Dutch Court Rules Apple May Not Use 'Remanufactured' iPads for Warranty Replacements

[Wondercow]

I'm not making anything up, I live in country where I get 12 months warranty and by law anything I buy must last a reasonable leangth of time, and that does not mean a year. That's why this ruling held, their are several countries I believe forcing Apple to change it's Apple Care policies, Italy being one:

From 2012 where they breached EU law

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/mac/eu-law-forces-apple-highlight-two-year-warranty-3348755/

Then in 2013 in Belgium it was in trouble over Apple Care

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/mac/eu-law-forces-apple-highlight-two-year-warranty-3348755/

It has a very poor track record on obeying EU law in Europe, and it has been punished for it too. So I'm really not surprised that the law in this case sided with the plaintiff and against Apple. EU consumer protection law is much better the in the US.

This happens regularly with you. You can't admit your mistakes and move on. Who's talking about Belgium? No one. Who's talking about Apple's policies and if they had to change? No one.

We're discussing a ruling in the Netherlands and you assumed extra information that wasn't given. Now, instead of saying "yup, it was an assumption, I shouldn't assume" you prattle on and on, with more assumption to support your assumption. It. Happens. Every. Time.

Now, someone who claims to know a little Dutch law has chimed in that if something breaks within six months a new item is required. That's relevant info—Dutch law,not a lawsuit in Belgium. So maybe this is what the ruling and suit were about: Apple was giving a new device, but refurbished, and the lady in question thought she deserved a brand new, not refurbished device.

 

[ThatsMeRight]

I wonder how this court will rule once Apple starts initiating it's new green manufacturing program which will recycle parts and plastic from old devices for use in new ones. Honestly the court here seems a bit dated. From a consumer perspective I can understand if the defective device is weeks or even a couple months old.

The device was just a couple of months old.

The Netherlands has strict customer protection rules. Especially during the first 6 months, the consumer has the law on its side 9 out of 10 times like is shown in this scenario. The judge would have most likely agreed with Apple if the iPad had been at least 6 months old.

Perhaps also relevant is that Apple has delivered relatively bad customer service in Europe for years... even not honouring warranty requests even though the warranty period had not expired yet. They've luckily improved, though, in the last few years.

Also, some people here believe these laws are too strict - especially compared to what Americans are used to. That said, the purchase laws in The Netherlands have created an amazing, competitive environment - especially when shopping online. A lot of shops offer a 30-day no questions asked return policy (as long as the product is undamaged), at least 2 years of warranty, free next-day delivery and some even offer same-day delivery. Last but not least, pricing is very competitive and shops match the lowest known price all the time.

It are the Dutch customer protection laws that created this competitive environment... and everybody is profiting from it.

 

[dyn]

Wrong, these are merely the two options a seller is obliged to offer. Nothing is stopping the parties from negotiating something else. If the consumer accepts a refurbished device in exchange for a rebate, then that is completely consensual.

Both the law and this judgement state otherwise. You are thinking way too simplistic about Dutch law. In Dutch law a buy is considered like a contract which means that one party has to deliver the goods and make sure that they are proper while the other party pays for it. You are bound to that and if you can't fulfil your part of the deal then the other party has the option to undo it.

There is a difference between what the (Dutch) law says and how reality works. In reality what you say probably happens quite often but that doesn't make it lawful.

This judgment only clarifies that a refurbished device is not an acceptable replacement.

It does more than that:

1. it reiterates (as does the previous judgement) that the law offers only 2 options: an equal replacement (as 2 judges have ruled a refurbished or a remanufactured are not equal replacements) or the option to undo the buy.
2. it also clarifies that neither a refurbished or a remanufactured device can be considered an equal device to a new device.

There's been a mistranslation. It actually says, in Dutch, that Apple has to give the woman a new iPad starting today. For everyday Apple is late, the company's got to pay a €100 fine.

So if Apple takes a week to send her a new iPad, they'll have to pay a fine of €700.

