Apple is slapped with a ~US$12 million fine by Italian authorities

[Redaktion]

The Italian market-competition watchdog has reportedly fined Apple to the tune of €10 million, or nearly US$12 million. This action has resulted from what the body apparently views as  "aggressive and misleading" advertising relating to iPhones and their water-resistant properties. This content may have been insufficient in its clarity in a way that may pose a risk to customer warranties.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-is-slapped-with-a-US-12-million-fine-by-Italian-authorities.507203.0.html

[S.Yu]

Wow, that seems strict, unless Apple didn't even put a tiny one-line disclaimer in the corner. Maybe the Italian marketing department forgot.

[vertigo]

Not strict at all if they're advertising them as water-resistant then denying warranty coverage for damage caused by exposure to water that a reasonable person would assume to be safe based on Apple's claims. I don't know the specifics, so it's possible they did nothing wrong, but if people are having their phones damaged when they expected them to be fine and Apple is denying coverage when they shouldn't be, then they absolutely should be fined, as well as sure by consumers. Of course $12m is nothing to them, and they may just take the hit and move on, but they may fight it just for the sake of not rolling over and not wanting to look guilty.

As a related aside, several years ago I bought a fairly expensive Thermoworks thermometer that was advertised as being water-resistant, including being able to go through the dishwasher, and the packaging (or manual, don't remember) stated the same. After a couple years, it failed, and when I contacted support to see about a warranty replacement, they told me it sounded like water damage, which wasn't covered. I argued that the advertising and packaging/manual both described it as water-resistant, so it should be covered, and they said that was a mistake, that it was inaccurately described, and offered me something like $10 off a new one (it cost something like $40 or $60). So somehow their mistake in advertising and writing the manual was my fault, and they refused to take care of it. Needless to say, I'll never buy another Thermoworks product again, and the replacement I bought for ~1/4 of the price works just as well, if not better, but it serves as a perfect example of why companies need to be held accountable, and why fining them for stuff like this is not only not strict, but necessary.

Oh, and another thing with the thermometer: I couldn't even post a review on their site to warn others, because they took it down. Completely dishonest and unethical company.

[_MT_]

As a related aside, several years ago I bought a fairly expensive Thermoworks thermometer that was advertised as being water-resistant, including being able to go through the dishwasher, and the packaging (or manual, don't remember) stated the same. After a couple years, it failed, and when I contacted support to see about a warranty replacement, they told me it sounded like water damage, which wasn't covered. I argued that the advertising and packaging/manual both described it as water-resistant, so it should be covered, and they said that was a mistake, that it was inaccurately described, and offered me something like $10 off a new one (it cost something like $40 or $60). So somehow their mistake in advertising and writing the manual was my fault, and they refused to take care of it.
...
Oh, and another thing with the thermometer: I couldn't even post a review on their site to warn others, because they took it down. Completely dishonest and unethical company.

I hope you've reported them to the authorities for false advertising. I mean, mistakes do happen. But I think we should be much stricter about these things. When they publish marketing material, they should double and triple check everything. Claims should have solid basis that can stand up to peer review. They shouldn't feel like they can play it fast and loose and then blame it on honest mistakes.

The fundamental problem with warranties is the burden of proof whether damage is a result of mishandling or a manufacturing defect. Understandably, manufacturers don't want it. And if they're generous, it can be abused. They want as simple a recipe as possible for denying claims (water detected inside => mishandling => denied). But placing it on consumers is not an option. It would make individual warranty claims impossible. This is not an easy problem. Finding out what really happened is expensive (if at all possible). Nobody wants to bear the cost. And manufacturers certainly don't want to bear the cost of user's stupidity or deliberate mishandling.

When it comes to water-resistance, one thing many people seem to forget is that it requires maintenance. Eventually, seals will fail without it. Also, the idea is to offer protection in case of an accidental splash or dunking. Instead of immediate loss, the device survives. But there might be consequences. IP rating says nothing about the impact on lifespan. It's normal for lifespan to shorten in challenging environments. And it's not necessarily covered (unless it's actually intended for such conditions). Contrast it with mechanical wrist watches, for example. They have a maintenance plan. Seals get lubed and replaced. Watches get pressure tested after assembly. Because they count with people using them for many, many years.

