Related
I wonder how strict they are on this policy. Love the phone and really think it can do alot more like its younger cousins. But I wonder at what line a unlocked bootloader voids warranty. With the MyTouch 3G or g1 I really never worried about doing it because it I messed up or something went wrong I know I can convince T-Mobile to replace it but with HTC, say a volume button stops working do you think with an unlocked bootloader they won't do anything and charge you or is it probably just a scare tatic. Might hold off for root till a few months later to see if we get a img file to do a full restore or not but not ready to risk it just yet. Or atleast till there are some good roms yet. Just still in love with it since i just got it and maybe when that wares off I will root. But do you know of anywhere if anything HTC has stated anything about this.
You cant know for sure until you send it in. But the text is clear, it will void your warranty. which means ALL the warranty. Your warranty is not broken up into separate parts.
Warranties are, legally, broken into separate parts.
The manufacturer has to prove that what you modified actually relates to the warranty issue.
If you have a hardware issue, HTC would have to PROVE that your software contributed to the damage to be able to void your warranty.
Magnusson-Moss Act, is the law you'd look-up, I believe.
-bZj
down8 said:
Warranties are, legally, broken into separate parts.
The manufacturer has to prove that what you modified actually relates to the warranty issue.
If you have a hardware issue, HTC would have to PROVE that your software contributed to the damage to be able to void your warranty.
Magnusson-Moss Act, is the law you'd look-up, I believe.
-bZj
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
can you give a source to back this up? Im gonna unlock my bootloader right now if this is true!
Heck ya... this is what everyones real concern is, IMO. (Well I guess I can't talk for everyone but..) I take responsibility if I unlock and then some how brick, yes I'll be upset but it is my fault. However my real concern is if I unlock and then there is a real hardware problem.
yeah- the way i read the post in cyanogens bacon thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=5306428&postcount=54
"Obviously there's probably little to deter people from digging into this, but for whatever it's worth it was quite a lot of effort to get buy-in for shipping with the "unlock" feature, there remains concern about potential increases in RMAs as a result (and thus the warranty language in the unlock process)."
i read this as saying that they expect more warranty returns due to the easy unlock but not by much. Does this mean that we can return the phone if we have a hardware issue unrelated to the lock? i dont expect it and never have (rooted both my G1 and my magic the day i got them) but it'd be nice to know.....
dunno, insurance companies have been able to "void your warranty" (coverage of your health) if something totally unrelated was not announced when you got your insurance.
melterx12 said:
can you give a source to back this up? Im gonna unlock my bootloader right now if this is true!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did: the Magnusson-Moss Act.
Blueman101 said:
dunno, insurance companies have been able to "void your warranty" (coverage of your health) if something totally unrelated was not announced when you got your insurance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is a disclosure issue - hiding something is different.
-bZj
down8 said:
Warranties are, legally, broken into separate parts.
The manufacturer has to prove that what you modified actually relates to the warranty issue.
If you have a hardware issue, HTC would have to PROVE that your software contributed to the damage to be able to void your warranty.
Magnusson-Moss Act, is the law you'd look-up, I believe.
-bZj
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's interesting. Now we just need to read the N1's warranty, and see if there is any similar thing to that(because they can always have some clause that says the bootloader being unlocked voids all parts of the warranty).
down8 said:
Warranties are, legally, broken into separate parts.
The manufacturer has to prove that what you modified actually relates to the warranty issue.
If you have a hardware issue, HTC would have to PROVE that your software contributed to the damage to be able to void your warranty.
Magnusson-Moss Act, is the law you'd look-up, I believe.
-bZj
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong. Not to sound like an ass, but I'm a 3rd year law student and have studied contracts, their making, and causes for breach, extensively. The warranty is not "legally broken into separate parts". Please don't make such inane statements.
First, warranties are legally binding contracts and are considered "integrated agreements". That means that a court will automatically hold that the document and whatever provisions are included therein are the entire warranty, UNLESS you can prove that there were additional documents or forms that you relied on. That's not the case here.
Second, if you read the warranty, item 7 (on p. 3-4 of the booklet included in the N1 box) explicitly states that "THIS LIMITED WARRANTY SHALL NOT APPLY IF:"... then lists several conditions, ending with 7(h) "the bootloader is unlocked by the Customer (allowing third party OS installation) using the fastboot program." This is an express term in the warranty, so the warranty is void. At this point, the only way you'd be able to get out of it, is if you were to argue to the courts that you never read the warranty and if you had, you either wouldn't have unlocked it, or you wouldn't have kept the phone! This is what's called an "unconscionability" argument. Even in this case though, most courts will side with the company due to the long-established doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware), and the court would first ask if you know how to read, and if you say yes, then it would hold that it was your responsibility to read the warranty and you have no excuse. Maybe some court would hold to the contrary. But that's why HTC was smart enough to include an express waiver...
Third, before unlocking the bootloader, you explicitly had to accept that your warranty was void if you unlocked it! No court anywhere would ever let you out of this.
As for Magnusson-Moss (we studied this as well), it's not at all related to this conversation! I don't know where the **** you come up with this information. All it does is create a federal mandate for companies to conspicuously state whether any warranty is "full" or "limited". Most warranties, including HTC's, are limited warranties. M-M further states that if there are any ambiguous terms in a warranty, that they will be interpreted in favor of the customer. However, this doesn't apply to this case either, because it is completely unambiguous in two different places!
It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.... you don't understand the law, and probably have never really tried (it's not rocket science, I can assure you). Your improper claims can seriously screw someone over if they lose their warranty based on your incorrect assumptions then end up needing it for a defective phone!
uansari1 said:
Wrong. Not to sound like an ass, but I'm a 3rd year law student and have studied contracts, their making, and causes for breach, extensively. The warranty is not "legally broken into separate parts". Please don't make such inane statements.
First, warranties are legally binding contracts and are considered "integrated agreements". That means that a court will automatically hold that the document and whatever provisions are included therein are the entire warranty, UNLESS you can prove that there were additional documents or forms that you relied on. That's not the case here.
Second, if you read the warranty, item 7 (on p. 3-4 of the booklet included in the N1 box) explicitly states that "THIS LIMITED WARRANTY SHALL NOT APPLY IF:"... then lists several conditions, ending with 7(h) "the bootloader is unlocked by the Customer (allowing third party OS installation) using the fastboot program." This is an express term in the warranty, so the warranty is void. At this point, the only way you'd be able to get out of it, is if you were to argue to the courts that you never read the warranty and if you had, you either wouldn't have unlocked it, or you wouldn't have kept the phone! This is what's called an "unconscionability" argument. Even in this case though, most courts will side with the company due to the long-established doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware), and the court would first ask if you know how to read, and if you say yes, then it would hold that it was your responsibility to read the warranty and you have no excuse. Maybe some court would hold to the contrary. But that's why HTC was smart enough to include an express waiver...
Third, before unlocking the bootloader, you explicitly had to accept that your warranty was void if you unlocked it! No court anywhere would ever let you out of this.
As for Magnusson-Moss (we studied this as well), it's not at all related to this conversation! I don't know where the **** you come up with this information. All it does is create a federal mandate for companies to conspicuously state whether any warranty is "full" or "limited". Most warranties, including HTC's, are limited warranties. M-M further states that if there are any ambiguous terms in a warranty, that they will be interpreted in favor of the customer. However, this doesn't apply to this case either, because it is completely unambiguous in two different places!
It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.... you don't understand the law, and probably have never really tried (it's not rocket science, I can assure you). Your improper claims can seriously screw someone over if they lose their warranty based on your incorrect assumptions then end up needing it for a defective phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cheers for the info. However, couldnt it be constituted as an "unfair term". For example, if HTC said the warranty was void if you took the phone outside, this would be ridiculous. Since smartphones are being marketed more as mobile computers, surely it is "unfair" not to be able to modify the operating system, much as you can do with a pc, without warranty for the hardware being voided?
