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

[ColdShadow]

Completely false, unless Dutch law forbids repairs. What she's entitled to is her device being repaired, period. Anything above that is a courtesy. She's only "entitled to a new replacement" if Apple chooses not to repair, or can't repair, the existing one.

Where do you get your conclusion from? which section of terms and conditions that she agreed to states this exactly?
let me tell you that's your personal understanding of the law.
she bought a brand new product,they should either repair the one she bought or if they are unable to repair it,give her a new replacement not someone else's repaired product.

 

[redmac]

Apple should start asking people.

Do you want a refurbished replacement, or your current device to be repaired within x days?

 

[Wondercow]

Where do you get your conclusion from? which section of terms and conditions that she agreed to states this exactly?

In that post I'm not talking about this plaintiff's agreement with Apple, I'm speaking in general terms. If Dutch law allows for repairs then that's all she, or anyone, is entitled to. Anything above and beyond the legal requirement is a bonus offered by the company. Now, people who have knowledge of the Dutch system have spoken up and said that if a product fails within six month of purchase the consumer is entitled to a brand new item. It's been suggested that this is what the ruling is based upon.

she bought a brand new product,they should either repair the one she bought or if they are unable to repair it,give her a new replacement not someone else's repaired product.

Yes, they should repair it if possible, I believe I said that. Apparently after the first six months one wouldn't be entitle to a brand new device--and why should they? One may have purchased a brand new device but after, say, seven months, that's a used, seven-month-old device. Why should anyone be entitled to a brand new device to replace an older, used device (fit for use laws notwithstanding as they have a finite time period and are generally very good because a new device should last some amount of time)

 

[macfacts]

The problem is at what point is a new product no longer justified. In this case the iPad was 4 months old...

Easy. After the warranty is over, then a new replacement product is not required.

 

[PlainviewX]

That's exactly how it works. You get 90 days or the remainder of your original warranty, whichever is greater. AppleCare transfers as well.

My mom had an iPhone fail under six months after purchase. They replaced it. They stated it was only a 90 day warranty.

 

[pratikindia]

The ruling is correct as the lady had bought a new device and not a refurbished one.

 

[Essaux]

It's interesting and worrying how many on here side with the company instead of with the consumer.

To me, if I buy a new product and it's faulty, it should be replaced with a new product.

Another consumer protection law in The Netherlands is that consumers are guaranteed a 2 year warranty under EU consumer laws. Which per default replaces Apple's standard 1 year warranty.

 

[oldmacs]

I think she's got a point. If Apple are reusing logic boards from devices, then you've got devices which are already into their limited read/right cycle replacing potentially new devices. I have no issues wiht refurb devices being used as out of warranty replacements or even after the 1st year of warranty, but within the first year, how is it fair for example to take in a near new device and have it replaced with one you have no idea about the storage lifespan.
[doublepost=1493191337][/doublepost]

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.

They do a hopeless job at it then. I've had 4 doa refurb iPads, 1 doa refurb iPod and 2 doa refurb iPhones in the family.

 

[bmot]

What is going on in your head that enables you to look at two subjectively identical devices that only differ in the box which they were shipped and judge one as inferior because parts in it may have been around the block in the past.
I would understand your point if we were taking about a store return that was shrink wrapped and stuck back on the shelf, but that is not what Apple is doing.

It's simple.
If you buy a new product it has to have all parts entirely new and unused.
If this product has an issue and gets replaced with a refurbished model, that device will have, even if not visible on the outside, used parts, like a screen that doesn't reach the same brightness, a battery that doesn't reach 100% capacity or chips that have a shorter than new lifespan. That is by definition a used product for someone who bought a new.

It's a different situation if your device is already in used condition and you send it in for repairs.

 

[snipper]

Another consumer protection law in The Netherlands is that consumers are guaranteed a 2 year warranty under EU consumer laws. Which per default replaces Apple's standard 1 year warranty.

For a long time, I thought so too but it's a little more complicated. The point is, that the 2 year EU consumer warranty is a 'directive', not a law. The Netherlands have chosen not to implement it. (Member states can do this, as long as the consumer is at least as well protected.) Instead, Dutch law says the product 'must be sound for at least the expected lifespan of the product'. This is often more than 2 years. On the other hand, this does not necessarily mean you get a new product within (or after) those 2 years. Usually this means you get a discount on repairs or on another sale.

