Nintendo May Be Facing Heat From The FTC Over Its Warranty Policy

@Ooyah

They probably would be fine if the statement was "this warranty will not cover damages caused by third-party products"

As it stands its voided whether the third-party product used was the cause of the issue or not, and that sounds really unfair.

Think it fair. Would try to find a way around some stuff as the third party docks happen after firmware update.

In the European system, it would be decisive if the third-party product caused the damage that the consumer wants to have repaired under the warranty. A general exclusion of warranty if the consumer uses a product not sold by Nintendo as peripheral is invalid under EU law.

Yay for consumer protection

@Dipso But if the device that needs repair is sent in with the original package (original controllers, etc.), then even if a third party controller or charger did brick your console, they do replace it to my knowledge.

There is no reason for customers, other than much lower costs, why people should be buying hardware or software not licensed by the company at hand to use with any hardware. That's just my two cents. If a customer buys something not intended for use with the original product, they're buying it at their own risk.

My Switch dock and Adapter are Official Nintendo products.
No worry at all.

At least you can send in a defective Joy-Con without sending the Switch unit they came with.

But I agree that Nintendo does have a fair point if, say, one of those flimsy unlicensed Kickstarted docks caused damage to your Switch and you want them to repair it. If Nintendo does repair it, consider that a gesture of loyal customer support.

After all, companies tend to repair some things outside of warranty as they rather have a lifelong happy customer that keeps buying their products, than one's negative experience that may spread to other potential customers.

I may provide further comment if this ends up being an actual story but until then it is just pointless speculation.

Edit: Also, is the writer leaving out the entire example of the warranty example that FTC used? If so, what is the full example?

Edit 2: Actually the writer did quite the full example from FTC so fair do's.

I've always thought Nintendo were relatively fair with their warranties and never had an issue when using official Ninty stuff.

@Slaz The keywords are "if the third party components caused damage". The way the warranty is worded now suggests that even using those would void it, regardless of which part of the setup caused the failure (like the faulty Joy-Con example).

And technically when you hook up your Switch to a TV you're already using it with third party hardware. There are no officially licensed Nintendo TVs...

To be fair they do replace consoles that have been used with third party products, as long as it's not brazen i.e. sending the console to them with the third party hardware still attached. I think this statement is just to cover them in the cases where the third party hardware is the cause of the damage. That's completely fair since there is nothing they could do to prevent it in that case. I agree the way it's worded comes across wrong to the consumer though.

@Varkster There is at least one good reason: The switch dock is unnecessarily big. That´s fine for at home but if, say, you visit friends often to play with them on their TV, you might want a small TV-Adapter.

Technically that´s no problem. But Nintendo does not offer that.

People who repaired their iPhone's screen using 3rd party services also voided their Apple warranty. It's common practice.

How can a genuine company trust, or plan for 3rd party rubbish?

If Nintendo warns you not to do something, why should they be expected to fix something for you if you disregard the warning?

If I buy a Mustang, mod the engine with some cheap Chinese supercharger and blow the engine up, would Ford be expected to honor the warranty? Somehow I doubt it.

To me, Nintendo's statement is fair & just. The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act has been around since the mid-70s & I expect Nintendo have been abiding by the terms since inception. Nintendo tick all the boxes for the requirement, specifically for the warranty and replacement of parts - if you read the limitations associated with the Act then you'll notice that if the Warrantor (Nintendo) are able to provide evidence that the Consumer product was damaged whilst in the possession of the Consumer, whether that be due to misuse, carelessness or use of unofficial products, then Nintendo will have every right to refuse a repair & replacement of parts. It’s only really applicable if the Consumer product doesn’t perform as intended & any parts supplied to the end user are defective or fail within the warranty period.

@Octane I was very much hoping someone would use that gif, thanks for not letting me down!

Consumer protection.

Power to the people.

It's a tricky one, on one hand you can't account for crappy third-party docks, but on the other hand Nintendo are using a USB standard connector without sticking to said standard in the more technical part (The whole bricking thing)...

It can well be argued that using a standard plug raises expectations that the device sticks to that standard as far as power consumption, communicating with the dock and such go, Nintendo just doing their own thing in that regard can be seen as deceptive (Should have used a proprietary connector then, to make it clearer)

That this problem happened a lot more frequently since a particular OS-update makes it seem (Rightly or not) like a conscious attempt to lock out competing docks, which is also bad form towards the consumers, again: if you don't intend to stick to a standard, make proprietary connectors and protocols.

