Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Clarifies Warranty Coverage Options for Customers in European Union
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why would it not? This is valid for all consumer goods bought by a retailer located within the EU. Country of origin (consumer or product) has nothing to do with it.
The simple reason is that Apple never let it go through court because they know they will lose that case before it is has even began... . We also don't have things like "class action" suites on the scale that you sometimes see in the US so it is very difficult to find cases because they get under the radar easily.
But there are numerous examples which you can find on local apple boards of Apple stuff breaking after a year and they present you with a bill for repairing it. Even if the law grants you that repair under warranty !
When you deal directly with Apple or one of their APR you will always have to threat before you get your legal rights after a year.
That is so incorrect. I don't know how it is in other countries but here in Belgium Test Aankoop/Test Achat filled a complain with the courts because they are in clear violation of the law.
In Belgium - like a lot of European countries - you have a guaranteed warranty on products for 2 years and that been so for more then a decade. No FUD about "proving" things, just plain expectation that a product should be without problems for the first 2 years. Apple only gives out 1 year warranty.
http://support.apple.com/kb/index?page=servicefaq&geo=Belgium&product=ipad
EU laws are directives which you can view as the bare minimum local countries should implement. A lot of warranty laws go a bit further then that for example in the Netherlands or the UK.
Last edited:
The EU warranty law doesn't work that way, you don't need to prove anything.
The warranty is meant to cover normal usage within the first 2 years after the purchase. If you claim you used the device in a normal way and some issue became evident within the 2 years you can complain with the seller.
At that point is the seller who has the burden of proof about the issue. If he cannot find any evidence that the device was abused in some way, he has to comply with the warranty.
The rationale behind this is that any issue with the device becoming evident within 2 years of normal usage are presumed to originate from production defects, unless proved otherwise.
The defect doesn't need to be evident at the time of purchase, the device components are supposed have an expected lifetime of 2 full years of normal usage. If they show issues within this period they are presumed to have beed produced with some defect becoming apparent later on, and it's burden of the seller to prove otherwise (e.g. that the componed failed because of some kind of abuse).
Note that responsible for the warranty is Apple only if you bought the device directly from Apple. If you bought the device from some reseller he is responsible for this warranty instead.
Last edited:
Not relevant...
Are they (Apple) really that stupid? Their statement on this warranty issue is not relevant. It's all about how they force consumers to pay for the second year. Now they argueing about content of the so-called EU warranty but there is no EU warranty. It's just a directive. It's up to nations within the EU to come with a law. For me , Applecare , as it stands now is dead. Apple has to come up with a warranty scheme that's fits in the EU directive and which goes far beyond what they are offering now. For example : like pc manufacturers , they could offer next-day solution on site.
Are they (Apple) really that stupid? Their statement on this warranty issue is not relevant. It's all about how they force consumers to pay for the second year. Now they argueing about content of the so-called EU warranty but there is no EU warranty. It's just a directive. It's up to nations within the EU to come with a law. For me , Applecare , as it stands now is dead. Apple has to come up with a warranty scheme that's fits in the EU directive and which goes far beyond what they are offering now. For example : like pc manufacturers , they could offer next-day solution on site.
This is wrong. The customer only has to prove this if the claim occurs more then 6 months after delivery. If the problem occurs during the first 6 months it is is assumed that the problem was caused before delivery if the seller does not prove the opposite. This usually only happens in obvious cases (water damage etc). Even after 6 months things are usually repaired for free without problems.
Christian
Last edited:
Really, it has nothing to do with proving anything. Consumer organisations are just saying : adjust the 1 year limitation to 2 years. That's all. If Apple decides to go after their clients with this proof-thing, it's up to them. It won't help them.
Are you sure you are not confusing subjects?
I never heard about PC manufacturers offering such a thing, at least when dealing with problems with Toshiba, HP and Samsung in a non-enterprise level. In fact HP's explanations on warranty fell pretty in line with what Apple is saying now, if I remember correctly.
Dell offered some kind of solution on-site only after some service contract, for enterprise level. And even then there were some levels of support to be choosen & paid for.
(all of this was in Spain, in case it matters to explain all the differences that are being reported here)
What you claim is exactly the opposite of UK law. After six months, the presumption is that the damage is due to the buyer.
Lots of things are claimed, and lots of people claiming lots of things are clueless. EU laws are about the seller. Apple's warranty is a manufacturer's warranty. They are completely independent. The EU laws affect the store where you happened to buy the product. If you buy a Mac at PCWorld, the EU says nothing at all about what warranty Apple should or should not give; but they say what PCWorld should do for you. The opposite is true when you buy a Canon printer at an Apple store; EU law says nothing about what warranty Canon should give you, but what the Apple store should do for you.