Ronaldo7 said:
Cheers for the info. However, couldnt it be constituted as an "unfair term". For example, if HTC said the warranty was void if you took the phone outside, this would be ridiculous. Since smartphones are being marketed more as mobile computers, surely it is "unfair" not to be able to modify the operating system, much as you can do with a pc, without warranty for the hardware being voided?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no point trying to skittle round the point. At the end of the day, if you interfere with the software they placed there which has been extensively tested; why would they support unlocked/modified software which they have no idea how it'll affect the device? That's quite simple to understand and I can see why Google have done this. It's to protect them.
Computer firmware/drivers is different. They test drivers and encourage you to upgrade them to keep the product working as best they can. When an end-user creates modified untested firmware/drivers, this is different.
I'm sure there's a comprehensive warranty on computer devices which stops you applying modified software not supported by them.
TunsterX2 said:
There's no point trying to skittle round the point. At the end of the day, if you interfere with the software they placed there which has been extensively tested; why would they support unlocked/modified software which they have no idea how it'll affect the device? That's quite simple to understand and I can see why Google have done this. It's to protect them.
Computer firmware/drivers is different. They test drivers and encourage you to upgrade them to keep the product working as best they can. When an end-user creates modified untested firmware/drivers, this is different.
I'm sure there's a comprehensive warranty on computer devices which stops you applying modified software not supported by them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I appreciate what you're saying, but as long as you can prove that any modification made cannot have caused a specific failure, then Id be interested to see how a blanket "warranty void" statement would hold up in court. For example, a button/ trackball wont fall off due to unauthorized software being on the device, whereas a chip failure could be attributed to modifying firmware etc.
Ronaldo7 said:
Cheers for the info. However, couldnt it be constituted as an "unfair term". For example, if HTC said the warranty was void if you took the phone outside, this would be ridiculous. Since smartphones are being marketed more as mobile computers, surely it is "unfair" not to be able to modify the operating system, much as you can do with a pc, without warranty for the hardware being voided?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know much about American law (I am a Trainee Solicitor, but in the UK) but I can tell you that this isn't going to come close to the legal definition of "unfair".
Warranties (at least over here) are entirely at the option of the manufacturer. If they want to have it fall away when you unlock the boot loader then it'll fall away when you unlock the bootloader. I've drafted one recently that does pretty much just that. They aren't required to provide one at all and what they put in it is thier choice. You are afforded most of your rights through sale of goods legislation and they are against the seller for things like goods not being of a satisfactory quality.
It may be that in US some minimum warranty is imposed by statute? With some set of minimum conditions? You'll need someone else to confirm that. However even if that is the case I'd bet any money that those minimum conditions basically equate to "you have to be able to use it as a PDA/Phone". At the end of the day you don't NEED to be able to unlock the boot loader to do that.
BigDamHero said:
I don't know much about American law (I am a Trainee Solicitor, but in the UK) but I can tell you that this isn't going to come close to the legal definition of "unfair".
Warranties (at least over here) are entirely at the option of the manufacturer. If they want to have it fall away when you unlock the boot loader then it'll fall away when you unlock the bootloader. I've drafted one recently that does pretty much just that. They aren't required to provide one at all and what they put in it is thier choice. You are afforded most of your rights through sale of goods legislation and they are against the seller for things like goods not being of a satisfactory quality.
It may be that in US some minimum warranty is imposed by statute? With some set of minimum conditions? You'll need someone else to confirm that. However even if that is the case I'd bet any money that those minimum conditions basically equate to "you have to be able to use it as a PDA/Phone". At the end of the day you don't NEED to be able to unlock the boot loader to do that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, the reason I didnt mention the sales of goods act is because I dont think this applies since the phone is being bought in the US. As you say, warranties in the UK are in addition to the sales of goods act. Are you saying that if the phone was purchased from , say, google.co.uk in the future, the sales of goods act could be invoked for any hardware failure (respecting the fact that the onus is on the retailer (ie. google) to prove that any software tampering of the device caused the defect within the first 6months of purchase)?
Ronaldo7 said:
Yeah, the reason I didnt mention the sales of goods act is because I dont think this applies since the phone is being bought in the US. As you say, warranties in the UK are in addition to the sales of goods act. Are you saying that if the phone was purchased from , say, google.co.uk in the future, the sales of goods act could be invoked for any hardware failure (respecting the fact that the onus is on the retailer (ie. google) to prove that any software tampering of the device caused the defect within the first 6months of purchase)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I believe this is correct. If you got a phone from Google UK, rooted it and then it fell to pieces the next day you would be able to go back and return it because it was not of satisfactory quality. As you rightly say it would of course have to be something other than your actions that caused the failure - some kind of inherent defect. But as long as that is the case the manufacturer’s warranty is irrelevant. A lot of people don’t realise this and once they see a warranty they forget that, at least in the short term after purchase, they have a valid action against the person who sold them the goods.
Good right? Well here’s the other shoe – The problem with the Sale of Goods Act (and a lot of consumer legislation) is that its all so vague. “Satisfactory Quality”, “Reasonable Length of Time”. It leaves most people wondering what the heck that all means! You mention 6 months but this is just a rule of thumb. It doesn’t actually say that anywhere in the act.
So in contrast to a warranty, where you have a definitive answer going in on whether you have a claim or not, the Sale of Goods Act is a bit more uncertain. You have to make your claim a bit more. If your screen falls off around the 5 months mark its possible Google would try and resist the claim, saying too much time has passed. If something goes wrong with your phone that could or could not have been something to do with you rooting it (with no way of determining it either way) – again Google may resist your claim.
I am ... 99% certain that there is NO applicability of any of the above to something sold in the US and shipped to the UK. However I'll have to look into that for a definitive answer.
http://www.google.com/support/android/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=166519
What kind of things can void the warranty coverage?
Here are a few examples of actions that void the warranty coverage:
* rough handling of the device
* exposure of the device to extreme conditions
* tampering with the device, including removal or defacing of the serial number, IMEI number, or water indicator
* unauthorized opening or repair of the device
* tampering with or short-circuiting the battery
* unlocking the bootloader using the fastboot program
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seeing as the warranty is so specific as in using "the fastboot program" instead of "a fastboot program" does using "fastboot-windows or fastboot-mac" fall outside of that. Cases are routinely decided upon by mere technicalities as this. I deal with warranties all the time (as a manufacturer) and have had to eat replacement costs due to technicalities in the warranty verbiage.
Unfortunately, this does not carry over to the big disclaimer that you see when unlocking, but was wondering if this technicality had any merit.
Ronaldo7 said:
Cheers for the info. However, couldnt it be constituted as an "unfair term". For example, if HTC said the warranty was void if you took the phone outside, this would be ridiculous. Since smartphones are being marketed more as mobile computers, surely it is "unfair" not to be able to modify the operating system, much as you can do with a pc, without warranty for the hardware being voided?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As another poster said, this wouldn't be "unfair". A court would only ever begin to consider a term unfair if the consumer had no choice whatsoever. However, here you had the choice of not unlocking the bootloader and keeping your warranty, or returning the phone and buying another product.
Another argument that I could make for the consumer is that by including the exploit, it was "reasonably foreseeable" to HTC that people would unlock the bootloader... but HTC the argument is very weak in favor of the consumers and HTC would likely counter that the exploit is meant only for developers, not for everyday consumers.
BigDamHero said:
I don't know much about American law (I am a Trainee Solicitor, but in the UK) but I can tell you that this isn't going to come close to the legal definition of "unfair".
Warranties (at least over here) are entirely at the option of the manufacturer. If they want to have it fall away when you unlock the boot loader then it'll fall away when you unlock the bootloader. I've drafted one recently that does pretty much just that. They aren't required to provide one at all and what they put in it is thier choice. You are afforded most of your rights through sale of goods legislation and they are against the seller for things like goods not being of a satisfactory quality.
