
Warranty void if removed stickers are illegal - quadrangle
https://motherboard.vice.com/read/warranty-void-if-removed-stickers-are-illegal
======
mindslight
Hooray, this is finally starting to get some attention!

It really grinds my gears how "voiding your warranty" has become coined as a
tinkerer badge of honor, even though one is doing no such thing. In the case
of something with GPL components like Android, some modification is even
expressly granted!

Having said that, the stickers themselves aren't illegal. They fall under a
backwards legal principle that adversaries can purposely mislead you without
consequence.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Having said that, the stickers themselves aren't illegal. They fall under a
> backwards legal principle that adversaries can purposely mislead you without
> consequence.

Except, as the article (and the FTC official quoted therein) states, the law
in question (the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act) actually does prohibits various
deceptive implications which the stickers can reasonably be viewed as
conveying.

~~~
mindslight
I do now see the relevant clauses of the Act, and see how they _could_ imply
as such (although said sticker isn't actually referencing any _brand_ ). But
obviously lawyers from most major electronics companies seem to disagree, at
least in expected value terms.

------
maxharris
What is a manufacturer to do when someone opens a device that functions as
advertised, zaps it through a careless electrostatic discharge, puts it back
together and gets free warranty service?

Well, that manufacturer has to raise prices (or invest in even more involved
ways of detecting damage, or in hardening the electronics against ESD, all of
which cost more). This harms those that don't want to mess with their devices.

There is no such thing as a free lunch...

~~~
mindslight
That "free lunch" is the inherent difficulty of performing diagnostics on a
failed device. I'd say the manufacturer is in the better position to test
their devices and make their devices conducive to such testing, rather than
putting the onus onto the consumer to prove the contrary.

Furthermore, the situation you describe is going to be such a small fraction
of cases that manufacturers are likely not going to even worry about it.

~~~
maxharris
_Furthermore, the situation you describe is going to be such a small fraction
of cases that manufacturers are likely not going to even worry about it._

I hate to leave it at disagreeing on facts, but at this juncture, I have to.
This is not a rare case at all!

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
Are you suggesting that there's some underground scene of consumers
intentionally zapping their electronic devices and then demanding warranty
service all the while twirling their moustaches in the manner of a Snidely
Whiplash.

------
maxharris
Maybe that is what the law happens to say now, but it isn't necessarily what
the law should be.

Ideally, manufacturers have a right to sell what they want, under terms that
they want. Buyers have a right to choose among the best available options on
the market, or to not buy at all. Maybe this wouldn't lead to outcomes that
the author wants, but then again, he's free to show that all of the other
companies are doing it wrong by starting his own company!

So let's allow other people vote with their dollars, rather trying to suppose
what customers want and then forcing everyone to comply.

~~~
Fej
The concept of "voting with one's dollars" or "letting the market decide" is
predicated on all parties having perfect information, i.e. everyone
understands all laws, including this one. Naturally, this is rarely true in
practice, hence the need for consumer protection laws.

~~~
maxharris
We're not living in the early 1970s anymore. Nowadays, if you want to dig into
something, you're just a search away from deep knowledge about whatever you
want.

Learning is an inherently individual process, and it requires time and effort
on the part of the learner. Just think back to when you were in school - we'll
never all be equal in terms of what we know.

(I shouldn't have to say this, but yes, it should be illegal to do things like
sell a cake with an actual bomb inside it or something. Doing that is just
plain murder, which is an entirely different phenomenon from what we're
talking about here, which is whether or not a company has to honor a warranty
for a device which the customer has tampered with in violation of contract.)

Why should the range of options for those that avail themselves of information
be limited for the benefit of those that do not?

~~~
Fej
It is not a reasonable expectation that consumers be aware of every law that
may be applicable to a purchase. If we had to do that, we'd either have time
for nothing else, or be lawyers.