Almost. You are forgetting 1 important part: apply has to carry out the judgement within 2 weeks from the judgement. If they don't then the €100 fine applies. I'm not really sure if shipment is also part of it though.

 

[Wondercow]

Yes you are indeed completely false. As stated above Apple has deemed the device irreparable so no repair possible. The law gives you 2 options: full refund or new device. Now if the device was reparable then Apple is allowed to do that. Since it is in its first 6 months after buying they are not allowed to charge money for such a repair (see the Quelle case).

Please read what I wrote, not what you presume I wrote. I said "unless Dutch law . . . " and ". . . entitled to a new replacement . . . if Apple . . . can't repair" So yes, I coveted exactly what you think you just got me on

You didn't read any of it did you? The ruling DOES speak of repairs, see point 1.3 of the ruling which clearly states she went to Apple for repairs first and Apple said it couldn't repair it.

Again, please read what I wrote, not what you presume I wrote. I clearly said "The ruling, as given here, . . ." You even quoted it. It's not a surprise I didn't read the ruling, I kinda said that.

You and Apolloa will get along great.

 

[sracer]

Actually, I'd prefer a remanufactured device. It's gone through additional inspections and conceivably could have fewer problems than a new device.

How do you know? That is NOT what Apple states on their website.

 

[Juicy Box]

If I buy refurb to save money and e-waste its my decision so getting it replaced by another refurb is fine. But not if I buy a brand new device.

I agree. If the items needs to be replaced due to it being un-repairable, it should be replaced with a new item.

I like the option of offering the customer a refurbished device instead of having the defective device repaired.

I know the high value of consumer rights in Europe seems outlandish for Americans. But its not ment to piss off manufacturers. Its ment to make the companies produce usefull and long lasting quality products.

This might be true, but every time there is an article about the price increases in non-US markets, many people make comments complaining that the currency exchange adjusted price is higher than the US price.

One of the reasons for the inconsistent prices is the cost of these more aggressive consumer protection laws being passed down to the consumers.

TINSTAAFL applies always.

 

[jlc1978]

Seems easy enough for Apple to deal with this. No more replacements in store. You bring them the iPad they ship if out for repair. Nothing says they *have* to replace it, right? AppleCare states "replace or repair".

So much for your convenience.

Exactly. Apple can ship it out, replace a part and return your unit; essentially refurbishing it. Of course, this will increase repair costs as others have pointed out; potentially causing the price to increase to cover the higher repair costs. As a bonus you get to wait for a repair rather than a straight device swap.

 

[dyn]

You didn't get it. Apple, like almost all manufacturers in the EU, already do repairs when someone brings in a device with a defect. So did the lady of the case. Apple said they couldn't repair it and then the only thing left is a new device or undo the buy. If in that case Apple would offer a repaired or remanufactured device then that is unlawful (as ruled in the previous case and this case) unless the original device was refurbished/remanufactured.

 

[jlc1978]

I love Apple's refurbished products. I have purchased many different ones without any issues from any of them. I purchased refurbished Macs, ATVs, iPods, and AirPorts from Apple, and besides the outer packaging of some of the devices, I would have never of known that they were not new.

That said, I think if someone does not want a refurbished device replacement from a warranty of a new device, they should have the option of repairing it. If the item is unable to be repaired, then they should get a "new" replacement.

If the customer prefers not to wait for the repair, then they could be given the option of a refurbished replacement.

Pretty simple solution, anyone see anything wrong with that?

It would drive up the cost to the consumer since Apple would have to factor in the price of new units used for warranty claims into the product price; and have to keep a bunch around after they are replaced with a new model since warranty repairs could come in as late as 2 years later if a person purchase Applecare, further driving up warranty costs.

Then you have the issue of what to do with the broken units. Apple could refurbish and sell them but that would potentially cut into revenue so that's not a good solution from Apple's POV.

Refurbished units cut down on the need to keep new units around for warranty repairs and can be sold as demand for repairs drops, which would explain why older Macs and iPads appear online periodically as refurbished units; plus it helps eliminate some e waste as well.
[doublepost=1493152652][/doublepost]

Well considering the law was on her side, that would suggest to me that their law is different to yours... their are MUCH better consumer laws outside of America and Canada in several country's, particularly European ones.

