, Poland, Slovenia and Greece sent a cease and desist letter to Apple's European headquarters in Ireland. Apple has 1 month to reply. If they don't reply they will be sued. Maybe consumer protection is nonexistent in the US, but in Europe it is.
Sorry, I don't understand latin/law jargon. What exactly is wrong or contradictory?
My impression is that the complaint is directed to how Apple advertises AppleCare (with their ad suggesting that there is only one year of limited warranty), not how the two year mandatory warranty is handled by the sellers (including Apple).
Do you know if the content of the letter is available somewhere?
This isn't strictly true:
"In the UK and quite a few other countries consumer laws and rights are very robust in being able to help the consumer. This I had already done plenty of research in and even took legal advice (this is in regards to English consumer rights but you should check the laws in your own country) to help get my problem solved...and for free.
- The item should be of satisfactory quality
- As described
- Fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time
So what does this mean? In England the law is good for items for up to six years (in Scotland it's five) - your own country may have different lengths of time. "
...I actually used the Sales of Goods act against Apple (and won without court intervention) only last year regarding my late 2006 iMac that had the notorious graphic anomalies. Somewhat off topic but you can read my full article (of which the above is an extract) about exactly what I did here: http://bit.ly/AazB2F
That's what Apple does, and it is not an ugly solution at all. From the UK store page: "AppleCare Protection Plan benefits are in addition to any legal rights provided by consumer protection laws in your jurisdiction. Purchase of the plan is not required to purchase the covered equipment. For complete details, see terms at www.apple.com/legal/applecare/appgeos.html". On the Italian store page there are considerably more details.
By the way, according to theregister.com what Apple lost was an appeal not to have to pay immediately. They will still appeal against the fine itself. In other words, Apple wanted to not pay now, but only pay if the appeal against the fine is decided against them. Instead Apple has to pay now, and if the appeal against the fine is decided for Apple, they will get their money back.
And by the way, interesting differences between Italian and UK law. Italian law seems to be actually weaker. In both cases, the seller is responsible to fix defects that were present at the time of the sale. In both cases, it is presumed in the first six months that if a defect is found then it was present at the time of the sale.
The difference: In the UK, the product must keep working "for a reasonable amount of time", with "reasonable" depending on the product, while in Italy, you must report the defect within 26 months (the idea is probably that the product shouldn't fail within 24 months, and then you have two months time to report it)
As usual, you leave out the detail that after six month, it is presumed that a defect was not present when you bought the product, so you have to prove it.
Last edited:
Some burocrat at the EC messed this one really up. In reality, this clause is never used againts consumers. Let's face it, if a hard disk breaks down in the 18th month surely the fault was not present at time of manufacturing.
Even S.M.A.R.T is not 100% reliable to predict hard disk failure.
Not really in context, as this 7-year rule does have significant exceptions attached which are not part of this thread.
...there is not a 7 year warranty which some people like to keep banging on about ad infinitum.
Excuse me?
It is quite possible for a hard drive that was built with some fault to work for 18 months and fail then, because of the fault. For example, the spindle should have a certain amount of lubrication, and if it doesn't have enough lubrication then it might fail after 18 months while drives with the right amount of lubrication keep running for a lot longer. Just because a product is working right now doesn't mean it's not defective.
If it stops working, then either it was a defect that was present at the time of sale (not time of manufacturing; if the store drops your MBP before they sell it then surely they cannot refuse a repair because the defect wasn't there at time of manufacturing), or you or someone else did something to break it, or it is wear and tear. Goods that fail through wear and tear earlier than one would expect are not of suitable quality, so they should never be sold. If they don't fail through were and tear, then either the defect was present when sold, or someone damaged the goods afterwards.
Quite sure they are different stores. Also quite sure that let's say Apple UK stores and Apple Germany stores are different stores. Not sure if two different retail stores are the same vendor or different vendors according to the law. Anyway, in the UK you have certain additional rights if you buy from any online store.
Last edited:
Which could be good for us here in the States.
Florida's warranty laws are super strict because of the confusing (often deliberately) verbiage used to lure older people into buying warranties.
You don't have to prove it, if the device has no signs of abuse or user created damage, you will win. You just have to establish that the device should still be working.
It depends what you mean by bureaucracy. If it brings me benefits, I like bureaucracy. A directive such as the one on warranty is usually proposed by the Commission to the Member States, then it goes to the European Parliament. It is then negotiated word by word, comma after comma, to get to the final text.
I am feeling sorry for you guys in the US. May be you should take advantage that Obama is still president to lobby for a 2 year warranty for consumer products as in the EU. That could be in his program. But it could cost him also a lot of voters. If I was in the US, I would write to my senator and tell him that if he promotes this, he would get my vote.
The Commissioner who was in charge of telecoms was treated by the CEO of Vodaphone as a "communist" when she proposed to cap roaming charges in the EU for calls placed from . Now that the cap is in place (0.40 for a call placed within the EU to another EU Member State, 0.15 for SMS), nobody would think to go backward.