Last edited:
You're right and that's exactly what the EU directive states, but in the end it works like this: within 6 months the presumption is automatically on the production defect. After 6 months but within 2 years it's supposed to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
This doesn't mean that after 6 months the buyer has to show any kind of evidence, he only has to claim that he used the device in a normal way. If the seller refuses to comply with the warranty the buyer can bring him before a judge, and the judge almost always sides with the consumer unless the seller manages to bring evidence that the damage is due to the buyer's misuse.
This is true for most electronic device components excluding those subject to wear: e.g. if you claim the glass of your completely scratched iPhone was defective you have a much greater burden of proof. If some inaccessible internal components stops working the burden of proof on your side is basically non-existent.
Sure. But Apple - Online and in their stores - is the seller. In their statement they not adressing the real problem. They are just glorifying Applecare which is just an extented warranty scheme. Also it is not a EU Law as such, it's a directive and consequently lot's of European countries took this up in to a local law. Now - and i am repeating myself - what consumer organisations want is an non-Applecare adjustment ( for their stores/online) from 1 yr to 2yr. Surely Apple can use the directive with this >6 months proof nonsens to dodge warranty claims but as for now this is not an issue. They can not win this because it would in fact invalid the whole European warranty system.
What don't you understand about Apple's 1 year warranty being a _manufacturer_ warranty, which has nothing whatsoever to do with any EU laws? And Apple isn't "glorifying" anything, they inform you about the rights against the seller, whether the seller is Apple or anyone else, as specified by laws in individual countries, about your rights against Apple as the manufacturer, which Apple gives you voluntarily, and about the rights that you will get by buying AppleCare. As a result, you can make an informed decision whether buying AppleCare gives you value for money or not. And informing you about these rights is _exactly_ what a court in Italy has told Apple to do.
No, after six months the presumption is reversed. Normally in a civil case a judge would decide according to which side is more likely to be right, even if it is just a tiny bit more likely (and he can't refuse the decision, if both sides are exactly equally likely to be right). But here there is a presumption, which means you some evidence to override the presumption. In the first six months you would win if there is no clear evidence either way, after that you would lose.
The "two years" is also not the same in each country. Italy says "you have to report the problem within 26 months", which probably is meant to handle problems within two years + two months to report it. UK says "a reasonable amount of time", which depends on the product and what a customer could reasonably expect for that kind of product.
Last edited:
These two statements are definitely not true in all EU member states, which country/ies are you talking about?
A device which fails within the 2 years either was defective or was damaged due to abuse. On one side you have the buyer which claims that he used the device in a normal way before it stopped working correctly. On the other you have the seller which claims that the device stopped working correctly due to some sort of abuse by the buyer.
Since it's usually very easy to provide evidence for any kind of abuse on the device, a judge will almost always side with the buyer unless the seller can provide this evidence. Without clear evidence it's much more plausible that there was some defect, given that abuse would have left pretty clear signs.
That's why the vast majority of claims which end before a judge see the buyer win, even after the 6 months period. The cases in which the buyer loses are usually because he's trying to scam the seller (it happens sometimes) or on less clear issues like parts subject to wear, where "normal usage" and the expected wear for the lifetime of the device need to be evaluated more in detail.
Last edited:
Huh, Mabook pro G4 from 1995.
Hey dude that was a missing type... 17" (inches) - bought years ago (2004 if I remember).
That wasn't the age of the laptop
Take a look in that mirror of debt...
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Makes all the debt in Europe look pretty insignificant doesn't it...
I wouldn't say "definitely not true". I will admit "people have made loud claims", but I checked Germany, UK, and Italy, and they were wrong. Since for example in the UK it is just a tiny little sentence in the middle of lengthy legalese, it is easy to miss. And PR articles, even written by the EU, don't count.
Yes, I also live in the EU and am stating absolute fact. Did you consider that the reason they accepted your return was because they wanted to offer good customer service, or perhaps that they themselves were ignorant of how EU directives are applied?
Don't mislead others on a matter of EU law that you clearly aren't fully cognisant of.
----------
I'm sorry, but once again as in many instances in this thread, this is misleading rubbish. All EU member states are bound by EU law and this law is no exception (this is a directive that all EU member states should have covered by their own local laws). There is no question over a member state signing up to a law or not, that's not how the European Union works. If you are a member the directive applies, end of story.
In the UK this directive is covered by the Sale of Goods Act as that already provides broader coverage in terms of warranting a product than the directive mandates.