[S.Yu]

Not strict at all if they're advertising them as water-resistant then denying warranty coverage for damage caused by exposure to water that a reasonable person would assume to be safe based on Apple's claims.

It didn't occur to me because in the scope of consumer electronics I believe this has been the norm for years if not longer, that water resistance is never guaranteed under warranty unless otherwise noted.

I argued that the advertising and packaging/manual both described it as water-resistant, so it should be covered, and they said that was a mistake, that it was inaccurately described, and offered me something like $10 off a new one (it cost something like $40 or $60). So somehow their mistake in advertising and writing the manual was my fault, and they refused to take care of it.

I came across a similar company, and I'm suing.

[vertigo]

Not strict at all if they're advertising them as water-resistant then denying warranty coverage for damage caused by exposure to water that a reasonable person would assume to be safe based on Apple's claims.

It didn't occur to me because in the scope of consumer electronics I believe this has been the norm for years if not longer, that water resistance is never guaranteed under warranty unless otherwise noted.

I argued that the advertising and packaging/manual both described it as water-resistant, so it should be covered, and they said that was a mistake, that it was inaccurately described, and offered me something like $10 off a new one (it cost something like $40 or $60). So somehow their mistake in advertising and writing the manual was my fault, and they refused to take care of it.

I came across a similar company, and I'm suing.

It may be, and probably is, the norm, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable and should be allowed. Samsung is another one guilty of this. A guy I knew several years back bought one of their first Active phones and it got damaged by water, and Samsung refused warranty coverage on it. There's threads with lots of other people complaining about the same thing with their products. The thing is, just because it's the norm, that doesn't mean it's what most people would expect. Most people aren't going to research to see if a product advertised as water-resistant will be covered if it's damaged by water, and a reasonable person would expect it would be, and the law generally accounts for what a reasonable person would assume or do in a given situation.

Since it's so difficult for individual consumers to do much, and companies don't care about individual consumers, it's up to the government agencies whose job it is to protect consumers to do their job and go after these companies. Unfortunately, that happens far less than it should, so I'm glad to see Italy doing something here, even if it is small potatoes. Hopefully it'll push others to follow suit.

If you don't mind saying, and if you can (not sure if impending legal action prohibits it), what company did you have a problem with? I think it's important for consumers to spread the word when companies screw them over.

[S.Yu]

Not strict at all if they're advertising them as water-resistant then denying warranty coverage for damage caused by exposure to water that a reasonable person would assume to be safe based on Apple's claims.

It didn't occur to me because in the scope of consumer electronics I believe this has been the norm for years if not longer, that water resistance is never guaranteed under warranty unless otherwise noted.

I argued that the advertising and packaging/manual both described it as water-resistant, so it should be covered, and they said that was a mistake, that it was inaccurately described, and offered me something like $10 off a new one (it cost something like $40 or $60). So somehow their mistake in advertising and writing the manual was my fault, and they refused to take care of it.

I came across a similar company, and I'm suing.

It may be, and probably is, the norm, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable and should be allowed. Samsung is another one guilty of this. A guy I knew several years back bought one of their first Active phones and it got damaged by water, and Samsung refused warranty coverage on it. There's threads with lots of other people complaining about the same thing with their products. The thing is, just because it's the norm, that doesn't mean it's what most people would expect. Most people aren't going to research to see if a product advertised as water-resistant will be covered if it's damaged by water, and a reasonable person would expect it would be, and the law generally accounts for what a reasonable person would assume or do in a given situation.

Since it's so difficult for individual consumers to do much, and companies don't care about individual consumers, it's up to the government agencies whose job it is to protect consumers to do their job and go after these companies. Unfortunately, that happens far less than it should, so I'm glad to see Italy doing something here, even if it is small potatoes. Hopefully it'll push others to follow suit.

If you don't mind saying, and if you can (not sure if impending legal action prohibits it), what company did you have a problem with? I think it's important for consumers to spread the word when companies screw them over.

Well if it's standard practice for the whole industry then either they've already done something that makes them legally immune or it's too minor an issue that's fallen off the radar of most lawmakers.

It's a really minor company dealing in construction hardware, relax, you'll never come across them.