It may be that in US some minimum warranty is imposed by statute? With some set of minimum conditions? You'll need someone else to confirm that. However even if that is the case I'd bet any money that those minimum conditions basically equate to "you have to be able to use it as a PDA/Phone". At the end of the day you don't NEED to be able to unlock the boot loader to do that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We have many similarities... American law is based on British common law, my friend. (As is the law in most other countries that were part of the empire. ) Under American law, brand new items are required to have some sort of warranty...either limited or full (as per the Magnusson-Moss Act). Used items are not required to have any warranty, unless they fall under particular categories, which I can't recall at the moment. Anyway, as in British law, we do have a minimum statutory warranty for new items... the "implied warranty of merchantability". All that requires is that the product would pass without any objections to others in the trade, as being fit for the purpose for which it was manufactured. So in this case, the item was fit for use as a phone. Same as British law.
QMAN101 said:
Seeing as the warranty is so specific as in using "the fastboot program" instead of "a fastboot program" does using "fastboot-windows or fastboot-mac" fall outside of that. Cases are routinely decided upon by mere technicalities as this. I deal with warranties all the time (as a manufacturer) and have had to eat replacement costs due to technicalities in the warranty verbiage.
Unfortunately, this does not carry over to the big disclaimer that you see when unlocking, but was wondering if this technicality had any merit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can assure you that in 99% of the cases, the courts won't throw out a case for such a small detail... especially in a civil case. They would probably construe it as being a blanket statement... i.e. "fastboot program" is an umbrella term that covers fastboot-windows, fastboot-mac, etc.
I have also studied contract law in school, my friend. By "legally separated," I mean they cannot warranty only the entire unit, there are many parts of this phone: SDcard, screen, software, etc. If one is broken, and has no releation to the others, then it is "separate."
uansari1 said:
Wrong. Not to sound like an ass, but I'm a 3rd year law student and have studied contracts, their making, and causes for breach, extensively. The warranty is not "legally broken into separate parts". Please don't make such inane statements....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sweetie, law student (you do sound a bit like an ass, btw), did you read the Magnuson-Moss Act before coming to your conclusion? Obviously you're going into defense, and not the enforcement side of the law.
Full text: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C50.txt
To ask "where the ****" MM comes into play, is pretty silly, given it is about protecting consumers from deceptive warranty practices - it does more than just state full or limited warranties.
I wouldn't bring a copy of wikipedia to court, but it does break things down in an easier to understand language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act
Here is the section I referred to:
The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A more detailed section might read like this:
(c) No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumers using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if (1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and (2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. (15 U.S.C.2302(C))
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd say that their exclusion of a "3rd party OS" runs right into this section of MM. The meaning is that GM can't force you to only use Mobil1 in your vehicle. You can use any oil you choose, so long as you use the correct viscosity & change it regularly - in fact, unless GM could prove the oil was the reason for failure (that's up to labs/lawyers), you could use canola oil & retain your warranty.
Thus, if you have a hardware problem, Google/HTC have to prove that the software/unlocking/etc. caused the damage to void your warranty. The argument would likely hinge on what is "unreasonable use," and if unlocking/rooting a piece of hardware you spent $500-600 on was reasonable. As for the bootloader issue being unambiguous, the same section also voids your warranty for normal wear-and-tear. I'd be far more concerned about a hardware issue, b/c connecting any unapproved accessory also voids your warranty.
All this being said, I am not a lawyer (an neither is Mr. Law Student), so if you're skerred, don't do it.
-bZj
as you know most, if not all, phone manufactures void your warranty when you flash custom software... some, like htc, do it upfront, when unlocking your bootloader... others, like samsung, use flash counters to identify evil custom rom users when faced with warranty claims.
the reason given is always the same: they don't want to pay for (hardware) damage done by the custom software... and most of us would probably object and call bull****, our beloved custom roms aren't doing any damage, with the sole exception of people taking overclocking way too far...
what arguably could be prevented via hardware restrictions by the manufactures if they really wanted to... so if that really is all they fear, no problem here.
But I think the SDS issue adds a new point to the discussion. now we can quite easily construct a case where Samsung could legitimately say that custom software killed the phone: an S3 that would have lived a long and happy life running Samsungs fixed stock kernel, but died because an idiot or an unaware person flashed a kernel without the fix. In other words, the custom software wouldn't really kill the phone... but it would not be preventing it from killing itself
(of course the same applies to simply not updating your phone)
I still think warranty for hardware issues shouldn't be voided if one uses custom software (so please don't kill me), but I guess in this case the manufactures side is understandable as well...
PS: what the SDS issue also shows is the awesomeness of an open platform like android, so Samsung is forced to share their kernel code (hence the fix) with us
Unless you live in the EU, then you can argue your case.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
Unless Samsung engineer a problem if you flash custom ROMs then only problems that can be directly caused by a custom ROM or kernel is overheating from over clocking.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
EU "warranty" clarification
blazevxi said:
Unless you live in the EU, then you can argue your case.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know this EU "law" (1999/44/EC, to be specific) is referenced quite often around here, but I think it is way overrated and it does not offer as much protection as many people around here seem to think.
First of all, it is not an act you can point to when making your legal case, it is just a directive. A directive is the EUs way of telling its member states to adjust their national law according to the guidelines given by the directive. So national law is likely to be similar to the directive, but the details might vary. In other words, the directive dictates minimal standards for national law, but the specifics are up to the member states.
Also there is no guarantee that every state adapted the directive appropriately. There are some examples where member states refused to do it, were to incompetent to do it properly... or just to slow. Think about the telecommunication data preservation stuff, there are still member states who refuse to implement those directives.
Bottom line: EU directives are worthless, if your country hasn't implemented them yet.
Second point: the EU directive isn't as consumer friendly as many people seem to think.
For starters, it means nothing to manufactures. Samsung does not have to care about it, because it applies to _sellers_, not to manufactures. It says sellers have to provide fault-free products. If they fail to do so, and it gets discovered within two years, they have to refund you. Sounds good, right? Well, there are some drawbacks.
The before-mentioned only applies to faults that have been present at the time of purchase. The implication is, that the consumer will always say, the problem is due to production faults, the seller will always assume the contrary. The catch is, neither of them can prove their point without spending loads of money.
This problem is addressed by the directive in article 5, paragraph 3:
Unless proved otherwise, any lack of conformity which
becomes apparent within six months of delivery of the goods
shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery unless
this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods
or the nature of the lack of conformity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
(Source)
So for the first six month you are covered, because if you haven't obviously damaged your device yourself, the seller can't proof it is your fault.
But after that six month, you are pretty much screwed! The directive doesn't get specific on who has to prove what in that case, but because it specifically says the seller needs to provide proof in the first six month, it can be argued that the buyer got the burden of proof afterwards.
This is a perfect example of an issue that should be clarified by national law, when adapting an EU directive (doesn't mean it actually does).
In case of my country (Germany) it got clarified: reversal of the burden of proof after six month
And I think it is a reasonable assumption that it was done in a similar way in other countries, since the directive allows this interpretation and the seller lobbies sure did everything they can to make it that way.
So if your national law doesn't say otherwise, you should assume you only got six month of effective protection.
To sum up: if your government implemented the directive, you are most likely covered for six month, through your seller, not the manufacturer!
So everybody living in the EU (and everybody else who is jealous about this "magical EU law"), please understand: it means almost nothing compared to the warranty given by the manufacturer, which is usually longer and more extensive (around here we usually get 2 years for electronic devices, but that is voluntarily done by the manufactures, they are not forced to).
So the whole thing is pretty much only valuable for people living in EU states where manufactures would normally offer warranties shorter than six month. For everybody else, it is worthless.
Disclaimer: This is just my layman view on the topic, I'm no lawyer or something. Also I'm not too familiar with legal terms in English, so some stuff might be lost in translation. If somebody thinks I got it wrong, please correct me
PS: although the EU directive wouldn't help you legally, it might be worse a try to tell a seller, who is refusing refund, about it... apparently a lot of stores don't know about it... and some surrendered when threatened with "EU law".