 

[andycarver]

When is new, no longer new?

 

[fulles2000]

Many years ago, a truck I owned was in an accident. Some parts—I don't remember which ones—needed to be replaced, and the insurance company rep said they'd be replaced with used parts. I said, wait, why used parts? And she responded, the parts before the accident were also used.

I didn't like that answer at the time, but she was right: They were used parts. They were used by me. That I bought the truck new was immaterial. The truck, and its parts, were no longer new. They're used.

Some do-good insurance commission, legislator, or judge somewhere might order that insurers pay for all new parts, and some people might cheer this "pro-consumer" measure. But now, at least, I realize that nothing comes without a cost, and such a policy would mean more expensive insurance, additional waste, and little real gain.

The same is true if Apple and other electronics makes can't replace a used device with a used device: warranty costs will go up, at least some of those costs will be passed on to Dutch customers, and more waste will be created. There is no free lunch.

To quote another economist: there are no solutions. Only tradeoffs.

Ok let's take your analogy a little further. Let's say you bought you brand new truck and a week later it broke down. The manufacturer says your truck isn't repairable but they've got an identical spec truck that's a year old. The year old truck is used but your truck is now also used so it's a like for like swap.

Of course you could have chosen to buy the 1 year old truck last week for 15% less than the brand new truck you did buy.

Are you happy to take the older truck as a replacement?

 

[gnasher729]

Another consumer protection law in The Netherlands is that consumers are guaranteed a 2 year warranty under EU consumer laws. Which per default replaces Apple's standard 1 year warranty.

That's nonsense and you should know it. Apple's 1 year warranty is a manufacturer's warranty. Apple can use any terms they like. You can decide to not buy if you don't like the warranty.

Under EU consumer laws, you have statutory rights (not a warranty). The seller (not the manufacturer) has to make sure that the product they sell is of reasonable quality. In the small print it says that within the first six months the seller has to help you unless they can prove there was no defect when the product was sold (for example the screen is broken because you dropped it or your friend dropped it), after six months the seller has to help you _if you can prove_ the defect was there when the product was sold. That requirement is not present in Apple's 12 month manufacturer's warranty.

And in the 12 months where you have both a warranty and statutory rights, you are free to ask either the manufacturer or the seller for help, and neither can refuse and tell you to go to the other.

Ok let's take your analogy a little further. Let's say you bought you brand new truck and a week later it broke down. The manufacturer says your truck isn't repairable but they've got an identical spec truck that's a year old. The year old truck is used but your truck is now also used so it's a like for like swap.?

You can never work in absolutes. The one week old truck is one week old, with a one year old truck you don't get an equivalent replacement. What if they have a one week old truck that was repossessed because it turned out the buyer lied about being able to pay for it? One week old against one week old?

With a Mac, or iPad, or iPhone, as you use it, you eventually reach a point where a refurbished replacement is either exactly as good, or even better, than your device which is now used. I can't say exactly where this point is. After a week of use, no. After a week of use, the refurbished one is better. After four months, like in this case? Maybe. Remember that people have 14 days to return an iPad, and those returned iPads cannot be sold as new. If your iPad breaks after 4 months, and they give you one that was returned after 10 days of use, then surely you are better off.

But this isn't about whether Apple is doing the right thing, or whether a customer gets a replacement that is as good as their device or not, it's about what this court decided and what Apple will do. What Apple will do is give your a new device. For the future, they will try to repair your device. Since they are not required by law to give you _any_ replacement if it can be repaired, they can offer either to repair or to give you a refurbished device, if you accept it. If you insist on your right to a new one, they will repair. The alternative is that they will give everyone brand new replacements and raise prices.

 

[Essaux]

For a long time, I thought so too but it's a little more complicated. The point is, that the 2 year EU consumer warranty is a 'directive', not a law. The Netherlands have chosen not to implement it. (Member states can do this, as long as the consumer is at least as well protected.) Instead, Dutch law says the product 'must be sound for at least the expected lifespan of the product'. This is often more than 2 years. On the other hand, this does not necessarily mean you get a new product within (or after) those 2 years. Usually this means you get a discount on repairs or on another sale.

