
Australian regulator alleges Apple misled iPad/iPhone users over consumer rights - richardboegli
https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-takes-action-against-apple-over-alleged-misleading-consumer-guarantee-representations
======
culturestate
If I try to look at this from Apple's side, I can sort of see the logic: the
problem stems from the OEM Touch ID sensor being replaced with a mismatched
(or entirely third party) sensor during a screen repair, which screws with the
hardware security chain on the device and generally makes it difficult to
troubleshoot problems even if they _seem_ unrelated.

This is an issue inherent in trying to apply consumer rights laws that were
written (or at least initially conceived) when the KitchenAid mixer was the
pinnacle of household technology to the age of smartphones.

As a consumer, I would love to have a better legal framework for situations
like this. As a guy who has manufactured and sold a mass market tech hardware
product, I have no idea how to realistically make that work.

~~~
gameshot911
My understanding from the article is that Apple might be able to refuse
service if they were to look at the device and determine the problem is caused
by the 3rd party sensor. What they _can 't_ do however is totally refuse
service based _solely_ on the fact that a 3rd party repair happened at all.

~~~
benchaney
That seems like it would run in to problems in practice. What if there is no
way to directly link 3rd party repair to malfunctions, but devices that had
undergone third party repair malfunctioned more frequently. On the one hand,
Apple shouldn't have to take on the burden of causing problems that were
caused by third party repair. On the other hand, some of the devices would
have malfunctioned anyway, and from the outside it appear like Apple is
refusing service solely because of a 3rd party repair.

~~~
spangry
The situation sounds remarkably similar to auto-manufacturers building cars
that can only be services by 'licensed technicians' (usually their dealer
network). I wonder if that is the bigger issue the ACCC has in mind (and is
trying to discourage): manufacturers who sell a product that creates a
subsequent and artificial 'captive market'.

~~~
axoltl
You bring up an interesting point. I'll let the actual car part be what it is
(I should totally be able to change a simple mechanical part on my car).
Instead, I'll ask the question if I should be able to swap out the LiDAR on my
(partially) self-driving car. There are complicated calibration steps needed
in order to ensure that the LiDAR is operating correctly and meets safety
standards.

If you replace safety critical (and in Apple's case, security critical)
functionality on your car and it causes bodily harm, who do you think is going
to end up in the news with a negative headline? Furthermore, should a car
manufacturer be able to implement measures to prevent this from happening?

~~~
greggman
Just thinking out loud but the car one seems solvable by moving the
responsibility for accidents. It starts with the manufacture and transfers to
the modifer. Although like above the issue gets complicated quickly since
modifying one thing might be unrelated to the accident.

I guess if it can be proven it was because of the mod then responsibility
should transfer to the modder.

~~~
rickycook
that's all well and good, but regardless of who is to blame, the headline will
likely read that the fault is with the manufacturer because it's more likely
to generate readers

~~~
brianwawok
We can't make laws to protect you from buzzfeed

~~~
adrianN
Again, Germany ingenuity does the impossible

[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-to-ban-fake-
news-...](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-to-ban-fake-
news-0wz2wcl55)

~~~
brianwawok
Banning fake news is different from banning something that could cause a news
story that would appear in fake news.

------
bbrian
In Ireland, there are no Apple stores but I've often been to the repair
section of the main retailer (chargers!) and their policy is obviously
deception. When there's a problem they ask is the device under warranty (one
year) and unless you're aware of your EU consumer rights, they won't tell you
and are hoping you'll walk away, the truth being:

"Under Irish consumer law, consumers are entitled to a free of charge repair
or replacement, discount or refund by the seller, of defective goods or goods
which do not conform with the contract of sale. These rights expire six years
from delivery of the goods." [1]

My other negative experience was when my iPhone 5 was covered under recalls
for the battery [2] and sleep/wake button [3], but Apple refused to fix it
without a full screen replacement, for a "crack" so small I hadn't even
noticed before sending it in for repair. It became a party piece of mine to
challenge people to find the crack.

[*] [http://imgur.com/a/6qtBi](http://imgur.com/a/6qtBi)

[1] [http://www.apple.com/ie/legal/statutory-
warranty/](http://www.apple.com/ie/legal/statutory-warranty/) [2]
[https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-will-replace-your-
defective-...](https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-will-replace-your-defective-
iphone-5-battery-for-free/) [3]
[https://www.apple.com/support/iphone5-sleepwakebutton/](https://www.apple.com/support/iphone5-sleepwakebutton/)

~~~
legulere
The Apple warranty is with Apple itself (and the authorized repairshops). The
EU warranty (2 years minimum, varies throughout countries) is with the seller
of the device.

I once had a defective SSD in a macbook air out of the 1 year apple warranty
period and in the 2 year EU mandated period. Bought on the Apple online shop.
There were warnings on the website that it might end up costing money and it
really seemed like apple was disliking the EU mandated warranty. I was sent
that evening to an authorized repair shop. There they told me that the repair
will take longer (up to a week) as the device does not have the 1 year
warranty anymore and needs to get cleared by Apple to get repaired. On the
next morning at around 8 AM I got a call that I can pick my device up.

~~~
gambiting
EU mandated warranty is not a warranty that people have in mind when they say
that word. EU barely mandates that the manufacturer has to replace/fix a
product which has _manufacturing_ faults up to 2 years after purchase(this
actually extends up to 6 years in some cases).

However, it's up to you to show that something is a manufacturing fault - an
incorrectly assembled iPhone case for example, you can expect Apple to fix
that within 6 years of buying the phone, and they can't say it's out of the
original 1 year warranty so they won't fix it. But if your phone dies 2 years
after buying it, they don't have to fix it by law, unless you can prove that
it died because of a manufacturing error.