Through my cellphone company I pay like 4 euros a month for an extended warranty that covers my broken phone even if it is rooted as long as the problem wasnt caused by the root. Not sure if you can get the same.
Zylian91 said:
Through my cellphone company I pay like 4 euros a month for an extended warranty that covers my broken phone even if it is rooted as long as the problem wasnt caused by the root. Not sure if you can get the same.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
do they specifically say they cover phones that have been tampered with software-wise? Oo
odoto said:
do they specifically say they cover phones that have been tampered with software-wise? Oo
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In my case the policy says: (between other funny wording): accidental damage, water damage etc.
Therefore, I personally will play same fair game as the sellers and/or manufacturers: if my I9300 would have SDS, semi-death (with download mode available only, showing perfectly that I'm on custom), then, I will "accidentally" will forget to remove the phone from driveaway while taking back with my JAG, or, alternatively, I will give my fishes brilliant opportunity to call Nemo.
First, there is nothing common with the warranty, they will just replace it or repair.
I have no idea about the lobbies in EU, and in my country, bu I always adjust my honesty to the second side of discussion.
O, did I mention that this is an add-on to my bank account, and I have the right to claim twice per year for the phone priced up to approx 1000EUR?
But, going back to the topic, EU law is binding in all EU countries. Furthermore, Samsung can put in the warranty the statement that: inserting the battery will void warranty. But - they HAVE to write as well: above does not affects your statutory rights.
And, they have to honor these rights. therefore if the country law states that the equipment is covered for 4 years - the seller will have to follow that.
spamtrash said:
In my case the policy says: (between other funny wording): accidental damage, water damage etc.
Therefore, I personally will play same fair game as the sellers and/or manufacturers: if my I9300 would have SDS, semi-death (with download mode available only, showing perfectly that I'm on custom), then, I will "accidentally" will forget to remove the phone from driveaway while taking back with my JAG, or, alternatively, I will give my fishes brilliant opportunity to call Nemo.
First, there is nothing common with the warranty, they will just replace it or repair.
I have no idea about the lobbies in EU, and in my country, bu I always adjust my honesty to the second side of discussion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well, I wouldn't call it "same fair game" or "adjusted honesty", I'd simply call it insurance fraud, payed for by honest customers. It has nothing to do with getting back at Samsung or the vendor...
spamtrash said:
But, going back to the topic, EU law is binding in all EU countries. Furthermore, Samsung can put in the warranty the statement that: inserting the battery will void warranty. But - they HAVE to write as well: above does not affects your statutory rights.
And, they have to honor these rights. therefore if the country law states that the equipment is covered for 4 years - the seller will have to follow that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
regarding the EU directive in question Samsung can do whatever they want, since it applies to _sellers_, not to manufacturers
odoto said:
well, I wouldn't call it "same fair game" or "adjusted honesty", I'd simply call it insurance fraud, payed for by honest customers. It has nothing to do with getting back at Samsung or the vendor...
regarding the EU directive in question Samsung can do whatever they want, since it applies to _sellers_, not to manufacturers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK then, let's use same measure, and please explain to me what is the difference between (as you was keen to say) insurance fraud, and the warranty fraud by rooting the phone?
sorry, but in my insurance policy there is no such wording like: "except from intentional damage", where in the warranty it is clearly stated.
and of course this is contrary to your assumption from post #1, where you are mentioning custom roms, kernels etc. Wrong. If you have rooted the phone, your warranty is void, period.
If you're trying to hide it, it is a fraud, isn't it?
I definitely agree that Samsung have nothing to do with the phone. The purchase contract was made between the customer and the seller, therefore, seller is fully responsible for any equipment faults over the warranty period (which is much longer in UK, by the way).
spamtrash said:
OK then, let's use same measure, and please explain to me what is the difference between (as you was keen to say) insurance fraud, and the warranty fraud by rooting the phone?
sorry, but in my insurance policy there is no such wording like: "except from intentional damage", where in the warranty it is clearly stated.
and of course this is contrary to your assumption from post #1, where you are mentioning custom roms, kernels etc. Wrong. If you have rooted the phone, your warranty is void, period.
If you're trying to hide it, it is a fraud, isn't it?
I definitely agree that Samsung have nothing to do with the phone. The purchase contract was made between the customer and the seller, therefore, seller is fully responsible for any equipment faults over the warranty period (which is much longer in UK, by the way).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to say I partially agree. Handing in your phone for warranty, although you know you did something that definitely voided the warranty, could be named fraud as well. But I would argue that it is "more okay" than insurance fraud in some way. In case you knowingly killed your phone yourself (lets say you opened it up and intentionally damaged a component), you are a "bad person" if you try to get it repaired under warranty. BUT in case your rooted phone died because the manufacturer screwed up, like with the SDS, you are free to hand it in for warranty in my opinion.
The difference I see is, that in case of a rooted phone your warranty is voided by a technicality that is far from reality. IF the damage done isn't related to you installing custom software, you would be covered otherwise. The problem is that the warranty does not distinguished between cases where root/custom software was the problem and those where it wasn't. Arguably it just isn't possible do to that, or it is just to expensive to trace whether software was the problem or not.
So trying to get warranty despite that is okay in my eyes, because it is trying to "right" a "wrong".
Insurance on the other hand is not, you can't argue you are getting back at Samsung or the place where you bought the phone by getting money from the insurance company you don't deserve. It is not hurting Samsung or the vendors, but other people who need that insurance.
(And in case the vendor sold the insurance to you as well: still not hurting the vendor, they usually just sell insurance contracts of third-party insurance companies)
Damn, didn't mean to get into a lengthy discussion about insurance fraud
odoto said:
I have to say I partially agree. Handing in your phone for warranty, although you know you did something that definitely voided the warranty, could be named fraud as well. But I would argue that it is "more okay" than insurance fraud in some way. In case you knowingly killed your phone yourself (lets say you opened it up and intentionally damaged a component), you are a "bad person" if you try to get it repaired under warranty. BUT in case your rooted phone died because the manufacturer screwed up, like with the SDS, you are free to hand it in for warranty in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why? You shall NOT ROOT your phone, if you want to be honest. and, if anyone would have a residual amount of so-called honesty, after rooting - no one should even think about giving the phone to the service for warranty repair, period.
By the comparison: if you have used your TV set as the rain protection while on camp, I'd say that it would be not very honest to claim 3 dead pixels, huh?
And, you have presumably completely wrong info how the insurance works... read it, and then discuss (a tip: if I pay for the bank account which includes the insurance, if I put my moneys into the bank's account - guess who's paying for the insurance).
Contrary to above, it is sure that as Samsung's solely income is (in this case) by selling SGS's. Therefore, using your own argumentation, it is easily found that for any fraudulently rooted phone repair under the warranty - ALL buyers have to pay, because it is included in the purchase cost, which is paid by mass of the honest users, which even do not know about the phone's rooting possibility and consequences.
Of course, the above will be true unless you are not so naive to believe that Samsung did not included the repairs of some percentage of phones into this price.
Maybe are you thought that any warranty repair decreases the net Samsung's income? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
spamtrash said:
By the comparison: if you have used your TV set as the rain protection while on camp, I'd say that it would be not very honest to claim 3 dead pixels, huh?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course not, because the rain (which is your fault... well, not the rain itself, but the exposure) did kill the device, not the dead pixels. But in case of a rooted phone that died because of a hardware issue, the manufacturer is the one who screwed up, regardless of the software changes you did. If a device dies because of pre-existing hardware issues, what is the difference between custom rom and stock from the manufactures perspective?
spamtrash said:
And, you have presumably completely wrong info how the insurance works... read it, and then discuss (a tip: if I pay for the bank account which includes the insurance, if I put my moneys into the bank's account - guess who's paying for the insurance).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree I don't know for sure how your specific insurance works (how would I?), but I know how those normally work. It usually works like that: some company wants to offer their customers an additional insurance. But they don't have the knowledge to do it themselves, after all they are not an insurance company. So they delegate it to one. They pay the insurance company a fee for every device sold (or some sort of flat fee if it is not device-bound). In return the insurance company is liable for repair/replacement costs if the customer kills his phone. And if people are abusing that insurance, the insurance company has to increase the fees (obviously they don't wanna loose money). So the company who is paying that fee also has to increase prices for their consumers, because they don't wanna loose money as well.