That's nonsense and you should know it. Apple's 1 year warranty is a manufacturer's warranty. Apple can use any terms they like. You can decide to not buy if you don't like the warranty.

Under EU consumer laws, you have statutory rights (not a warranty). The seller (not the manufacturer) has to make sure that the product they sell is of reasonable quality. In the small print it says that within the first six months the seller has to help you unless they can prove there was no defect when the product was sold (for example the screen is broken because you dropped it or your friend dropped it), after six months the seller has to help you _if you can prove_ the defect was there when the product was sold. That requirement is not present in Apple's 12 month manufacturer's warranty.

And in the 12 months where you have both a warranty and statutory rights, you are free to ask either the manufacturer or the seller for help, and neither can refuse and tell you to go to the other.

I am strictly speaking here about defects caused by poor manufacturing / quality control, not consumer-caused damaged goods. For instance, if the battery is unusually poor (ie. drains super fast) then Apple will repair your iphone for free within their 1 year warranty and if a Dutch citizen really wants to, they will do it within 2 years as well. According to the websites I'm reading, stores give consumers a 2 year warranty and Amac store even 3 years (negating the need for AppleCare).

Do with it what you want, I am sure Apple doesn't always cave in immediately when a consumer returns its goods, but I think that if you really want to, you can make them swap your product for a new one. Also just for good order, I think if a product gets swapped and it's a year old, the consumer should be content with a refurbished / remanufactured one.

 

[jaymie1983]

I see the benefits from the corporate side but also can't help but feel good for the little man vs the big corporate

 

[BvizioN]

I agree with this. I didn't buy a refurb device. I bought a new device and it didn't work properly, it should be replaced with a new device.

Be careful... the new device may have been touched accidentally by human workers when it was packed, loosing the level of virginity acceptable for high demanding "the world revolves around me" customers

 

[H2SO4]

Apple should start asking people.

Do you want a refurbished replacement, or your current device to be repaired within x days?

They should ask that in the Apple store too as they are so confident in the quality of refurbs.

 

[ArmCortexA8]

Well well well so many interesting opinions however unfortunately a lot of people have been brainwashed and believe exactly what they have been told or heard however my own experience is completely different. Fact is if a device is purchased new it must be replaced as new with equivalent if not better (if model is no longer made or defunct). If I want a refurb I would have purchased a refurb - common sense. Remember Apple staff are not experts in Consumer Law (I'm in Australia) and will try various resolutions to minimise new replacements.

I purchase a new product, product has a fault, I am offered a refurb (effectively a second-hand remanufactured product) despite buying new. This simple concept is what people seem to have trouble understanding. I was trained in Australian Consumer Law I know this better than most, including Apple Store staff who seem pre-programmed to offer everything but a new replacement. I am not familiar with product law in the USA but I do believe its not as strict and not enforced by strict federal laws. We here in Australia have some of the toughest consumer laws on the planet.

Below are my experiences with Australian Consumer Law based on product and outcome:-

1. MacBook Pro Retina 15" - Original 2014 model. This was purchased new for AU$2,999 and within a year I noticed two spots at the top right of the black bezel. Using a lint free cloth and tap water I tried to clean this as recommended by Apple - no solvents, no sprays, no chemicals, no acids. I discovered via a month's research that this issue was related to the AR coating applied on the glass during manufacturing - a process referred to as Phase Deposition. In effect once the coating breaks it will keep degrading of its own like a virus spreading until it disappears. I followed procedure and got an AASP to inspect the damage with all my proof via my research - hint: This was before Apple acknowledged this issue internally.

