Database Info

Do non-supported ROM upgrades void your warranty??

Ok,
So I keep seeing people make the assertion that applying a ROM upgrade that is not provided by the carrier/manufacturer/vendor/etc. will void your device warranty. Not being one to blindly trust the legal advice I read on internet forums, I decided to do some research myself. If this has been discussed already, my apologies. I searched but nothing really came up. Here's what I found:
The user manual available on the HTC site quite clearly states "your warranty is invalidated if you open or tamper with the device's outer casing." No mention of software/firmware related voiding of the warranty.
In the warranty booklet that came with the Cingular 8125 (it's an HTC booklet, so my guess it comes with all products, regardless of vendor), clause 6.a. is the only one that appears to apply in this case. The clause states:
The Product has been subjected to abnormal use, abnormal conditions, improper storage, expsure tomoisture or dampness, unauthorized modifications, unauthorized connections, unauthorized repair, misuse, neglect, abuse, accident, alteration, improper installation, or other acts which are not the fault of HTC or authorized by HTC, including damage caused by shipping or damages caused by accessories not provided by HTC.
So there are a couple of clauses here that could apply. I say could because there is no clear definition of what "modifications", "connections", installation", etc. mean.
Unauthorized modifications. To me, modifications in this context implies a physical modification i.e adding memory, etc. I say this because it is inline with exposure, connections, and repair.
Alteration. What in the world does alteration mean in this context? It doesn't say "unauthorized alteration" which implies that any alteration would void the warranty. Isn't loading software an alteration? Again, I believe this to refer to physical alterations.
Improper installation. Again, what does installation mean? Does it mean installing programs, or installing the physical device in some manner that is not authorized by HTC?
Lastly, "other acts which are not the fault of HTC or authorized by HTC". This is the one that I believe could be the kicker, as it's there to be a complete catch all.
So what does this tell us? Absolutely nothing. Could HTC theoretically decline a warranty repair because someone applied an unauthorized ROM upgrade? Definitely.
However, there's plenty of threads out there where people say "will void your warranty" but I have yet to see one where someone actually had a warranty repair or replacement denied because of a ROM upgrade.
Given that I've written this long post and haven't answered any of my own questions, I'm wondering if anyone out there has actual first hand knowledge of the warranty not being honored in this situation. I'm not interested in situations where someone was told that the warranty would be voided, because as we all know service reps are, in many cases, either un-informed about things like that or they are intentionally told to say that, even if it truly wouldn't (I was a phone rep in financial services for 4 years after graduating college, so I can say this from first hand experience).
Any real experiences in this area? The next question of course is even if it did void the warranty, would anyone notice if you re-flash with the original ROM and return it?

Flash should not void European Warranty

Hi
According to FSFE. I can't post outside link, sorry, but you can find it in its homepage
If your device becomes defective in the first 6 months, it is presumed that the defect was there all along, so you should not need to prove anything.
If your device becomes defective after the first 6 months, but before 2 years run out, you are still covered. The difference is only that if the defect arises now, the seller can claim that the defect was caused by some action that was triggered by non-normal use of the device4. But in order to avoid needing to repair or replace your device, the seller has to prove that your action caused5 the defect. It is generally recognised by courts that unless there is a sign of abuse of the device, the defect is there because the device was faulty from the beginning. That is just common sense, after all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So I guess that if you flash and some time later you have a problem, Asus must prove that the problem is caused by flashing the device.
What do you guys think?
Regards

It's a bit tricky.
You AGREE to the voiding of your warranty. It works the same as breaking the seal on a device. If you choose to break it, you choose to prematurely void your warranty. Simple as that. I know people refuse to read Readme's and EULA's, but it's all in there. Wether we agree or not isn't relevant. They're not breaking any laws.
But they also HAVE to offer hardware service for two years as per EU law.

ShadowLea said:
It's a bit tricky.
You AGREE to the voiding of your warranty. It works the same as breaking the seal on a device. If you choose to break it, you choose to prematurely void your warranty. Simple as that. I know people refuse to read Readme's and EULA's, but it's all in there. Wether we agree or not isn't relevant. They're not breaking any laws.
But they also HAVE to offer hardware service for two years as per EU law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is "legally soft" to agree to anything that goes against (inter)naitonal law. If, for example, you sign a work contract in which you are paid less than the (European) minimum wage, it's still illegal, your consent notwithstanding. EDIT:in that sense, you cannot even void the warranty fully; only partly.
I'd think the onus is on ASUS actually proving to any appreciable degree that a certain issue is in fact caused by an unlock and/or flash. As you said, unlocking and/or flashing do not have a bearing on hardware issues like screen issues, housing clicking, microphones breaking and such. If you buy it under European warranty, you'll be covered for any such issue for two years after purchase. That's pretty am "period" at the end, hahaha -- although you might need a lawyer to pressure them a bit, or have verbal abilities yourself.