So at the and all customers are paying for it. It always works like that, no company wants to loose money.
spamtrash said:
Contrary to above, it is sure that as Samsung's solely income is (in this case) by selling SGS's. Therefore, using your own argumentation, it is easily found that for any fraudulently rooted phone repair under the warranty - ALL buyers have to pay, because it is included in the purchase cost, which is paid by mass of the honest users, which even do not know about the phone's rooting possibility and consequences.
Of course, the above will be true unless you are not so naive to believe that Samsung did not included the repairs of some percentage of phones into this price.
Maybe are you thought that any warranty repair decreases the net Samsung's income? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, of course. Like I described above the customers are always paying in the end (or switching to a different company).
BUT Samsungs repair costs are not higher because of rooting/custom software. If nobody would modify the software, Samsung would even have higher repair costs, because in that case they would have to pay for all repairs. If a portion of the repairs can be denied for whatever reason, they save money.
So the fact that some people modify the software does not add to Samsungs repair costs (except for the really rare cases where people actually fry there phone by overclocking all the way to the moon and back), but they still void there warranties, thus saving money.
But they are only saving that money by discriminating against custom software users, for no reason.
So it is not like all customers have to pay more because of custom software users claiming warranty. The contrary is true: at the moment all "normal" users are saving money due to custom rom users, because those get there warranty voided for no factual reason.
Of course Samsung (and other manufactures) state that there is a reason, that they would have higher repair costs because of custom software users. But I think that is a groundless claim, just made to safe money or because of missing knowledge. (I'm talking _hardware_ warranty here! Of course they would have higher costs if they would fix phones where people messed up the software). So because of the unfounded fear of manufactures that custom software users will kill lots of their devices, we get denied rights that all other users have. I'd call that discrimination.
Just curious, now that we know what's causing the problem, is there a way to trigger a brick on my phone *immediately* and have them replace it with an updated motherboard while it is still in warranty… rather than to have a ticking time bomb that may or may not go off and can potentially still fail just outside of warranty?
Will a zero wipe on /emmc do?
wshyang said:
Just curious, now that we know what's causing the problem, is there a way to trigger a brick on my phone *immediately* and have them replace it with an updated motherboard while it is still in warranty… rather than to have a ticking time bomb that may or may not go off and can potentially still fail just outside of warranty?
Will a zero wipe on /emmc do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try hard bricking it, It can't be hard, purposely disconnect the cable when a PIT flash operation is in progress?
Off course I would rather take a chance that it may not break for MONTHS instead of it breaking and Samsung may not replace it.
wshyang said:
Just curious, now that we know what's causing the problem, is there a way to trigger a brick on my phone *immediately* and have them replace it with an updated motherboard while it is still in warranty… rather than to have a ticking time bomb that may or may not go off and can potentially still fail just outside of warranty?
Will a zero wipe on /emmc do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. we have an idea what subsystem is likely causing the problem... that's all.
2. you _might_ be able to advance faster towards triggering the bug by doing a lot of write ops, but that is just a guess (and certainly not immediately)
3. chances are good your phone can live a long and happy life with a fixed firmware, even if it got the buggy chip
4. you would risk getting another mainboard with an affected chip...
5. there is always a risk of Samsung not accepting your claim (happened to some people here)
6. if your phone doesn't encounter SDS within a 2 year warranty period, it probably never will
7. don't do it! your would risk ending up without a phone now, to avoid a small risk of loosing your phone somewhere in the future. if you can't stand having a phone that might brick (what I understand), sell your phone (or get a refund if you still can)
wshyang said:
Just curious, now that we know what's causing the problem, is there a way to trigger a brick on my phone *immediately* and have them replace it with an updated motherboard while it is still in warranty… rather than to have a ticking time bomb that may or may not go off and can potentially still fail just outside of warranty?
Will a zero wipe on /emmc do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try it ... and let us know :laugh:
More seriously : thanks to odoto for this thread and for information on EU "law" limitations ..
philgalaxs3 said:
More seriously : thanks to odoto for this thread and EU "law" limitation ..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know what you you meant, but that sounds almost like the EU law limitations are my fault
odoto said:
I know what you you meant, but that sounds almost like the EU law limitations are my fault
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Corrected , hope that sounds better. Sorry for my poor english .... und danke sehr :good:
AW: some thoughts on warranty, custom roms and SDS
I just thought it was funny
And your English seems totally okay, no worries
odoto said:
Of course not, because the rain (which is your fault... well, not the rain itself, but the exposure) did kill the device, not the dead pixels. But in case of a rooted phone that died because of a hardware issue, the manufacturer is the one who screwed up, regardless of the software changes you did. If a device dies because of pre-existing hardware issues, what is the difference between custom rom and stock from the manufactures perspective?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very simple. Please write here procedure for overclocking without the root, and I will tell that you're right immediately.
odoto said:
I agree I don't know for sure how your specific insurance works (how would I?), but I know how those normally work. It usually works like that: some company wants to offer their customers an additional insurance. But they don't have the knowledge to do it themselves, after all they are not an insurance company. So they delegate it to one. They pay the insurance company a fee for every device sold (or some sort of flat fee if it is not device-bound). In return the insurance company is liable for repair/replacement costs if the customer kills his phone. And if people are abusing that insurance, the insurance company has to increase the fees (obviously they don't wanna loose money). So the company who is paying that fee also has to increase prices for their consumers, because they don't wanna loose money as well.
So at the and all customers are paying for it. It always works like that, no company wants to loose money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So what is the difference between the warranty?
odoto said:
True, of course. Like I described above the customers are always paying in the end (or switching to a different company).
BUT Samsungs repair costs are not higher because of rooting/custom software. If nobody would modify the software, Samsung would even have higher repair costs, because in that case they would have to pay for all repairs. If a portion of the repairs can be denied for whatever reason, they save money.
So the fact that some people modify the software does not add to Samsungs repair costs (except for the really rare cases where people actually fry there phone by overclocking all the way to the moon and back), but they still void there warranties, thus saving money.
But they are only saving that money by discriminating against custom software users, for no reason.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It seems that you did not understood the rules at all. Therefore, just short comparison:
INSURANCE: someone is paying additionally to the price of unit to be covered against unintentional, caused by lack of care, or ANY OTHER DAMAGES, unconditionally.
WARRANTY: You are purchasing the Unit for a price, in which the free repair is covered conditionally, if you are obeying the T&Cs of warranty. It is your choice if you will, but, INTENTIONAL void of the warranty by rooting and then trying to hide it is a fraud.
Comparing to the cars, you can have comprehensive insurance, yes? This is your free will to buy it. and, you have the car warranty. If you are honest, would you claim the corrosion caused by driving your car on a seaside on the background of warranty or insurance? Looking at your posts, you probably would call the insurer aproach a fraud, same time cleaning mud, alga and fishes and shouting that your car never has been contacted with salt water and this ugly dealer have to repair it under the warranty.
Once again, this is your choice: apply warranty T&C's and then claim on base of such, or buy the additional insurance and do whatever you want.
odoto said:
So it is not like all customers have to pay more because of custom software users claiming warranty. The contrary is true: at the moment all "normal" users are saving money due to custom rom users, because those get there warranty voided for no factual reason.
