The TL;DR of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is that if the manufacturer wants to deny your warranty claim, the burden is on them to prove that the owner’s “unreasonable use” (abuse), neglect of required maintenance, or modification of the product was the actual cause of the failure.
For example, a car manufacturer can’t use the fact that you tinted the windows as an excuse to deny your claim for an engine failure, but they could deny it for your failure to perform oil changes.
Unfortunately the TOS you agreed to says a ridiculous “arbitration” will determine who’s right that you abused the equipment - and guess who the arbitrator will decide for.
I’ve heard that from a lot of people, but never seen it in action. Someone who sues or somehow gets what they want in spite of arbitration, I’d like to see that.
The warning sticker on hardware is also bullshit.
The TL;DR of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is that if the manufacturer wants to deny your warranty claim, the burden is on them to prove that the owner’s “unreasonable use” (abuse), neglect of required maintenance, or modification of the product was the actual cause of the failure.
For example, a car manufacturer can’t use the fact that you tinted the windows as an excuse to deny your claim for an engine failure, but they could deny it for your failure to perform oil changes.
Unfortunately the TOS you agreed to says a ridiculous “arbitration” will determine who’s right that you abused the equipment - and guess who the arbitrator will decide for.
Add it to the pile of reasons why, for products (as opposed to services), things like EULAs and ToS are unenforceable bunk.
I’ve heard that from a lot of people, but never seen it in action. Someone who sues or somehow gets what they want in spite of arbitration, I’d like to see that.
In EU at least
So in other words: the rule applies to you unless you can afford to pay a bunch of lawyers.
Not in the case of a googlephone.