Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Android Iphone Power

Companies Can't Legally Void the Warranty For Jailbreaking Or Rooting Your Phone (vice.com) 128

Posted by msmash from the know-your-rights dept.
Reader Jason Koebler writes: Manufacturers that threaten to void the warranties of consumers who jailbreak or root their phones are violating federal law.
Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975, manufacturers cannot legally void your hardware warranty simply because you altered the software of an electronic device. In order to void the warranty without violating federal law, the manufacturer must prove that the modifications you made directly led to a hardware malfunction.
"They have to show that the jailbreak caused the failure. If yes, they can void your claim (not your whole warranty—just the things which flowed from your mod)," Steve Lehto, a lemon law attorney in Michigan, wrote in an email. "If not, then they can't."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Companies Can't Legally Void the Warranty For Jailbreaking Or Rooting Your Phone More

Companies Can't Legally Void the Warranty For Jailbreaking Or Rooting Your Phone

Comments Filter:

  • I wonder how websites will be affected (Score:3)

    by Trax3001BBS ( 2368736 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @06:24PM (#52722465) Homepage Journal

    Not mentioning the name (things have changed) they ask for nothing in return for it's use and damn friendly, but a site that walks one through rooting of ones phone (through it's postings).

  • Fuse (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    That's easy for manufactures to do, and they already are - knox security that blows fuses. Blown fuse==out of warranty.

    • Re:Fuse (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @07:46PM (#52722865)

      If the blown fuse allows the device to still work, then why would the warranty be void for when the device stops working. Voiding the warranty about the security OK since by your actions you compromised it.

      If the blown fuse bricks the device, wouldn't that be ground for suing in the first place? I hope this wouldn't be legal to brick a device just because the manufacturer doesn't like what you are doing with it. Otherwise, do we draw the line? What if computers start blowing their fuse because you visited a website about homosexuality or a religion the manufacturer didn't approve of...

    • > Blown fuse==out of warranty.

      Actually, no. The warranty in this specific case is the warranty on KNOX, not the warranty on the phone itself. In effect, Samsung is saying that if you root your phone, the bootloader notices, and the bootloader renders the phone permanently incapable of running Knox, you can't turn around and claim the phone is defective if you later need to use Knox after all.

      That said... the "fuse" isn't actually a fuse. It's just software running in ARM TrustZone. Samsung itself is abso

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jonwil ( 467024 )

        And there are a number of exploits for ARM TrustZone (depending on exactly which CPU you have, what software is running etc) so even then there are ways around this stuff...

      • Which makes sense. Because if you use Knox and then root the phone, you may be able to exfiltrate data stored inside the secure partition.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      In Europe, legal warranty (which is 2 years) protects you against hidden defects no matter what you do with your phone.
      So you can blow all the fuses you want, if, say, the SoC fails because it was defective, they have to repair it. What the manufacturer doesn't have to do is to restore the KNOX features you disabled by blowing that fuse, because it is your fault and not a defect.

  • You root that phone, the warranty flag gets set to no more for u status.

    • And the law says "Fuck you, Samsung.".
      Personally, I'd just run a chargeback through my credit card issuer as that's simpler and quicker.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        No, the law says that they can be sued for their illlegal practices. And Samsung knows that $100,000 to challenge a $1000 loss is not something they have to worry about too much. Unless the affected people form a class action suit, it'll always be cheaper for Samsung/Apple to break the law.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          This a huge flaw with our current legal system. Corporations break the law with impunity because they know we cannot afford to fight back.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          Which is why you need to vote in state Attorneys General who make consumer protection a priority. When you or even your lawyer try to call a company out for breaking the law this way, they'll laugh you off for the simple economic reason cite. When the state AG's consumer protection office calls a company out, it pays attention because those guys get paid in scalps.

        • You can also sue for injunction, as in "Injunction against further sales of all products in the United States until company is within compliance"

          Probably no one will but that woudl be great to see.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Yep.

            What I would have loved to see would have been for the Sony rootkit to be treated like it would have if it was distributed by a smaller company.
            If I were to start a company and pulled that shit my business would be shut down, assets frozen and I would have ended up in jail.

            Even just a single country freezing Sony "while the investigation is going on" would probably have been enough for them to not try that a second time or at least not distribute those CDs and later USB sticks in that country.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Isn't this the sort of thing that the government should be investigating and suing for on your behalf?