Of course Samsung (and other manufactures) state that there is a reason, that they would have higher repair costs because of custom software users. But I think that is a groundless claim, just made to safe money or because of missing knowledge. (I'm talking _hardware_ warranty here! Of course they would have higher costs if they would fix phones where people messed up the software). So because of the unfounded fear of manufactures that custom software users will kill lots of their devices, we get denied rights that all other users have. I'd call that discrimination.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Once again: please give me an example of overclocking without the root, first.
Secondly, you have of course the right to disagree with the T&Cs of warranty. It is very simple: do not buy the product, which is related with unacceptable by you warranty terms. You have even wider choiche: you can buy it and you have the free will to ignore T&C's. The fraud starts when you're voiding knowingly these T&C's, and then you are trying to use (violated by you) warranty.
Third, of course you can call it discrimination, but the manufacturer and seller has right to set the purpose of the device. This is not discrimination, but the AGREEMENT between the customer and seller/manufacturer. Same way you will most likely call discrimination the fact that most of manufacturers are putting the water damage indicators to their devices. (Funny thing by the way, years ago it was no such things in phones. But amount of people like you, who submerged their units into water and then claimed it under the warranty - enforced the manufacturers to do it).
As I said above, your screams are like: I have bought a BMW, then I tried to reach my friend in a yacht in the middle of harbor in it, but it become rusty in result, therefore I need it repaired under warranty.
Finally, I think that you should read the Chainfire's statement related to it on his portal.
Today's smartphones are as good as PCs. Does using root on computers void warranty? No!
Using root should/must not void warranty on Smartphones too.
Does rooting your device (e.g. an Android phone) and replacing its operating system with something else void your statutory warranty, if you are a consumer?
In short:
No.
Just the fact that you modified or changed the software of your device, is not a sufficient reason to void your statutory warranty. As long as you have bought the device as a consumer in the European Union.
A bit longer:
Directive 1999/44/CE dictates1 that any object meeting certain criteria (incl. telephones, computers, routers etc.) that is sold to a consumer2. inside the European Union, has to carry a warranty from the seller that the device will meet the quality that you would expect for such a device for a period of 2 years.
A telephone is an example of such a device and is an object that comprises many parts, from the case to the screen to the radio, to a mini-computer, to the battery, to the software that runs it. If any of these parts3 stop working in those 2 years, the seller has to fix or replace them. What is more these repairs should not cost the consumer a single cent — the seller has to cover the expenses (Directive 1999/44/CE, §3). If the seller has any expenses for returning it to the manufacturer, this is not your problem as a consumer.
If your device becomes defective in the first 6 months, it is presumed that the defect was there all along, so you should not need to prove anything.
If your device becomes defective after the first 6 months, but before 2 years run out, you are still covered. The difference is only that if the defect arises now, the seller can claim that the defect was caused by some action that was triggered by non-normal use of the device4. But in order to avoid needing to repair or replace your device, the seller has to prove that your action caused5 the defect. It is generally recognised by courts that unless there is a sign of abuse of the device, the defect is there because the device was faulty from the beginning. That is just common sense, after all.
So, we finally come to the question of rooting, flashing and changing the software. Unless the seller can prove that modifying the software, rooting your device or flashing it with some other OS or firmware was the cause for the defect, you are still covered for defects during those 2 years. A good test to see if it is the software’s fault is to flash it back with stock firmware/OS and see if the problem persists. If it does, it is not a software-caused problem. If it is not possible to revert it stock software any more, it is also not a software-caused defect. There are very few hardware defects that are caused by software — e.g. overriding the speaker volume above the safe level could blow the speaker.
Many manufacturers of consumer devices write into their warranties a paragraph that by changing the software or “rooting” your device, you void the warranty. You have to understand that in EU we have a “statutory warranty”, which is compulsory that the seller must offer by law (Directive 1999/44/CE, §7.1) and a “voluntary warranty” which the seller or manufacturer can, but does not need to, offer as an additional service to the consumer. Usually the “voluntary warranty” covers a longer period of time or additional accidents not covered by law6. If though the seller, the manufacturer or anyone else offers a “voluntary warranty”, he is bound to it as well!
So, even if, by any chance your “voluntary warranty” got voided, by European law, you should still have the 2 year “compulsory warranty” as it is described in the Directive and which is the topic of this article.
In case the seller refuses your right to repair or replace the device, you can sue him in a civil litigation and can report the incident to the national authority. In many European countries such action does not even require hiring a lawyer and is most of the time ensured by consumers associations.
The warranty under this Directive is only applicable inside the European Union and only if you bought the device as a consumer.
[1] EU member states must have by now imported the Directive 1999/44/CE into their national laws. So you should quote also your local law on that topic.
[2] A consumer is a natural person who acts for their own private purposes and not as a professional. .
[3] Batteries can be exempt of this and usually hold only 6 months warranty.
[4] E.g. a defect power button could be caused by spreading marmalade in it or hooking it onto a robot that would continuously press the button every second 24/7 — of course that is not normal or intended use.
[5] Note that correlation is not causation — the defect has to be proven to be caused by your action, not just correlate with it.
[6] E.g. if a device manufacturer guarantees the phone is water- and shock-proof or a car manufacturer offers 7 years of warranty against rust.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source : https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/legal/flashingdevices.en.html
Should've gone in the general section mate, good info though.
tuxonhtc said:
Should've gone in the general section mate, good info though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I couldn't decide. I thought that it was a trouble for us
Can mods move this thread to the General Section please?
Just noticed this post when i was updating a friends note 2 and rooting in the EU does not void your warranty. This is general knowledge and good to be in the EU
It voids warranty bcuz u can accidentally brick it and that would be ur fault not thiers.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda app-developers app
Good info but thread needs to be moved to general info request a mod to move this thread
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda premium
mezo91 said:
It voids warranty bcuz u can accidentally brick it and that would be ur fault not thiers.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How will rooting your phone brick it??
Unless the seller can prove that modifying the software, rooting your device or flashing it with some other OS or firmware was the cause for the defect, you are still covered for defects during those 2 years. A good test to see if it is the software’s fault is to flash it back with stock firmware/OS and see if the problem persists. If it does, it is not a software-caused problem. If it is not possible to revert it stock software any more, it is also not a software-caused defect. There are very few hardware defects that are caused by software — e.g. overriding the speaker volume above the safe level could blow the speaker
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's just say these are saftey measures of a company.
You bought the phone for the hardware and software made by Samsung. It's a form of giving credit.
Experimenting with the phone outside of Samsung circumstances is your own decision.
Simone said:
Let's just say these are saftey measures of a company.
You bought the phone for the hardware and software made by Samsung. It's a form of giving credit.
Experimenting with the phone outside of Samsung circumstances is your own decision.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Completely irrelevant. The law is the law, and the law allows you to root in the EU without affecting any warranty.
FloatingFatMan said:
Completely irrelevant. The law is the law, and the law allows you to root in the EU without affecting any warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see.
irishpancake said:
How will rooting your phone brick it??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only "problem" with rooting is that it potentially allows dumb users to do dumb things - such as overclocking beyond the acceptable level for your processor, or flashing a radio from a completely different device.
Regards,
Dave
This is actually an awesome thing to know. Thanks, OP.
I never rooted or flashed my note 2 because I was afraid to lose my warranty and have to pay the repair or buy another phone if something unlucky happened. This one isn't cheap. But I always had the feeling that I was not taking real advantage of my note 2 and now I think I will. Again, thanks.
You shouldn't be too sure that your warranty wouldn't be void , i know many places where you won't get any warranty due to being rooted, don't take this to granted as its "not a law" its also carrier/reseller that makes these decissions. they probably know what your doing if your rooting (basically i know that they know that i know) but lets say i bought a phone and they told me that i wasn't able to "upgrade" to a newer firmware due to the warranty being void. again i wouldn't take this as granted that i would get my warranty. as of its not anything i can say its the law. its not only the law. its samsung/resellers decision not government law.