~~~
LoSboccacc
almost spot on. the caveat you cite - that you have to demonstrate it's a
fault in manufacturing - is how they try to get away without replacing the
device.

however, to cover all bases, within the first six months of device life it's
the manufacturer that has to prove the fault was not caused from a
manufacturing defect.

------
ksk
I hope they win. I should not be forced to go to Apple for minor repairs when
its obvious they overcharge. I'm glad Subaru doesn't deny me service because I
put an aftermarket stereo or used a different garage to repair my headlights.

Apple _already_ is capable of diagnosing faults, and finding out which
component is causing the problem. If it turns out that the problem is a third
party part, they can offer to replace the part. This is standard procedure
everywhere.

~~~
georgespencer
> I'm glad Subaru doesn't deny me service because I put an aftermarket stereo
> or used a different garage to repair my headlights.

This is not analogous. The analogy here is that the aftermarket stereo or
different garage _caused_ the faults which your Subaru is experiencing, and
you are expecting Subaru to fix them.

Predatory pricing is a separate issue, but this is about whether Apple is
obliged to make good on repairs to devices (both under warranty and at cost)
where widespread component failure could have been caused by another repair
shop or component. Would Subaru repair your engine if it stopped working after
you replaced the camshaft with a different type of camshaft?

~~~
disordinary
No, it clearly states that the apple is liable for faults that the aftermarket
part didn't cause. Any faults with the aftermarket part or faults caused by
that repair are the responsibility for the person who installed the
aftermarket part.

The example is relevant.

~~~
georgespencer
The point the post illustrated is that an aftermarket part and/or an inexpert
repair job could cause widespread damage to other components, and at times do
so imperceptibly.

~~~
ksk
Can you give a practical example of such a thing happening in anything except
the rarest of rarest case? If you're always concerned with what's possible,
then you'll find that anythings possible, and soon you're buying insurance
against a meteor strike damaging your car :P

Also lets not forget that legal frameworks are perfectly capable of handling
exceptional circumstances. So even if it was the case that the part caused
damage to other parts, it would be an argument that a court would be
sympathetic to.

~~~
georgespencer
> Can you give a practical example of such a thing happening in anything
> except the rarest of rarest case?

This happens _all_the_time_. Especially in complex precision-engineered
electronics products.

If a third-party repair shop is making repairs using Apple certified
components then that's fine. If it's any aftermarket component then clearly
Apple should not have any sort of responsibility to the device, which has been
fundamentally altered.

------
grawlinson
Consumer protection law is very strong in Australia & New Zealand. I'm glad to
see government taking a tough stance towards what amounts to corporations
weaseling out of doing their fair part.

------
disordinary
Lots of US companies aren't used to the consumer protection laws in other
countries, Valve recently got in trouble for their steam refund policies.

Here in NZ stated warranties mean nothing the actual warranty is what is a
reasonable expectation, I'd expect a laptop to work for at least five years
and so my expectation is Apple or an Apple authorised repairer would service
or replace it for the entirety of those five years.

~~~
SubNoizey
Yeah, the ACCC are great here. They could always do more but it seems like
they're one of the most active parts of our government.

~~~
disordinary
Another interesting part of the Consumer Guarantees Act (which I'm guessing is
similar to the ACCC) is if a product is replaced with something new then the
lifespan of the item resets, so if my laptop is replaced three years into an
expected five year lifespan then I get another expected five years.

It's amazing how companies try to get away with things though.

~~~
rmccue
The Consumer Guarantees Act is like the Australian Consumer Law; the ACCC is
just the body responsible for enforcing it and representing consumers. The
analogous body in NZ is the Commerce Commission:
[http://www.comcom.govt.nz/the-commission/making-a-
complaint/](http://www.comcom.govt.nz/the-commission/making-a-complaint/)

------
dovdovdov
Consumer guarantees do not apply if you:

[...]

\- misused a product in any way that caused the problem

[...]

\- asked for a service to be done in a certain way against the advice of the
business or were unclear about what you wanted

source: [https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-
guarantees...](https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-
guarantees/consumer-guarantees)

Good luck with that.

Also, Apple (US) licenses all their software to you without any warranty.

If you wish to keep using their device, you have to accept that the very first
time you turn it on.

By this, Apple tries to protect your privacy (which is coincidentally also now
basically their core business value) by not letting 3rd parties compromise
your phone's security.

~~~
rmccue
The consumer guarantees are specific rights that you cannot sign away; that
is, there's no such thing as no warranty. Whether you agree to it when you
turn your phone on is irrelevant.

As for misuse, that applies only if it caused the problem. The ACCC's case is
that Apple refuses to do any repairs, even when they would be guaranteed (such
as a manufacturing fault in the speaker), when the phone has been repaired in
any way (such as the screen being replaced). If Apple can prove that these
third party repairs do affect their ability to comply with the law, then they
may win. I doubt that's the case personally.

------
defined
Um, shouldn't that be "misled"?

~~~
franciskim
Yes

------
Bud
If you're going to rewrite the headline, don't misspell words. It's "misled",
and not "mislead".

~~~
jessaustin
Thanks for pointing that out. I had had uncharitable thoughts about AC&CC...