        • $100,000 to challenge a $1000 loss

          Huh? You can handle this in small claims court. It will probably cost you $50 to file a claim. If you don't know how to prosecute your case that's another issue entirely, it's a shame that law isn't taught in high school.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AK Marc ( 707885 )
            And they file a counter-claim for $[small claims court maximum]+$1, and it's thrown out of small claims court

            I think you need to go back to high school. If you think that a billion dollar multi-national can't figure out small claims court, you are even stupider than you seem. The other popular trick is for them to not show up, then, if you re-sue to force payment (small claims judgments almost never come with enforcement), you have to do that in a real court, and they rock up with a team of lawyers so yo

            • Counter claim for what exactly? They have no cause of action to bring a counter claim against you. What are they going to do, sue you for using their product? At the end of the day you are entitled to legal fees and costs.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AK Marc ( 707885 )
                they'll sue for a ToS breach, or slander, or such. It doesn't matter. They'll get it thrown out of small claims. It's trivial to do. That you don't know how doesn't mean anything. Yes, you can claim back costs. Usually "reasonable" and so when you spend $100,000 prosecuting Samsung, and win, you'll get $45k back. Win for you. Have fun with your stupid and bad advice.

  • Who is this guy, and why should we assume he's an authority on law in general or the subject in particular? I glanced at the TFA, and as far as I can tell it's just an opinion piece written by some random blogger. Sure, he trots out the "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975"... but, heck, I've heard random nut cases claim the Internal Revenue Service is illegal too.

    The only appeal to authority I noticed was a paragraph where an unnamed FTC person said it "should not" void the warranty, but they also "would no

    • Here is the law in question. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]

      May be someone can point out the relevant paragraphs. I'm afraid I couldn't do it. My eyes glazed over after the first page.

      • Re:Well, I guess that's settled. NOT. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by msauve ( 701917 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @08:09PM (#52722969)
        All the "they can't void your warranty" claims, both this one and the ones commonly claimed to apply to automotive modification, are based on this, found at 15USC2302(c) :

        No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name

        That's there so Hoover can't force you to buy their expensive name brand vacuum cleaner bags to maintain the warranty. It doesn't prevent a manufacturer from setting quality specifications ("use 5W-30 API SM certified oil"). It doesn't prevent a manufacturer from saying you can't do modifications. It just says they can't demand you buy stuff from them to maintain warranty. There's a big difference. Your firmware got corrupted? The manufacturer will flash it again, free, under warranty. If a car maker wants to say they won't warranty the engine if you hang fuzzy dice on the mirror, they can - as long as that's clearly spelled out in the warranty terms - they're not in violation of the MMWA. There's nothing in the MMWA which even remotely says they must prove the modification caused anything. The most obvious place where it would apply to phones is with replacement batteries, if the manufacturer didn't replace them free during the warranty.

        If you break the phone (say, by blowing a security fuse while trying to load alternate firmware), it would be hard to argue that the alternate firmware wasn't the cause of the failure.

        I sympathize with wanting the ability to modify phones. I've rooted mine, but run stock firmware with bloatware removed, the tethering block removed, and no other mods. Some firmware plays with processor overclocking, which can cause hardware failure. I've seen lots of forum posts where someone "bricked" their phone by modifying the bootloader/firmware, who then go on to describe acting ignorant as to how it happened and getting it replaced under warranty. That's fraud, plain and simple, so I can also sympathize with manufacturer's who don't want to pay for phones broken by users actions.

        Finally, from a pragmatic perspective, they'll do what they want, it's going to end up costing much more than a new phone to even bring the issue to court. In Michigan, where the author is from, you can sue a company in small claims if you can find where they have a physical presence in the state, but they then have the right to get it moved to district court, where you'll end up needing to pay for a lawyer. Guess which of the parties has lawyers on retainer? So, in practice, if they don't want to honor the warranty for any reason, they won't.

        • Expanded by 16 CFR 700.10 (Score:5, Informative)

          by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @10:58PM (#52723431) Journal

          Your analysis of the statute is excellent. However, the code of federal regulations extends it a bit.