Regards
It comes down to whether the repair centre can prove that rooting is the cause of the problem. I.e if a fried cpu is the issue, and they find that the cpu is overclocked.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2
LastStandingDroid said:
You shouldn't be too sure that your warranty wouldn't be void , i know many places where you won't get any warranty due to being rooted, don't take this to granted as its "not a law" its also carrier/reseller that makes these decissions. they probably know what your doing if your rooting (basically i know that they know that i know) but lets say i bought a phone and they told me that i wasn't able to "upgrade" to a newer firmware due to the warranty being void. again i wouldn't take this as granted that i would get my warranty. as of its not anything i can say its the law. its not only the law. its samsung/resellers decision not government law.
Regards
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong. It IS the law, in Europe. Outside of there you're likely screwed, but in Europe, consumers are protected. If they try to deny your rights, you can sue them into oblivion and are guaranteed a win, with all costs covered.
FloatingFatMan said:
Wrong. It IS the law, in Europe. Outside of there you're likely screwed, but in Europe, consumers are protected. If they try to deny your rights, you can sue them into oblivion and are guaranteed a win, with all costs covered.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let me take my brothers Xcover to the reseller (it's constantly freezing and has been done so) even before rooted but I won't say it's rooted I let them in service center look at it and if they say it's not going on warranty I'm glad to get some money lol.
But it's not a law. Not every country may follow it. I know Sweeden is one of those who Suck at this.
But it gives me an idea
Sent from my official GT-I9505 powered with qualcom
LastStandingDroid said:
Let me take my brothers Xcover to the reseller (it's constantly freezing and has been done so) even before rooted but I won't say it's rooted I let them in service center look at it and if they say it's not going on warranty I'm glad to get some money lol.
But it's not a law. Not every country may follow it. I know Sweeden is one of those who Suck at this.
But it gives me an idea
Sent from my official GT-I9505 powered with qualcom
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your not thinking it's the law has no bearing at all on the law in the EU. If you're outside the EU. well, that's different.
LastStandingDroid said:
Let me take my brothers Xcover to the reseller (it's constantly freezing and has been done so) even before rooted but I won't say it's rooted I let them in service center look at it and if they say it's not going on warranty I'm glad to get some money lol.
But it's not a law. Not every country may follow it. I know Sweeden is one of those who Suck at this.
But it gives me an idea
Sent from my official GT-I9505 powered with qualcom
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sweden is in the EU, and as such they are required to follow EU law. I'm from Norway, which is not in the EU, and we still follow the same warranty regulations (they are actually even more lenient)
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2
Unfortunately I'm not in the EU.
In the past I went to the consumer court several times and I always won.
Even once I sued shoe company Nike and I got my money back even though I wore them for 2 months.
You must not forget!
Company's policy is not a law! They can't indicate anything to you that is not in the law. They cannot force you to obey their policies.
Company and you must obey the laws.
You have to be ready to fight against them on the customer court
You have to be well prepared. You must know the customer law.
And for the last, you have to be right. Do not waste your time for trying to get warranty for your liquid damaged device or broken screen
FloatingFatMan said:
Your not thinking it's the law has no bearing at all on the law in the EU. If you're outside the EU. well, that's different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
last time i checked sweden was in EU but i can see if i can get my phone which has warranty to see if they will fix it,
its rooted but the root isn't caused by rooting it (Manufucator fault) has been since we got it, but i've never heard anyone getting their phone fixed if they have root. idk i can try.
Hi all,
I know there are some people stuck with a dead Moto G that has an unlocked bootloader and the shop where they bought it unwilling to accept the responsibility to honor warranty claims. I just received confirmation from a large online retailer - Bol.com that they are honoring my warranty claim for precisely this issue.
The defect was that the phone would not power up anymore at all; similar to a couple of cases I have read about on these forums. Important: the phone went dead within 6 months of the purchase.
The way I managed them to honor their obligations was to contact thuiswinkel-waarborg and file a complaint.
In this complaint I made sure to point out that warranty was declined without providing proof that unlocking the phone had been the cause of the defect. Since the burden of proof lies with the seller within the first 6 months, they were in breach of the regulations from thuiswinkel-waarborg by refusing the warranty claim in this manner.
The seller tried to convince the hardware service center to fix the phone under warranty but was unsuccesful. Too bad for the seller, but this is the risk they take on themselves; this has no impact on the rights to warranty that the customer has (at least in Europe)
Personally I opted to receive a full refund since during the several weeks it took to convince them I am right I got another phone. My next phone will be from a manufacturer that does not void warranty when unlocking/rooting since I can't be bothered with going through these discussions every time a phone dies (which they seem to keep doing all the time these days)
If you have further questions including details about the email and phone conversations I had with the seller please send me a PM.
Especially if you bought your phone at Bol.com you may be interested in a referral to my warranty case, in order to strengthen your own warranty claim. I will do all I can to help out any of you who are stuck in the same position and have not given up on getting compensated, as the law requires.
Cheers,
Sandor
Poor seller. He should sue motorola for exchanging the unit and/or refund full amount. That seller would never sell another motorola phone cause of this. Not a good business practice for motorola.
Semseddin said:
Poor seller. He should sue motorola for exchanging the unit and/or refund full amount. That seller would never sell another motorola phone cause of this. Not a good business practice for motorola.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, Bol.com is a giant online retailer that makes enormous amounts of profit.
They will keep selling products from manufacturers that refuse to honor warranty claims since the bottom line will still be positive for them.
In the end, a large portion of consumers so affected will never learn about their rights and simply accept their loss.
Also, there is no reason to believe that they will change their warranty policy concerning this issue either.
This means that for those who *do* know that their consumer rights are being violated they'll have to go through the same lengthy email/phone conversations I have had to endure. Hopefully, using my method and referring to my case will help smooth-en this process a bit.
As far as bad business practice is concerned; as a consumer i only care about my relationship with the reseller; it will take some time before I will start ordering goods from Bol.com again, since they made this warrantly claim such a painful experience for me. Motorola can do whatever they want in their business practices; it is not of my concern. I do care about the quality of their products however, and since they seem to be under par, i will not buy Motorola products again in the future.
I had recently rooted my moto g5 plus and due to battery issues had to relock the bootloader before taking it to the service center.
After examining the device, the service center asked me if it was rooted earlier to which I replied Yes and then they told me that the device has void its warranty since the device was rooted.
Now that I had relocked the bootloader, can I not claim the device warranty now?
Please show me a direction here.
22sumit said:
I had recently rooted my moto g5 plus and due to battery issues had to relock the bootloader before taking it to the service center.
After examining the device, the service center asked me if it was rooted earlier to which I replied Yes and then they told me that the device has void its warranty since the device was rooted.
Now that I had relocked the bootloader, can I not claim the device warranty now?
Please show me a direction here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think you can get your warranty back. Some say that once you issue an unlock code, your warranty gets void even if you use the code to unlock bootloader or not. I do hope that you get your warranty back and get your phone fixed. Anyways, you could've just told them that it wasn't rooted
psychopac said:
I don't think you can get your warranty back. Some say that once you issue an unlock code, your warranty gets void even if you use the code to unlock bootloader or not. I do hope that you get your warranty back and get your phone fixed. Anyways, you could've just told them that it wasn't rooted
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My bad, I couldn't lie it to them coz they had evidence that the bootloader was unlocked earlier.
22sumit said:
My bad, I couldn't lie it to them coz they had evidence that the bootloader was unlocked earlier.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Was it locked when you gave the phone to them?
I remember I had a Moto E2 which was running a custom ROM and the phone was in warranty and when it's speaker started going bonkers, I just flashed the fastboot ROM and locked the bootloader (I think so) and took it to service center and they fixed it for free. Actually, the speaker grill had accumulated some dust and that was interfering with the sound output so they opened the phone and cleaned the speaker.
psychopac said:
Was it locked when you gave the phone to them?
