A Lesson in Consumer Law from Apple

Here at OzBargain we are constantly finding new deals and sharing them. Sometimes retailers aren't too happy about this and think they are above the law. Signs that say 'no refunds' or 'refunds limited to a certain time frame' or 'no refunds on sale items' are worthless under consumer law.

If an item you have bought has a 'major fault'. ie any fault that would have lead you to not by the product if you had known about it. You are entitled to a refund or replacement, it's your choice. A refund is always better than a replacement because you have the option of using your money elsewhere, but I have been bullied at Harvey Norman to take a replacement, they said a refund was not an option.

Here's an article that excited me because an retailer giant, Apple had been demolished by Australian Consumer Law.

Apple forced to adopt new refund policy under Australian consumer law

Apple has been lying to consumers about its obligation to replace or repair faulty computers, iPhones, iPads and iPods, but has now promised to retrain staff and reassess claims stretching back two years following action by the competition watchdog.
Apple misled consumers into thinking they were entitled to less recourse than the new Australian consumer law prescribes, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) found.
Apple and its suppliers told Australian consumers they were only entitled to what Apple wanted to offer them when products failed, rather than what they should have been entitled to under Australia's new consumer laws.
"The ACCC was concerned that Apple was applying its own warranties and refund policies effectively to the exclusion of the consumer guarantees contained in the Australian Consumer Law," ACCC chairman Rod Sims said.
Advertisement
"This undertaking serves as an important reminder to businesses that while voluntary or express warranties can provide services in addition to the consumer guarantee rights of the ACL, they cannot replace or remove those ACL guarantee rights."
Mr Sims added that consumer guarantees did not have a time limit, but applied for as long as "reasonable to expect given the cost and quality of the item".
The competition watchdog could take Apple to court if it failed to follow the undertaking. Apple declined to comment when contacted by Fairfax Media.
As part of the undertaking, Apple has promised to reassess all claims about faulty products purchased over the past two years and provide consumers with what they should be legally entitled to. The undertaking takes effect on January 6 and Apple will assess old claims for the next 90 days.
According to the undertaking, Apple would soon publish on its website a note stating: "If you believe that you have been denied a statutory right or remedy by Apple in the past in relation to a product sold to you by Apple or did not pursue a warranty claim because of representations made to you by Apple, please contact Apple … and your claim will be assessed."
The ACCC found Apple and its suppliers told customers it did not have to provide a refund, repair or replace products with a "major failure", when in fact consumers should have been allowed to choose either a refund or replacement. And that consumers should have been entitled to free repairs, refunds or replacements for products with minor faults.
The ACCC told Apple it was in breach of Australia's consumer guarantees when it told consumers they were only entitled to a full refund if goods were returned within two weeks; that it would only provide a refund or replacement if products were damaged within a year of purchase; that it was not responsible for non-Apple products sold through Apple stores; and when it only offered a store credit rather than a full refund for faulty products.
Apple has promised to retrain staff and resellers over two years and provide consumers with more information about their rights under Australian consumer laws.
In particular, it would keep a consumer rights page on its website for two years starting January 6 and stock ACCC brochures about consumer rights in all stores.

Lucy Battersby, Technology Reporter

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/apple-f…

Poll Options

  • 1
    I have been ripped off ONCE by an Australian retailer
  • 6
    I have been ripped off 1-3 times by an Australian retailer
  • 12
    I have been ripped off COUNTLESS TIMES by an Australian retailer

Comments

  • +1

    No option for not ripped off? If once do you vote first or second option? Also, is 4 really countless?

  • Signs that say 'no refunds' or 'refunds limited to a certain time frame' or 'no refunds on sale items' are worthless under consumer law.

    illegal rather than worthless

    oh, and the poll is stacked. where is the "i have been ripped off zero times" option or the "i don't care because i don't buy apple products" option?

  • To be fair to Apple, I have been quoting statutory warranty at them for a couple of years now - and they have always folded and repaired the units free of charge. (probably 50 repairs by now)

    Apple have known about these laws since they came in, of course, but it is consumers that need educating.

    With Apple being a premium product (in terms of price at least), they really don't have a leg to stand on if something malfunctions within 3 years - excluding consumable products.

    Applecare is a con, and the only way they can still get away with selling it is because of the extended phone support for software it gives you. To tell a customer that if their iMac breaks in 13 months time, the only way to get it fixed free of charge by Apple is to buy Applecare - is absolutely illegal. There are large fines for retailers and manufacturers doing this.

    Of course, statutory warranty can be a bit of a fight, depending on who you are claiming against. Some people prefer to pay to have that piece of mind that everything is automatically taken care of.

    Another thing to consider with extended warranties of all types - most products fail in a "bathtub curve". That is: the number of failures is relatively high in the first period of ownership, relatively low as the product ages, then relatively high as the product reaches the end of it's life. The relatively high failure rate in the initial period of ownership is ALWAYS within the voluntary warranty. These include DOA and inherent faults displaying early on. The relatively high failure rates at the end of life of a product is ALWAYS outside the statutory warranty or extended warranty, by definition really. Extended warranty only covers you on that period after the product has been working fine for 1 year, and before the end of life of a product - which has a very low rate of failure generally. Statutory warranty should cover you for this period anyway.

    • +1

      Statutory warranty can be a bit of a fight

      I 100% agree with you, but I don't think it should be difficult to get something you are entitled to. When my iPad had screen burn after a month or two of purchasing it. Apple refused to give me a refund, they only said I could have a refurbished replacement.

      I was very surprised because I have heard now simple apple returns/warranty claims are.

      Just not good enough Apple.

  • +1

    Australia nowdays has some of the best consumer protection laws in the world.

    The easiest way to think of how a consumer is protected in my view is that "you cannot contract out of your statutory rights"

    Meaning that it matters not what silly extended warranty the retailer cons you into buying because its not any better than the rights you have anyway under the australian consumer laws.

    So consumers need to be educated not to jump in and agree to these types of money grabs by hungry retailers who know fully that extended warranty is a ripp off.

    the laws are far more clear since the enactment of the ACL back in 2010. Previously the TPA was not all that clear on refunds and such.

    Case-in-point : My mother bought some items of clothing from a TV Shopping network company..she ordered a specific size but they sent her much smaller size..she didnt discover that until 2 months after they arrived because she went into hospital before she had a chance to try them on.

    so when she discovered they were wrong she rang them but was told they only accept returns up to 30days and that because its been 2 months that they wont accept a return.

    so my mother just accepted it and put the clothes aside for a further 3 months until I found them and asked what the story was.

    So then I rang them and they told me the same thing..this time they said absolutely no way because 5 months had elapsed.

    the clothing cost my mother $110..which is alot for an old lady just surviving on pension..she cannot get to shops due to very bad knees .. so is stuck inside..gets food delivered etc…

    anyway I then wrote to them via email outlining the situation and citing the delay due to hospitalization etc..

    but they again replied with sorry its been more than 30 days.

    my next email was more aggressive and quoted specific legislation and a reminder that it may cost them more than a refund to defend a claim.

    Their reply was much more to my liking..they did a complete flipflop lol.

    I sent the clothing back..free postage. .and within a week my mother received a refund including initial postage :)

    So its always worthwhile standing up for your rights…

    cheers

Login or Join to leave a comment