Slightly different in that it concerns the use of "warranty void if removed" seals.

Credit Card warranty couldn't help because it was within manufacturer's warranty.

I got the Attn. General involved who basically arbitrated the conversation, ultimately did not help one bit. I even cited the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act mentioned here by the FTC.

This has re-invigorated me to try going down the FTC complaint route. It's not about the $100 now, it's about Husq standing behind their products and fixing known issues, and not lying to consumers with BS warranties on the box.

Not helping my case: I bought another one because the attachment is basically the best on the market. I fully expect the same thing will happen again, armed myself with a better 3rd party warranty this time. I hope it at least makes it through 1 season.

Almost everyone I recommended this mouse to, the wheel broke. Curious if you had the same experience.

Pictured here: http://answerarmy.com/posts/494bc7a370

[edit] - fixing link

"Only the use of Keurig® K-Cup® brand pods and accessories will guarantee the proper functioning and lifetime of your Keurig® brewer. Any damage to or malfunction of your brewer resulting from the use of non-Keurig® pods and accessories may not be covered by this warranty or may result in a service fee if the damage or malfunction is determined to be caused by such use."

http://support.keurig.com/article?id=kA036000000CJGOCA4

I don't see a problem with this -- if a 3rd party part/accessory damages the product, the manufacturer shouldn't be held liable. This applies whether it's a bad k-cup or a third party turbo charger blows up your car engine.

Though the onus should be on the manufacturer to show that the 3rd party part was to blame.

That text clearly is about causality: if a non-Keurig part caises damage, the warranty doesn’t cover it (actually not even that: may not cover it)

For example, a sticker covering a ventilation opening shouldn’t void your warranty w.r.t. a design error in its power supply, but if that sticker causes your device to overheat and break down, things are different.

After I sent mine in, I got a call several weeks later from an HP employee who informed me that they had found "third-party firmware" flashed onto the device (like pretty much everyone who bought a Touchpad after HP discontinued them, I loaded Android onto it). I argued with him for a few minutes about what relevance that has to a well-known hardware defect on the device, but he insisted that flashing a third-party OS voids the warranty. He eventually agreed to repair it, issuing me a "warning" about future repairs and saying that they would wipe it and flash a stock image before sending it back to me.

Would the FTC's warning have covered my incident above had HP not eventually agreed to repair it?

[0]https://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1250645

[1]https://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1502123

They gave me a hard time about it but ultimately agreed to do so. I think the store person was just following a script.

On the other hand, if the battery exploded after you changed the software....

I thought this was pretty much BS, but good to hear officially that this kind of thing is not OK.

First, using pellets intended for heating rather than cooking is a health hazard.

Second, low-quality pellets that disintegrate, are improperly sized (aka too big, clog the auger, too small, cause burn temp inconsistencies) can damage the machine.

Odds are, it's standard boilerplate to cover them in case you use it improperly, and would only be invoked if that is obvious upon inspection.

Yeah, the wording sucks, because it seems like they would turn down repairs that aren't caused by the pellets in use. Maybe there's a better way to word it- IANAL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-part_tariff

It may also be unreasonable to put the burden of proof on the warranty issuer, that the damage was caused by the user's arbitrary choice of software.

If the validity of the warranty clause depends on the extent to which the software may affect the device's physical integrity, then I can imagine some manufacturers locking users into their software by making that dependence more opaque.

Whether companies will be less likely to attempt to deny people's warranty rights as a result of this "stern warning" remains to be seen.

I'd personally like it if the FTC started outright suing companies for these stickers with the fraudulent legal advice.

Better yet, how do we know when its a DRM factor, vs not?

Even if this is about unrelated parts, such as a battery failure after replacing the screen, how much effort will it take the manufacturer to a) ensure that the device has no other less obvious changes and b) ensure that the parts that were replaced didn't have an unexpected effect? Certainly I've seen, in manufacturing devices that emit EM, unintended consequences where parts caused interference significant enough to damage other parts (usually through unexpected signals.)