And in general they pay higher prices to cover the extra warranty costs. TINSTAAFL

 

[dyn]

Well, the other things this ruling also says is that Apple can sell refurbished/remanufactured but don't have to replace those with new devices, they can use refurbished/remanufactured. In The Netherlands there isn't much of a refurbished/remanufactured market but Apple could create one or they could push it to the UK/USA/etc. where there is a big market for it. That would be less of a risk than increasing the prices, especially if the devices are ones that have the biggest market share. It gathers the attention of all the watch guards not to mention that people simply stop buying the items (see the discussion about the MBP pricing).

It is going to cost Apple heaps more if they increase the prices than to move the devices to another market or create a refurbished market. There are a lot of telco's here that sell older models because they can price it lower. Those are far more popular than the brand new phones and tablets.

 

[KALLT]

Both the law and this judgement state otherwise. You are thinking way too simplistic about Dutch law. In Dutch law a buy is considered like a contract which means that one party has to deliver the goods and make sure that they are proper while the other party pays for it. You are bound to that and if you can't fulfil your part of the deal then the other party has the option to undo it.

There is a difference between what the (Dutch) law says and how reality works. In reality what you say probably happens quite often but that doesn't make it lawful.

You are thinking way too narrowly about some fundamental principles of (Dutch) contract law. Contracting parties can always renegotiate or agree to substitute a contract. Consumer law is there to strengthen the legal position and bargaining power of the consumer, what they do with this power is their decision. This judgment reinforces that position by defining what a replacement unit is.

it reiterates (as does the previous judgement) that the law offers only 2 options: an equal replacement (as 2 judges have ruled a refurbished or a remanufactured are not equal replacements) or the option to undo the buy.

Which supports what I have just written.

 

[Rocketman]

One country out of 240. Just refuse more warranty claims in this country. Bad for consumers!

 

[apolloa]

This happens regularly with you. You can't admit your mistakes and move on. Who's talking about Belgium? No one. Who's talking about Apple's policies and if they had to change? No one.

We're discussing a ruling in the Netherlands and you assumed extra information that wasn't given. Now, instead of saying "yup, it was an assumption, I shouldn't assume" you prattle on and on, with more assumption to support your assumption. It. Happens. Every. Time.

Now, someone who claims to know a little Dutch law has chimed in that if something breaks within six months a new item is required. That's relevant info—Dutch law,not a lawsuit in Belgium. So maybe this is what the ruling and suit were about: Apple was giving a new device, but refurbished, and the lady in question thought she deserved a brand new, not refurbished device.

Ah so you must be some armchair legal expert on Dutch and EU consumer laws then? Actually this is an article about a court case on consumer law in a European country. For which my reply was perfectly adequate and I've not been wrong on anything, as you clearly have little clue about EU consumer law. And I don't contradict myself and get confused like you have, you seem to think this case has taken place in two separate country's?

 

[MacMan988]

Time by time, companies like Apple show us how important it is to have a good legal system in a country.

 

[dyn]

You are thinking way too narrowly about some fundamental principles of (Dutch) contract law.

Duh, this topic is about a Dutch court ruling and thus Dutch law applies and nothing else. Also this isn't my thinking; someone in the replies at tweakers.net said the same thing as you did and many corrected him incl. the guy who wrote the first 2 articles I'm linking below (the guy is a Dutch lawyer specialising in ICT):
https://blog.iusmentis.com/2016/07/13/apple-mag-defecte-iphones-vervangen-refurbished-toestellen/
https://blog.iusmentis.com/2017/04/25/nee-kapotte-telefoon-moet-echt-volledig-nieuwe-terugkrijgen/
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290/2017-03-10#Boek7_Titeldeel1_Afdeling1 (this is part of the Dutch consumer law; article 21 is the one that the judgement refers to, article 1 is what defines an agreement)
And another article from a law firm: http://advocatenhotline.nl/contractenrecht.shtml (see 1.6.2)

Mind you, the written word (letter der wet) is important but so is the idea behind that written word (idee der wet). That's what makes this complex.