ElMonty said:
What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read the applicable laws, not the propaganda from either side.
It is perfectly OK for Asus to bind their warranty to any conditions they want (no repairs for defects that appear on Tuesday...), because it is a voluntary service and as long as they do not sell the devices directly to consumers it is irrelevant.
The seller is liable for repairs or replacement according to EU law, and that guarantee cannot be legally voided or reduced. However after 6 months, you as the customer must prove that the defect was already there when you bought it, which is usually difficult or impossible.

_that said:
Read the applicable laws, not the propaganda from either side.
It is perfectly OK for Asus to bind their warranty to any conditions they want (no repairs for defects that appear on Tuesday...), because it is a voluntary service and as long as they do not sell the devices directly to consumers it is irrelevant.
The seller is liable for repairs or replacement according to EU law, and that guarantee cannot be legally voided or reduced. However after 6 months, you as the customer must prove that the defect was already there when you bought it, which is usually difficult or impossible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're absolutely right that after 6 months the potential for headaches and stomach ulcers grows exponentially. Here in Holland, you're pretty much covered even after that period for up to 2 years after purchase. It would not be that hard the argue that a screen issue does not arise because of unlocking, and the same goes for other issues that are clearly hardware-related. However, if you'd end up with a cooked processor (after overclocking) or a bad recovery wipe... well... you'd be on your own and would have to swallow the bill. It'd be OK crying a bit while chewing, though.

MartyHulskemper said:
It would not be that hard the argue that a screen issue does not arise because of unlocking, and the same goes for other issues that are clearly hardware-related.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Clearly a screen issue has nothing to do with firmware flashing, but how do you *prove* that if the screen breaks after a year, it is only because it was already defective when you bought it, and not because you inadvertently sat on it?

_that said:
Clearly a screen issue has nothing to do with firmware flashing, but how do you *prove* that if the screen breaks after a year, it is only because it was already defective when you bought it, and not because you inadvertently sat on it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wipe the butt marks? Just kidding, obviously. There's always a grey area, and that's where customer-friendliness comes in. Or not.

Your warranty is not voided by rooting (Europe)

This was stated on fsfe.org
Does rooting your device (e.g. an Android phone) and replacing its operating system with something else void your statutory warranty, if you are a consumer?
In short:
No.
Just the fact that you modified or changed the software of your device, is not a sufficient reason to void your statutory warranty. As long as you have bought the device as a consumer in the European Union.
A bit longer:
Directive 1999/44/CE dictates that any object meeting certain criteria (incl. telephones, computers, routers etc.) that is sold to a consumer. inside the European Union, has to carry a warranty from the seller that the device will meet the quality that you would expect for such a device for a period of 2 years.
A telephone is an example of such a device and is an object that comprises many parts, from the case to the screen to the radio, to a mini-computer, to the battery, to the software that runs it. If any of these parts stop working in those 2 years, the seller has to fix or replace them. What is more these repairs should not cost the consumer a single cent — the seller has to cover the expenses (Directive 1999/44/CE, §3). If the seller has any expenses for returning it to the manufacturer, this is not your problem as a consumer.
If your device becomes defective in the first 6 months, it is presumed that the defect was there all along, so you should not need to prove anything.
If your device becomes defective after the first 6 months, but before 2 years run out, you are still covered. The difference is only that if the defect arises now, the seller can claim that the defect was caused by some action that was triggered by non-normal use of the device. But in order to avoid needing to repair or replace your device, the seller has to prove that your action caused the defect. It is generally recognised by courts that unless there is a sign of abuse of the device, the defect is there because the device was faulty from the beginning. That is just common sense, after all.
So, we finally come to the question of rooting, flashing and changing the software. Unless the seller can prove that modifying the software, rooting your device or flashing it with some other OS or firmware was the cause for the defect, you are still covered for defects during those 2 years. A good test to see if it is the software’s fault is to flash it back with stock firmware/OS and see if the problem persists. If it does, it is not a software-caused problem. If it is not possible to revert it stock software any more, it is also not a software-caused defect. There are very few hardware defects that are caused by software — e.g. overriding the speaker volume above the safe level could blow the speaker.
Many manufacturers of consumer devices write into their warranties a paragraph that by changing the software or “rooting” your device, you void the warranty. You have to understand that in EU we have a “statutory warranty”, which is compulsory that the seller must offer by law (Directive 1999/44/CE, §7.1) and a “voluntary warranty” which the seller or manufacturer can, but does not need to, offer as an additional service to the consumer. Usually the “voluntary warranty” covers a longer period of time or additional accidents not covered by law. If though the seller, the manufacturer or anyone else offers a “voluntary warranty”, he is bound to it as well!
So, even if, by any chance your “voluntary warranty” got voided, by European law, you should still have the 2 year “compulsory warranty” as it is described in the Directive and which is the topic of this article.
In case the seller refuses your right to repair or replace the device, you can sue him in a civil litigation and can report the incident to the national authority. In many European countries such action does not even require hiring a lawyer and is most of the time ensured by consumers associations.
The warranty under this Directive is only applicable inside the European Union and only if you bought the device as a consumer.
EU member states must have by now imported the Directive 1999/44/CE into their national laws. So you should quote also your local law on that topic.
A consumer is a natural person who acts for their own private purposes and not as a professional.
Batteries can be exempt of this and usually hold only 6 months warranty.
E.g. a defect power button could be caused by spreading marmalade in it or hooking it onto a robot that would continuously press the button every second 24/7 — of course that is not normal or intended use.
Note that correlation is not causation — the defect has to be proven to be caused by your action, not just correlate with it.
E.g. if a device manufacturer guarantees the phone is water- and shock-proof or a car manufacturer offers 7 years of warranty against rust.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess our warranty isn't voided, it's just that phone/tablet manufacturers don't care...