          See 16 CFR 700.10 - Section 102(c).
          https://www.law.cornell.edu/cf... [cornell.edu]

          Quoting the Code of Federal Regulations:
          --
          such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of âoeunauthorizedâ articles or service.
          --

          The phrase " warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability ... where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of âoeunauthorizedâ articles or service" may apply.

          The quoted CFR text is saying why a manufacturer may not void a warranty due to repair by unauthorized service centers, or using unauthorized parts. The text itself does *not* limit the "cannot, as a matter of law" to only unauthorized parts, though, and it could well be argued that "unauthorized firmware" is an "unauthorized part" which may not void a warranty.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by msauve ( 701917 )
            Thanks for the insightful comment. It's rare on /. to find a logical, rather than emotional, argument. That's a very unusual (to me) regulation you cite, due to the way it's informally written. It's interesting that it quotes "unauthorized" with a citation, although the term never appears in the cited law. I don't think that would pass muster.

            Stipulating that regulatory "law" is legitimate (the Constitution gives Congress no power to pass their powers through to an unelected bureaucracy, but that's a com

            • Certainly the manufacturer's attorney would present the "we provide firmware at no charge" argument that you made. And plaintiff's attorney would say it doesn't matter because CFR says "It's guaranteed (but not really)" it's *deceptive*, which is unlawful regardless.

              > it offends sound reason for something which is very clearly written to be "deceptive."
              Consider:

              LIFETIME GUARANTEE!!!!
              (fix pages of fine print) Guarantee void if unapproved apps are installed. (more pages of fine print)

              I would say that's

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by fnj ( 64210 )

          If a car maker wants to say they won't warranty the engine if you hang fuzzy dice on the mirror, they can - as long as that's clearly spelled out in the warranty terms

          You're full of shit. Sure, they can SAY it, and HELL NO, they can't weasel out of liability just by making up any kind of blatantly false fairy tale.

    • Steve Lehto is a lawyer and a darn good one. He blogs as a side gig and is actually a frequent poster about legal issues related to used car purchases on Jalopnik.

  • "Hello AT&T customer service"
    "Yes I would like to enter an RMA Please.
    I was in my room when suddenly my phone CAUGHT FIRE!.
    I was in such a panic about it, I threw the phone down the stairs and it landed in the toilet.
    Thankfully that put the fire out but I'm pretty sure that's not supposed to happen, so can you warranty this?"

    • "Hello AT&T customer service" "Yes I would like to enter an RMA Please. I was in my room when suddenly my phone CAUGHT FIRE!. I was in such a panic about it, I threw the phone down the stairs and it landed in the toilet. Thankfully that put the fire out but I'm pretty sure that's not supposed to happen, so can you warranty this?"

      As long as the little white square under the battery is not pink, you're covered. ;-)

  • United States (Score:5, Informative)

    by quenda ( 644621 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @06:52PM (#52722615)

    It would not hurt to mention the country in the summary, even if this is a US-centric site.
    The author appears to be unaware that laws are not the same in all countries.

    It would be interesting to compare, as most developed countries have a warranty by law (statutory) that cannot be disclaimed.
    The US has implied warranty [wikipedia.org], but that does not cover failures if it works at first??

    The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act offers the cop-out of letting companies choose a full or limited warranty. So guess what Apple does? Do many US companies offer a full warranty? So what's the point? It seems Apple/Samsung just needs to say the magic words limited warranty and do whatever the hell the want.

    • Re:United States (Score:4, Informative)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday August 18, 2016 @06:44AM (#52724329) Homepage Journal

      The UK has great consumer protection laws in this area. Basically you can claim any time during the product's expected life. Say you buy a microwave oven and it dies after 4 years, typically courts find such appliances should be expected to last 8 years. The shop you bought it from (not the manufacturer) either has to repair it or offer you a partial refund based on the use you have had out of it (50% of expected life = 50% refund).

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Let's see how long it takes for our government to "FIX" this law now that is has been dragged into view.

  • Welding hoods shut (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wierd_w ( 1375923 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @06:56PM (#52722637)

    The issue with efuses is like welding the hood shut, so you cannot service the engine.

    It forces "physical damage" to become necessary to gain the access you should have been able to get anyway. In the case of the welded hood: you have to cut through the welds. In the case of efuses protected boot loaders: the boot loader enforces strong crypto against custom kernels, preventing boot of devices without the magic number baked into them, and if you flash a new boot loader, bam, efuses blown.