Contracting parties can always renegotiate or agree to substitute a contract. Consumer law is there to strengthen the legal position and bargaining power of the consumer, what they do with this power is their decision.

I called it a contract but in Dutch we call it "overeenkomst" for which I believe the correct translation would be "agreement". The seller agrees on selling you the product for said price and you agree to take the product and pay said price. That is almost the literal translation of article 1 from the law I linked to above.

However, just like with everything in life: if someone does not complain then there is nothing you can do about it. Like I said, that still doesn't make something lawful. It is a subtle but very important nuance. The reason why our law is like that is quite simple: it is to protect the consumer against things like coercion.

 

[brentsg]

Wonder how Apple will respond to this, this obviously requires more money to replace a device, will they change prices or? And I wonder if Apple has to ship the iPad unit brand new or a full retail one with box and all

They respond the only way they can. They continue to fight the legal fight and consumers pay higher prices. At the end of the day consumers lose and e-waste goes up.

 

[Wondercow]

Ah so you must be some legal expert on Dutch and EU consumer laws then? Did you live in the EU at all and have degrees in law? Or are you as I suspect mearly an armchair lawyer, a keyboard warrior who's probably never even visited Europe, yet feels they are an expert in its consumer laws? I don't believe I've made mistake in that conclusion.

This is my last post to you since, as usual, you can't accept that you're fallible and resort to irrelevant arguments, including attacking posters themselves when you're called out.

So. Many. Assumptions.
–I never claimed any expertise; the very fact that I said "unless Dutch law" shows that I'm no expert in Dutch law.
–Where did I ever state or imply expertise in consumer laws?

You made a statement that absolutely, unequivocally assumed facts not given in this article, then based an argument around your erroneous assumption.

So, about me.... I'll humour you: Degrees in law, no; degree in law, yes (bonus facts: degree in linguistics and some medical education as well). Visited Europe? Yes. Lived in Europe? Yes, in France for a time. Worked in Europe? Yup, I used to teach in various countries throughout the EU.

Are you going to acknowledge your mistakes?

 

[brentsg]

Plain and simple point of Law - Replace Like with Like.

Easy peasy - even Apple should understand that.

They have been pulling this caper in Australia in the face of ACL 2010 (Black Letter consumer law) in all manner of ways - now they are are going have their feet held to the fire over millions and possibly billions of dollars in avoided taxes (achieved through Profit Shifting).

Sneaky appears to be in Apple's DNA.

Article Link: Dutch Court Rules Apple May Not Use 'Remanufactured' iPads for Warranty Replacements

[/QUOTE]

How on Earth is replacing a 4 month old iPad with a new one "like for like"?

 

[apolloa]

My last post to you since, as usual, you can't accept that you're fallible and resort to irrelevant arguments, including attacking posters themselves when your called out. So. Many. Assumptions.
–I never claimed any expertise; the very fact that I said "unless Dutch law" shows that I'm no expert in Dutch law.
–Where did I ever state or imply expertise in consumer laws?

You made a statement that absolutely, unequivocally assumed facts not given in this article, then based an argument around your erroneous assumption.

So, about me.... I'll humour you: Degrees in law, no; degree in law, yes (bonus facts: degree in linguistics and some medical education as well). Visited Europe? Yes. Lived in Europe? Yes, in France for a time. Worked in Europe? Yup, I used to teach in various countries throughout the EU.

Are you going to acknowledge your mistakes?

So you admit it, your an armchair lawyer, and I'm supposed to admit I'm wrong about what? Something you don't know anything about? I still don't know what I'm supposed to be wrong about? Obviously questioning your post got your back up so your questioning mine... I pointed out you have little knowledge and you didn't like it.