The AASP replaced the whole display / clamshell which is all one piece and usually costs AU$1,400 - at no cost to me. 6 months later the same issue started again so I contacted Apple's Executive Relations directly and advise the issue. The term for this issue was "de-lamination" and was asked by Executive Relations to get this verified by the AASP for the second screen. Once this was verified I advised Executive Relations I was concerned a third screen would have the same issue so I requested the whole system be replaced at no additional financial expenditure to me (price had increased $800 since purchase). Apple Executive Relations agreed, so received a whole new replacement system with the force touch trackpad, faster SSD, and ATI GPU within a couple of days. Guess what, not a single screen issue with the replacement and it's been over a year which proves beyond a doubt it was a batch of screens and Apple has so far refused to release the cause of the issue and still uses an internal reference.

2. iPod Touch 6th Generation - 64GB Silver. This iPod touch was purchased new and owned for around 2 years and seemed to be working fine until I discovered the screen was "yellowing" around the outside border on any background and App. Software restores made no difference and rarely does software cause a screen tint issue. This occurred after the 7th Generation was released after 3 years since the previous update. This proved to me the LCD panel was the issue so rang AppleCare as usual and got put through to Executive Relations who advise they would replace the iPod but only with a refurb. Naturally I responded with firstly you want to supply 3 year old hardware, and I have no guarantees this issue won't appear on the refurb unit.

I requested this be taken higher and investigate. 2 days later got a call re-stating their previous advice so I took this to Executive Relations at Apple themselves and re-iterated the issues. 3 days later I was contacted and was advised Apple would refund the whole purchase price when purchased so I could purchase the 7th Generation at no additional cost. I agreed. In the last month this device started to have the same screen issue and also a battery issue where the battery would drop drastically for no real reason especially when only used for music. It charged from empty to full in 20 minutes which is a bitt too quick as well - this proved to me a battery issue existed.

I took this to the Apple store who started making insinuations and accusations relating to my technical knowledge and expertise especially how to restore and iPod which I responded firmly with "I have restore many devices and its not a difficult procedure and know it off by heart". Their iPad failed to register the restoration data despite it being wiped so then they believed it was not restore. I then had to make them realise these faults have occurred before with a the previous generation iPod and I said if you really want I can get a signed statutory declaration if required. I was told this was not necessary. I requested the store manager to re-position my situation and explained the same info in a succinct form. They said they wanted to wipe the device to see if it made any difference. I said go ahead however if this fails to rectify the screen issue this will not be classed as resolution. The iPod was wiped and the assistant said "another tech did see the yellow tint issue" and we will replace it but not with a new one. I was also told "some have this tint issue but its just something that happens". Well not really acceptable for a $400 device. I said I do not wish to go down this path again and Executive Relations will be informed of this.

I contacted Executive Relations regarding the device issues and the events that occurred at the Apple Store indicating no resolution had come to light as I still had the same device with the same issues. Within a couple of days I was asked to visit the Apple store for a full brand new replacement, any colour at all - same capacity. They were very apologetic and gave me the red carpet treatment - fast-tracked and served quickly and resolved quickly.

3. iPhone 6 Plus - purchased brand new. Had the iPhone 6 plus with no major issues for over 2 years and then discovered the lightning port was not responding to multiple Apple chargers and lightning cables which meant synching could also wipe data and charging was intermittent as it used the same port. I did my own troubleshooting but no resolve. I took it to the AASP who had the phone for about a week. They admitted they could not fix it in-store and all troubleshooting failed to pinpoint the cause or resolution.

I notified Executive Relations of the issue and was promptly offered an iPhone 6S Plus at no additional cost since the iPhone 6 Plus was no longer being made however I had been reading news of the "touch disease" and possible battery issues as well. Plus this iPhone was part of an Apple Repair Programme for camera module issues. I asked if they could send me the iPhone 7 Plus instead in light of these issues in the public domain. 3 days later got a call agreeing to my request based on the acceptance of paying an upgrade fee of AU$190 - I agreed. So in effect I got a brand new iPhone 7 plus after 2 years (originally purchased outright) for under AU$200 - probably the cheapest iPhone on the planet.

4. Beats Studio 2.0 Wireless Headphones - purchased brand new. Purchased Beats Studio headphones just over a year ago and noticed recently the material on the headphones was starting to degrade and these are used around once a week at most and otherwise inside their included case. I emailed Executive Relations to advise them of these issues before I approached the Apple store in person to prevent any issues with communications arising. I visited the store after work and without hesitation or 20 questions they replaced the headphones with a brand new pair in original packaging. I took these home and tested them out and realised a bass-bias issue where bass on one side was louder than the other - even after rotating the headphones and trying different audio.