I remember I had a Moto E2 which was running a custom ROM and the phone was in warranty and when it's speaker started going bonkers, I just flashed the fastboot ROM and locked the bootloader (I think so) and took it to service center and they fixed it for free. Actually, the speaker grill had accumulated some dust and that was interfering with the sound output so they opened the phone and cleaned the speaker.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes relocked it last night and flashed the stock fastboot images as well.
First they did the same in the holy name of software update and then finally giving up to the final conclusion that the battery needed replacement. I left the mobile with them until they told me on call that they'll be charging Rs 1500 for the replacement since the device was rooted. Sometimes even I think that had I lied to them, they might had considered replacing it at no extra cost.
22sumit said:
Yes relocked it last night and flashed the stock fastboot images as well.
First they did the same in the holy name of software update and then finally giving up to the final conclusion that the battery needed replacement. I left the mobile with them until they told me on call that they'll be charging Rs 1500 for the replacement since the device was rooted. Sometimes even I think that had I lied to them, they might had considered replacing it at no extra cost.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wonder what would changing the battery has to do with a fault on the screen?
psychopac said:
I wonder what would changing the battery has to do with a fault on the screen?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's actually a battery issue
I don't think you understand... you VOLUNTARILY gave up your warranty when the unlock code was issued, regardless of whether you actually unlocked the bootloader or not. You cannot "get your warranty back" in any way. Did you not read ANY of the multiple warnings when you unlocked your phone, it is presented very clearly at least 3 times before you actually commit to getting the code.
It depends on the country you live in. A company can't get you to accept something like that and make you give up a right given to you by law. Check your local consumer laws, you might still be able to get it fixed under warranty.
I know that in the EU, Australia, New Zealand etc a company cannot waive the rights of a user under the local consumer laws by just getting you to accept some stupid disclaimer.
syl0n said:
It depends on the country you live in. A company can't get you to accept something like that and make you give up a right given to you by law. Check your local consumer laws, you might still be able to get it fixed under warranty.
I know that in the EU, Australia, New Zealand etc a company cannot waive the rights of a user under the local consumer laws by just getting you to accept some stupid disclaimer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most EU countries that is partially true, depending on your country, I will elaborate in a second... I was unaware there were similar laws in Australia or New Zealand...
The situation is quite complicated, at least in Germany, but most likely this applies to most EU countries. There are two different types of warranty. First, the manufacturer warranty / express warranty (Garantie), which is entirely voluntary and the manufacturer dictates its terms. Second, there is the implied warranty (Gewährleistung), which is regulated by law and exercised by the seller.
Under express warranty, manufacturers can decline any repairs easily because of unlocking, and they do that of course. However, under implied warranty, that isn't easily possible. In Germany, in the first 6 months after you buy the device, the seller has to prove that a fault is your own doing. Which is really hard, so you should be good to go even with unlocked bootloader. After the first 6 months, it is the opposite, you have to prove that a defect wasn't caused by you, which is again, really hard.
So in the first 6 months after you've bought the phone you should be fine, but after that, it will be problematic to say the least. Again, this is true for Germany, it might be a bit different in other EU countries.
There are any number of discussions on this topic on Reddit, Lenovo's Official Forums, here and other forums, and although some people seem to get around the Motorola/Lenovo statements, the vast majority don't, even in countries with laws to subjugate this practice. A little Googling will confirm that. Whatever Moto, and other manufacturers with similar policies are doing, in general they are not honoring warranties after bootloader unlocking.
The reality is a lot worse than the pretty picture the politicians give us about the laws that supposedly protect consumers.
22sumit said:
I had recently rooted my moto g5 plus and due to battery issues had to relock the bootloader before taking it to the service center.
After examining the device, the service center asked me if it was rooted earlier to which I replied Yes and then they told me that the device has void its warranty since the device was rooted.
Now that I had relocked the bootloader, can I not claim the device warranty now?
Please show me a direction here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Once you unlock the bootloader, your warranty is void. It doesn't matter if you relock it. Because you have to request an unlock code from Motorola, that big long agreement you have to accept when you request the code basically tells you that you're voiding your warranty the moment you click "accept", whether you actually use the code and unlock the bootloader or not. Just asking for the code is all it takes.
That's something you need to come to terms with if you're going to use custom ROMs, or root your device. I always wait a month or two to make sure my phone doesn't have any defects before I mess with ROMs, and I research devices before buying them to see what kind of issues they may be prone to in the first 12 months.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, bud.
Sent from my XT1687 using XDA Labs
from the unlock code page https://motorola-global-portal.custhelp.com/app/standalone/bootloader/unlock-your-device-b :
As used in this Legal Agreement and Warning, the term "Unlocked Device" means a Device for which an Unlock Code has been obtained, regardless of whether such Device's bootloader has actually been unlocked, relocked or whether such Device's software or operating system has been modified or whether it's original, unmodified software or operating system has been reloaded. In other words, once a Device's Unlock Code has been released by Motorola to User, the Device shall thereafter, for all intents and purposes, be deemed to be an Unlocked Device, irrespective of whether it was, in fact, unlocked or modified.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
(5) THE FOLLOWING APPLIES TO ALL UNLOCKED DEVICES EXCEPT FOR DEVELOPER EDITION DEVICES. BY OBTAINING THE UNLOCK CODE FOR THIS DEVICE, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE DEVICE'S BOOTLOADER IS SUBSEQUENTLY UNLOCKED OR ITS SOFTWARE OR OPERATING SYSTEM IS MODIFIED, USER AGREES TO WAIVE AND VOID ALL WARRANTIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY MOTOROLA, BOTH EXPRESS AND IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY WRITTEN WARRANTY THAT ACCOMPANIED THE DEVICE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OR DELIVERY, AND AGREES THAT ANY RIGHTS OR REMEDIES PROVIDED BY SUCH A WARRANTY ARE NULL AND VOID. MOTOROLA MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND AND DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF EVERY KIND, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE IN CONNECTION WITH AN UNLOCKED DEVICE. USER ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT ALL SUCH WARRANTIES ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED AND THAT ALL UNLOCKED DEVICES ARE PROVIDED "AS IS," WITH NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just got a used/refurb G5 Plus in the mail yesterday - it still has warranty thru 06/2018. ($145 from B&H, for the 4GB/64GB version!)
All right, time to "ROM it up!". Read unlock/root directions. get oem unlock data from fastboot, go to the motorola unlock code page:
I sat there, on the unlock code page for about 6 minutes, reading and re-reading that. I've decided not to unlock for now. It's not often that I have a phone under warranty (I've almost always had used phones, etc), so i think i will try to see how well I can get along with stock ROM for a change.
Thankfully, I see very little variance away from AOSP.
This will be a major challenge, for me, to see how long I can stay stock and unrooted. Hopefully, I can make it to the 8.0 OTA.
But, the point is - I read the stuff and took time to think and make an informed decision.
well... in my city, those service center guys are dumb, I mean really dumb;
I had some problem with my bootloader unlocked device, they just checked the bill and repaired the phone for free lol
siddhesh9146 said:
well... in my city, those service center guys are dumb, I mean really dumb;
I had some problem with my bootloader unlocked device, they just checked the bill and repaired the phone for free lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
North America and Europe don't have "service centers"... We have to send them into corporate repair center to get fixed, there is no walk-in service, which requires an RMA be issued and we get stopped right there.
Honestly, your service center isn't helping... When they do repairs on a device like this, they later submit the repair to Moto/Lenovo for reimbursement and they don't get paid because the IMEI is flagged. Sure, you got your device fixed, but your neighbors paid for it, not Moto.
acejavelin said:
North America and Europe don't have "service centers"... We have to send them into corporate repair center to get fixed, there is no walk-in service, which requires an RMA be issued and we get stopped right there.
Honestly, your service center isn't helping... When they do repairs on a device like this, they later submit the repair to Moto/Lenovo for reimbursement and they don't get paid because the IMEI is flagged. Sure, you got your device fixed, but your neighbors paid for it, not Moto.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wdym by neighbors? you mean those guys in service center took the loss by this ^above???