----------
After 6 months, the burden of proof is on the buyer, it really is quite simple. The fact that the majority of claims seen by a judge fall in favour of the buyer does not change that. In any case, can you reference that claim? How do you know the majority of claims that fall before a judge are found in favour of the buyer?
Last edited:
Greece and I bought it from Vodafone...
I regret it because of the bad service. Vodafone has a another company for service (V-Service). You take your phone to a vodafone store then they send it to V-service, they keep your phone for one month then they tell you it is water damaged and out of warranty and ask for 200E to get a replacement. Then Vodafone steps up and offers to pay 100E for you (what a lovely company...) so you end up giving 100E to get a refurbished iPhone. (and no extra warranty)
That's when you are within the first year. After that you are totally screwed!
You simply don't understand the way the EU works. EU laws are the result of EU treaties whereby countries agree to cede their national law to EU law in a range of agreed areas.
This is totally different to an EU Directive which is not a law - it's a suggestion put forward by the European Parliament to which member states can sign up or not as they wish. The idea is to try and make the national law in as many countries as possible standard without having an EU wide law which would require a treaty with everyone having to agree.
In this case there is no EU law pertaining to this subject. The directive is just a suggestion. 11 countries adopted the suggestion and incorporated it into their own national law. The UK has chosen not to adopt this suggestion and not to change our existing national laws.
"If you're a member the directive applies" is complete nonsense. The UK has a number of opt-outs from EU laws simply because we negotiated those opt-outs during various treaty negotiations.
Hi all, I experienced Apple quality. My Ipod never fell, nor was exposed to heat and each 2 months it loses all my library as the 20MB file that reads it, gets damaged suddenly. The battery doesn't last much, then.
The 2 years is more than justified!
PS: I live in Europe
The 2 years is more than justified!
PS: I live in Europe
Actually guys look here, http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/consumer/sales_of_goods/after_you_buy/22216.html you get up to 6 years to make a claim. Yes i have used it before.
You have to fight for it; they will automatically try to get you to pay first...
My graphics card in my 2011 iMac stopped working so I took it in for service under the "EU 2 year warranty" law. At first Apple support simply took the line that it was out of warranty.
So I had to followup with Apple's Consumer Relations department. They got a senior guy in an Apple European support center to help me towards resolution. He was very helpful, yet he really couldn't do anything about it himself except to tell me to call back into the Apple Store where I left it and as to speak to the line manager to discuss why this should be covered on the EU 2 year rule.
I finally got the Apple Store manager to call me and he heard my story and said he had to speak to his legal department. He called back and said that they would cover the repair, but only because I had opened a case with them when I bought the system to report a problem with the graphics card, and therefore they considered that there was "reasonable evidence that the problem had originally been there when the product was delivered to me in the first place", and therefore then covered by this EU law.
I was just lucky that I opened that case way back when, as it provided the proof I needed for them to agree it.
Many in this thread have said that you can get your kit fixed via this EU law (or UK consumer law), but I tell you now that they will fight you for it.
Mind you, they were all very nice about trying to get out of it. ;-) (more fairly, they all followed through and called back as promised and helped me get to the point where they agreed the coverage).
I suppose you could take them to small claims court, and you may very well be able to get it covered that way. But certainly from my direct experience with 5 or 6 Apple employees in differing parts of the Apple support "world", their position was that in order to be covered by the EU 2 year law, the customer must PROVE that the problem existed from the beginning (perhaps this means the problem was there within the first six months).
Without my previous case having been opened, I was certainly given the strong impression that I was not going to be able to PROVE that the problem existed from the beginning, and that they would not cover the fix.
So, in my opinion, you will not get Apple to cover your kit when it goes bad after the 12 month perioed without a fight. Without my case haveing been luckily previously opend from the beginning, I fully expect that I would have had to get small claims court involved, at which point who knows how it would have turned out.
So if it is a large repair bill, it is probably worht fighting for; otherwise it may not be worth your time to pursue it... (unfortunately)...
-YMMV-
My graphics card in my 2011 iMac stopped working so I took it in for service under the "EU 2 year warranty" law. At first Apple support simply took the line that it was out of warranty.
So I had to followup with Apple's Consumer Relations department. They got a senior guy in an Apple European support center to help me towards resolution. He was very helpful, yet he really couldn't do anything about it himself except to tell me to call back into the Apple Store where I left it and as to speak to the line manager to discuss why this should be covered on the EU 2 year rule.
I finally got the Apple Store manager to call me and he heard my story and said he had to speak to his legal department. He called back and said that they would cover the repair, but only because I had opened a case with them when I bought the system to report a problem with the graphics card, and therefore they considered that there was "reasonable evidence that the problem had originally been there when the product was delivered to me in the first place", and therefore then covered by this EU law.