You basically want me to state that EU consumer laws are worst or no better then consumer laws in Canada, that is what you want, because that is what I claimed. Let me know when they are. I'm not sure if in Canada you can walk into a retailer and demand a device is repaired for free up to five years old because it must be fit for purpose even with no warranty. Hence my previous posts backing up my claim where you said I 'waffled on'. You have provided no proof what so ever to back up your claim and instead attempted to divert away from your first reply.

Perhaps you can try and reply to the subject in hand and back your comment up with facts rather then simply claim your "wrong and waffling."

 

[michaelsviews]

If you bought new and its with in the first year I could see getting a new device, but then the argument would be I bought AppleCare. As for refurbished well thats what my ipad air 2 is and have no problems at all along with my 2015 13" MBP, and probably my next 15" MBP but I'm still looking at moving to a "PC" and loading linux on it. Apples design and prices are not cutting it.

 

[snipper]

Now this is absolutely ludicrous. The cost for that would easily exceed the price of a new iPad in the first place. What kind of toilet brush judge was ruling this? Did the claimant have emotional distress for the duration of their working-fine-but-it's-not-brand-new-so-therefore-I'm-dissatisfied device?

Unbelievable.

(about the $ 100 a day)

I read the original Dutch article and I think something may be getting lost in translation here. This is only in case Apple refuses to comply. It's not that the woman gets $ 100 per day for every day she's been without an iPhone. If Apple gives her a new iPhone asap, that's it.
[doublepost=1493159054][/doublepost]I'm a bit surprised with all the hostile reactions here. From what I read here over the years, Apple in the US is more customer friendly than in the Netherlands. You can bring your new iPhone back to the store for a refund in the US, right? This, for example Apple simply won't accept in the Netherlands. Or that time I returned a bad adapter.. I had to fill in forms, email and had to answer questions by telephone, just for a simple recall adapter. The time that was spend by Apple employees alone must have cost a multitude of the adapter. From what I read here, this was much easier in the US.

 

[pentrix2]

I imagine they'll also rule the same for, oh I don't know, every other OEM? A Samsung device, or an HP laptop: no refurb parts, or remanufactured parts, or refurb/remanufactured devices, and it has to be brand-new? Reckon that ruling will extend to all others?

Yeah, I didn't think so.



Now this is absolutely ludicrous. The cost for that would easily exceed the price of a new iPad in the first place. What kind of toilet brush judge was ruling this? Did the claimant have emotional distress for the duration of their working-fine-but-it's-not-brand-new-so-therefore-I'm-dissatisfied device?

Unbelievable.

You can't speak for everyone and I can't speak for everyone but I can speak for myself. When I had to get repairs done on my Alienware laptop ($2,500, with 32g RAM) they gave me a brand new one, right off their shelf. My galaxy s7 needed repairs, and they also gave me a brand new one right off their shelf. In my experience only Apple has given me a refurbished device. The refurbished iPhone so far that they gave to my family has always been really bad, have to take to get it replace several times to the point we gave up and lived with the problem. For example, phone shuts off at 20% battery life, wifi dies for no reason, can receive but can't make calls. Yes these were some of hr problems on the refurbished ones. Apple has told me, again not speaking for anyone but myself, it's a like brand new phone that has no rpborlsm because it's been through numerous testing to ensure quality. What a load of horse poo poo

 

[ericwn]

I hope you're right and it's not one rule for one and another rule for another. Depends how petulant the consumer is to actually take it to court in the first place, I guess.

I'm sure time will tell.

I think the same ruling will be applied to any manufacturer. Laws don't specifically work only against one company.

 

[Wondercow]

phone shuts off at 20% battery life, wifi dies for no reason, can receive but can't make calls. Yes these were some of hr problems on the refurbished ones. Apple has told me, again not speaking for anyone but myself, it's a like brand new phone

To be fair, that is like a brand new phone

 

[jayducharme]

How do you know? That is NOT what Apple states on their website.

It's an assumption. If, say, a refurbished iPhone had been fitted with a new screen, they wouldn't just slap a screen on and shove it in a box for resale. It has to be checked to make sure everything is functioning properly. During that check, any other problems that might crop up would have to be repaired as well.