Indeed!
They may even be fully aware of the law and deep down know that rooting doesn't void your warranty. It just so happens that, in order to legally challenge their bad claims of a void warranty, (in most countries) you would have to spend way more in legal fees than what the phone is worth...
Shameful tactics, but it's business nonetheless.

Thank you
Thank you for this information ! I live in europe and before I read this, I didn't root my phone because I need the warranty ! :fingers-crossed:

Good to know. But when I rooted my phone, I didn't think too much about voiding warranty. I just assumed that hardware won't break that easily but I can deal with the software.

With Knox triggered, did someone get their smartphone repaired from germany/eu?

I thougth about multiboot and lineage. Is there anybody who got their S7 repaired from the EU? Because I think its an EU law that hardware garanty is bound to hardware problems. At least I remember someone writing about it when I searched about that topic. Did someone manage that?
Thanks for any answer.

It is prohibited by law to refuse repair when e.g. KNOX is broken or when the device is rooted.
Samsungs claim that the hardware is broken by the user is incorrect in EU. Judges say that Samsung deliberately did it herself.
EU regulation (1999/44/CE) is generally interpreted so that rooting/flashing may not break hardware warranty. And warranty needs to be provided by the (German) seller, not by the manufacturer.

Well, I got it from my grandma, who got it from her contract with vodafon. So, you would say I can trigger KNOX?

Remember, Samsung is a smart company, KNOX is an e-fuse, part of the hardware. So, flashing a custom recovery will trigger KNOX, so with a software you can damage the hardware. Hence, warranty void.
With one single mouse click, you broke both the software and the hardware.

FTC Nix the Fix initiative

This is an opportunity for U.S. citizens to voice their opinion on the warranty practices of device manufactures.
The Federal Trade Commission in the US is looking for empirical research on repair restrictions for electronic devices. Attached is the official submission document. Submissions should be completed by September 16, 2019.
As some may be aware, there is a rising ground swell across the country to better enforce the existing 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act stating no manufacturer is permitted to put repair restrictions on a device it offers a warranty on. What this means to consumers is if a device is opened, then the device is submitted for warranty repair, the fact that the device has been opened is not justification for the warranty repair to be refused. Replacing a screen, battery or any other part with a non-manufacturer's part by law, may not be used to prevent the repair of a different component under the device warranty.
Unfortunately, manufacturers have successfully prevented independent shops and device owners from purchasing OEM parts and manuals. They have created an environment where device owners have to accept a refusal to service under warranty without proving that the fact the device was opened or a third party part caused the specific failure being claimed under the warranty. An example would be a third party replacement screen (broken screens are not typically covered under warranty) is used by a manufacturer to refused repairing a device with a defective charge port.
The FTC or interested in determining the effect on the consumer and on independent repair shops. Quoting from a portion of the attached document:
2. The effect of repair restrictions on the repair market in the United States, and the
impact that manufacturers’ repair restrictions have on small and local businesses
3. The effect repair restrictions have on prices for repairing goods, accessibility and
timeliness of repairs, and the quality of repairs
4. The effect of repair restrictions on consumers’ ability to repair warrantied products or
to have the products repaired by independent repair shops
5. The relationship between repair restrictions and the sale of extended warranties by
manufacturers
6. Manufacturers’ justifications for repair restrictions and the factual basis for such
justifications
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The original document posting is: Nixing the Fix Call for Empirical Research