So had to return these ones and was offered another pair but chose a different colour with a slightly new design and colour design. So far no issues and no problems however I noticed the wireless versions no longer have an AC adapter included despite the manual indicating the terms "Included AC adapter or USB" which under consumer law indicates the customer is given both options to charge - pretty hard when not included. The term "and" legally under contract law and consumer law means both options are available after purchase - clearly not the case. Due to this "typo" apple sent me a Beats AC Adapter at no additional cost. Oddly enough the non-wireless version which is cheaper does include an AC adapter.

This is proof that if you know Consumer Law, the consumer will always have the final decision and outcome. I was professional, not aggressive, calm and yet recorded all issues and kept records of my research and communications. I brought forward valid points where previous efforts to resolve issues had virtually no effect. All purchasers and customers enter into a contract on purchase where terms and conditions are always in effect. Not once could Apple say I was wrong or misled them - always had plenty of proof to back up my story.

 

[0098386]

What'd be grand is if Apple could replace just the broken parts. But yeah. I bought a new device, give me a new one in its place. If I buy a refurb product from Apple then I expect a refurb in its place.

Chips wear out.

 

[aristobrat]

We here in Australia have some of the toughest consumer laws on the planet.

Please remind your fellow countrymen about this when they complain here about how Apple products are soooo much more expensive in your country vs the US.
[doublepost=1493212773][/doublepost]

Chips wear out.

You probably weren't too thrilled to read this:

"One day, we'd like to be able to build new products with just recycled materials, including your old products," Apple says on its updated Environment site. In an interview with VICE, Apple vice president of environment, policy and social initiatives Lisa Jackson commented on the mining plan, saying "it's where technology should be going."

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/19/apple-recycled-materials-end-mining/

 

[weckart]

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.

In that post I'm not talking about this plaintiff's agreement with Apple, I'm speaking in general terms. If Dutch law allows for repairs then that's all she, or anyone, is entitled to. Anything above and beyond the legal requirement is a bonus offered by the company. Now, people who have knowledge of the Dutch system have spoken up and said that if a product fails within six month of purchase the consumer is entitled to a brand new item. It's been suggested that this is what the ruling is based upon.

The minimum requirements are the same throughout the EU. Within the first six months defects are assumed to be the fault of the manufacturer unless proved otherwise. The consumer is entitled to either a refund, replacement or repair, whichever is the least onerous for both seller and buyer. In that respect, the seller cannot insist in sending off the item for repair if it would deprive the buyer of the item for an unreasonable amount of time.

Considerations such as 'like for like' and 'reasonable' are why courts get involved in disputes like this. People are getting worked up in this thread over nothing but the normal workings of business.

 

[Glideslope]

10 years from now there will be no EU. So just relax and enjoy you're perks while you have an economy.

 

[mayhemburzum]

Because you pay 700,- for 2 years of warrented use, and you would have gotten it.

If you pay for 1 phone that gets replaced you still havent payed for 4 years of warranty have you?

You pay for a garranteed use for 2 years. How ever many devices it would take.

Wrong. In my home country, Portugal, if tou get a replacement device you are entitled to a shiny brand new warranty. Our consumer law also states that both the point of sale or the manufacturer must take the device for repair within the 2 year warranty. Apple does try to refer more than 1 year old devices to the point of sale.

A company that does not give 2 or 3 year warranties is a company that is not sure of the quality of their product. A company that lies and tries to distinguish remanufactured and refurbished is playing their customers dumb.

 

[0098386]

Please remind your fellow countrymen about this when they complain here about how Apple products are soooo much more expensive in your country vs the US.
[doublepost=1493212773][/doublepost]
You probably weren't too thrilled to read this:


https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/19/apple-recycled-materials-end-mining/

It's not great no. As I say, chips age. Storage only has so many write cycles. I imagine their statements will turn out to be like Ping, IPod Hifi, etc.

 

[Juicy Box]

When is new, no longer new?

For electronics, as soon as the device is used after manufacturing and testing.