It's clearly a win for consumers but I wonder how companies can carry the burden. Perhaps all-inclusive warranties will fade into history as a result.

What the law implies is that Apple needs to continue to warrant the REST of the iPad, even if someone else has done work on the iPad at some point, unless that work caused the damage being claimed under warranty. They are perfectly able to say that they won't cover damage caused by you (or, by extension, anyone you hire to work on your iPad).

If the screen came from another provider, then Apple no longer needs to cover the screen at all, in fact. That's perfectly legal under current law. But Apple can't cancel the warranty on the rest of the device if the screen replacement procedure didn't cause the damage.

If, for instance, the iPad (the one with a replaced screen above) stops holding any charge after six months due to a faulty battery, and there is no connection between that new problem and the screen replacement procedure, then Apple still needs to cover the repair or replacement of the battery.

The problem is that if a competent screen repair voids all warranties, then you are being forced to go to Apple for all repairs. And that's what is illegal.

If a car dealer requires that you get the oil changed at a dealer in order to maintain your warranty, but something completely unrelated fails, they can't then say "Sorry, your warranty is void because you didn't pay our high maintenance rates."

That's what the law is about, and it's been that way since 1975 (!!), so I don't think we're going to suddenly see a drop in all-inclusive warranties just because the FTC is cracking down on a half dozen companies that aren't in compliance.

With your example, this would be fairly clear as the screen wouldn't be covered. It can clearly become ambiguous in some cases, though.

Also, this isn't a new law. It is just them stating their intent to enforce the Magnussen Moss Warranty act (enacted in 1975) against companies that (often intentionally) mislead customers.

They could just buy a bunch of products, replace some original parts with their own aftermarket or repair parts, then wait for something else to break under warranty.

If the manufacturer denies warranty coverage from the replacement part, the proof can be used to improve the product. If the manufacturer doesn't deny coverage, that's evidence it is an acceptable, non-interfering replacement.

I think it has to come down to a balance ultimately -- wherever you place the bar, companies and customers alike will find ways to abuse it, it'll just be easier for one group or the other. I think overall though we need to err towards giving more power to consumers for one reason: Both groups have a lever to protect themselves from damages, companies can raise the cost of or not offer warranties, and costumers can choose to not buy the products. However, there's always an inherent information imbalance in the direction of companies -- they know their product better than you do, they know what they cheaped out on, they might have exclusive access to replacement parts, or exclusive expertise for repairs. And this in general makes it much easier to abuse consumers.

It's not a new law or decision

> 4.1.1 Exclusions. Customer has no warranty rights with respect to defects or non-conformities caused by (i) use of the Products with hardware or software that Company has not specified as suitable; ... (v) installation or maintenance of Products by someone other than Company; ...

https://www.seagate.com/css/terms-us/hardware-sales-terms/

Apple has a lot more sense than haters give them credit for. Their policies vary on a case by case basis depending on the specifics of the part and the potential impacts on important factors like security. For example you don't want an adversary or an abusive household member being able to install their own hacked version of the fingerprint sensor hardware on your phone while you are not looking.

Apple recently told me that my battery, despite being well within it's advertised number of charge cycles, needed to be replaced, and that it would cost some absurd amount of money.

This is obviously bait and switch, but am I really going to take them to court over $300? Just the lost time of filing any paperwork about it would end up costing me more money.

So yeah, this stuff is all great, but who cares if none of us actually have the time to take them to court.

FYI, Apple has replaced things for me out of warranty all the time (macbook battery, charger, etc, for free). The Genius bar staff have a lot of leeway and when I'm sitting there I always observe some people being extremely discourteous or playing obviously dumb, and in response getting completely different service than what I would normally get.

Sorry, it was actually $200: https://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro/en/battery_body.htm...

My point is that you have to be willing to show that you will escalate and you are not bluffing. Companies don't wanna go to court any more than you do.