I was just lucky that I opened that case way back when, as it provided the proof I needed for them to agree it.
Many in this thread have said that you can get your kit fixed via this EU law (or UK consumer law), but I tell you now that they will fight you for it.
Mind you, they were all very nice about trying to get out of it. ;-) (more fairly, they all followed through and called back as promised and helped me get to the point where they agreed the coverage).
I suppose you could take them to small claims court, and you may very well be able to get it covered that way. But certainly from my direct experience with 5 or 6 Apple employees in differing parts of the Apple support "world", their position was that in order to be covered by the EU 2 year law, the customer must PROVE that the problem existed from the beginning (perhaps this means the problem was there within the first six months).
Without my previous case having been opened, I was certainly given the strong impression that I was not going to be able to PROVE that the problem existed from the beginning, and that they would not cover the fix.
So, in my opinion, you will not get Apple to cover your kit when it goes bad after the 12 month perioed without a fight. Without my case haveing been luckily previously opend from the beginning, I fully expect that I would have had to get small claims court involved, at which point who knows how it would have turned out.
So if it is a large repair bill, it is probably worht fighting for; otherwise it may not be worth your time to pursue it... (unfortunately)...
-YMMV-
Exactly as the law says. First six months, they have to prove it wasn't your fault. After that, you have to prove it was their fault. You did.
Tim Cook knowledge about Apple products is admirable without doubt, but his knowledge about Europe can be compared with the knowledge of an infant. Besides the fact that using Europe as a metaphor is kind of ridiculous in many perspectives it's also painful when used in a good (America) versus flawed (Europe) comparison.
Yes, there is much to say about Europe, even bad things, but seriously, is it wise to start such a comparison? Because, when making a comparison one should bring out a balanced with some nuance in order to make it believable, else it's nothing more the a one sided view and therefor a comparison that simply doesn't makes sense; Cook's story in a nutshell.
If it wasn't for Europe, Apple users in Europe would be less "protected" then Apple users outside of Europe. The EU is protecting consumers of any brand against flaws in regulations written by large companies that includes Apple (source: https://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/0...ons-of-apples-warranty-advertising-practices/ ) and the EU makes sure Apple is playing a fair game in the world of telecom marketing (source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...networks-selling-iphone-and-ipad-8546243.html ). In 2011 Italian regulators fined Apple $1.2 million over its marketing of AppleCare extended warranty services for its products. The regulators ruled that Apple was not adequately disclosing standard two-year consumer protection coverage available under European Union laws. Apple responded with a lawsuit but lost the case (source: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1351100/ )
In short, thanks to the EU itself Apple consumers getting better value from Apple products then they would get from Apple itself and thanks to the EU Apple is bound to play a fair competition. So Cook, if you would like to dramatize your comparison between Europe (filled with flaws and lack of unity) with that of the VS (being solid and just good) you should tell the whole story and not just one side of it. The truth is, if the EU regulations would be the norm worldwide then Apple consumers and (!) the market itself would be better off, better work circumstances for Apple employees, better guarantees on Apple products, and a more fair play towards other brands. Facts.
Yes, there is much to say about Europe, even bad things, but seriously, is it wise to start such a comparison? Because, when making a comparison one should bring out a balanced with some nuance in order to make it believable, else it's nothing more the a one sided view and therefor a comparison that simply doesn't makes sense; Cook's story in a nutshell.
If it wasn't for Europe, Apple users in Europe would be less "protected" then Apple users outside of Europe. The EU is protecting consumers of any brand against flaws in regulations written by large companies that includes Apple (source: https://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/0...ons-of-apples-warranty-advertising-practices/ ) and the EU makes sure Apple is playing a fair game in the world of telecom marketing (source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...networks-selling-iphone-and-ipad-8546243.html ). In 2011 Italian regulators fined Apple $1.2 million over its marketing of AppleCare extended warranty services for its products. The regulators ruled that Apple was not adequately disclosing standard two-year consumer protection coverage available under European Union laws. Apple responded with a lawsuit but lost the case (source: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1351100/ )
In short, thanks to the EU itself Apple consumers getting better value from Apple products then they would get from Apple itself and thanks to the EU Apple is bound to play a fair competition. So Cook, if you would like to dramatize your comparison between Europe (filled with flaws and lack of unity) with that of the VS (being solid and just good) you should tell the whole story and not just one side of it. The truth is, if the EU regulations would be the norm worldwide then Apple consumers and (!) the market itself would be better off, better work circumstances for Apple employees, better guarantees on Apple products, and a more fair play towards other brands. Facts.