    When the hardware that gets damaged is little more than a "warranty void" sticker, just in digital form, the oems are stretching things pretty thin.

    I would love to see them be told that they cannot do these kinds of things. Sadly, that is not how the world works today.

    • Sadly, that is not how the world works today.

      We're lucky they're only trying to void a warranty. If they get any ideas, you'll next seem them suing under DMCA anti-circumvention for installing custom kernels.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Magnuson-Moss has been thrown around by car tuning enthusiasts since it was passed in 1975. It sounds good in theory. The reality is that you are an individual with limited resources going up against a multi-billion dollar global entity with a large team of full-time legal resources. It costs them nothing to deny your warranty claim until you win in court. How much time and money are you going to risk to get your $400 - $800 phone replaced? If you happen to be a professional Lemon Law lawyer, then I gu

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fnj ( 64210 )

      Then it's a good thing there is something of which you appear to be unaware: SMALL CLAIMS COURT, which presents a very low barrier to holding these pricks to account.

      • For their pocket change? If they don't decide to mess with you?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          Must live in a shitty place, because where I'm at in Canada small claims tops out at around $50k and can go higher at the order of the judge.

  • They will just laugh at you - Mag-Moss who??

    • Re:Amusing - try explaining that to customer servi (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Miamicanes ( 730264 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @11:57PM (#52723555)

      Actually, no they won't. Unlike most consumer protection laws, Magnuson-Moss actually has teeth. You don't HAVE to sue them in court and prevail. All you have to do is file a claim with the Federal Trade Commission, and THEY'LL do the grunt work for you. After reviewing your claim, they'll forward it to the manufacturer, who has a limited amount of time to respond and either 1) agree to cover the repair, or 2) file a rebuttal that explains the legal basis for their refusal.

      As a practical matter, manufacturers almost NEVER do anything besides meekly grunt an apology at the FTC & agree to cover the repair, because challenging the FTC and losing is WAY more expensive than grudgingly eating the cost of a warranty repair they would have otherwise refused.

      With Magnuson-Moss, the deck is stacked VERY heavily against manufacturers in favor of consumers. It's probably one of the best consumer protection laws ever passed, because the members of Congress who wrote the law weren't just going through the motions to appease voters... they were as personally pissed off at the automakers as the general public was, and they wanted the automakers' blood to metaphorically flood the streets of Detroit.

  • Presumably this isn't limited to mobile devices (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    For years we've seen posting by people who chose to use operating systems other than the one provided with the computer they bought. When hardware had issues, the computer vendors invariably claimed that the hardware must have failed because the customers weren't running the preloaded Windows.

  • Ask Perry Mason what he suggests when the TOS mandates arbitration for disputes.

    Somebody's got a frowny face.
    Boo! Better luck next time!

  • Theory and Practice (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This is the problem with theoretical thinking. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

    Sure, in theory, there is this law that says one thing. But, in practice, there are many laws, and they say conflicting things.

  • Doesn't matter... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...they will just flash your device back to the default before troubleshooting.

    Problem fixed? They give it back to you, tell you they flashed to factory software, and it works. Deal.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      oh - and i hope you backed up anything you wanted off of it first. I'm sorry that you lost your 2000 photo library of duck faces.

  • If you hacked your Tesla and crashed it while in autopilot mode, is Tesla still liable?

    • Did your hack cause the autopilot to malfunction? What would the liability be if you hadn't hacked it and got careless with autopilot?

  • Not commenting on the quality of info, just the existence thereof:

    ahref=https://www.reddit.com/r/GalaxyNote3/comments/2xb7p5/solution_reset_the_knox_fuse_to_0x0_for_note_3/?st=is0j5spv&sh=2d04a482rel=url2html-5936 [slashdot.org]https://www.reddit.com/r/Galax...>

  • Why do companies bother to offer warranties if there are all these weird nanny laws out there?

    I don't want the products I'm working on to be supported in all cases (users start fooling around with server config files, etc).

  • So how come I can't recover from my Motorola Moto that was hit by stagefright while connected to Verizon, while paying for Verizon service?

    I'm out $600 for this LG phone.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it wasn't for Newton, we wouldn't have to eat bruised apples.

Close