@Nincompoop Not so fast--https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/11/iphone-replacement-display-ambient-light-sensor-issue/

@Varkster & @Ooyah - Well that is why we have industry standards like USB. Nintendo actually is at fault because THEY do not comply with the USB-C standard despite their connector being labeled as USB-C. And that is the real issue imho!

Hold on a sec. An elipse (. . .) can be used to omit additional germane facts.

I know it's easy for our brains to go right to the idea of 3rd party docks brick in the Switch but that isn't really what this is about. I suggest everyone go read the linked to article on Arstechnic. Here's the subtitle which explains it a bit better.

FTC warns companies to stop voiding warranties for unauthorized repairs.

Lots of companies like to put stickers on their devices that read "Warranty void if removed" so they are off the hook for repairs if somebody looks inside their product that they own. 3rd party accessories are covered by what the FTC is doing here but what they are really going after is Apple refusing to let repair shops fix your iPhone.

But go read the article, or Google it if you don't like Arstechna, this is more about Apple repairs than 3rd party products.

If this is so illegal they are picking an odd time to bring it up

I think it's fair for a company, any company, to within reason void a warranty if you have been pre-warned what might happen if something happens to your product that goes against their advice/guidlines for said product.

Reminds me a bit like when everyone was "chipping" their original Playstations and Dreamcasts; there were two places here in Cambridge that would happily do it for you, but they did always pre-warn you that you would be voiding any guarantee the console had as it was breaking the seal.

All Nintendo needs to do is start charging $14.99 for their systems, but overcharge for everything else.

I'm glad to see the FTC really hunker down on this. The issue is that a lot of companies view owning physical hardware akin to being licensing the hardware.

Don't for get that it was Nintendo's update that started most of switchs to break down because they did not look in to 3rd party's products

I get being a product fan boy but why are some people so anti consumer?

Remember how I said stuff like "Just because a company puts something in its terms and conditions, it doesn't mean that what they have included is the actual/absolute law and it cannot be disputed or challenged", or something to that effect. . . .

Well, that exact same notion applies to companies like Nintendo putting labels on their products telling consumers something and wording it in such a way that makes them believe it is the law and they have no rights or options otherwise when that is in fact not the law in this case.

And this just serves to reinforce and double my view/stance on the whole terms and conditions and copyright/fair use stuff too.

I don't think third-party problems are Nintendo's fault. Besides, if the rule was changed to "This warranty will not apply if the damage is caused by products not sold or licensed by Nintendo", how would they tell what the damage was caused by?

In my opinion it is fair. Third parties accessories could damage the console and Nintendo is not responsible for that.

If you buy cheap stuff we have to presume it could be untested or untested to the conditions where it will be distributed, immon Nintendo's side but bloody hell they need to make their own mini dock

I think Nintendo's policy is fair, but I also understand the reasoning behind the law, and if the law prohibits that kind of warranty clause, then the warranty has to change. A company can't be allowed to pick and choose what laws it follows.

Nah, that’s a fair complaint. I sent my 3DS in for repairs once and had bought a replacement stylus. It came back with a note that my stylus was a third party product and therefore my warranty was void. Yes, because a different pen shaped piece of plastic caused my shoulder button to stop working, that makes sense.

If that is the law, they need to follow it or pull out.

Not like my TypeC cable is Nintendo Branded/licensed - that would be insane. Now if you open the Switch, start mucking around and break it - really, that should be on you... Lol!

Im assuming SD cards do not count as "product sold by or license by Nintendo"... If it does - this is BS.

The burden of proof should be on nintendo to show that the 3rd party hardware or software caused the product issue but if that were the case I would be on their side.

@Anti-Matter Honestly, by now people should realize that buying third party add-ons is always a risk.

@1UP_MARIO Generally I agree with that 100%, but if the company warns you not to do something with their product, and you do it anyway, why should the company be liable to fix it still?

Now if the company DIDN'T warn you, that's a different story.

This is the warranty policy on a lot of products.

Of course such terms are not enforceable. This is only about semantics, not actual practice from companies. Do I need a special Nintendo table to sit my Switch on, or else Nintendo voids my warranty? Of course not. Can I use a non-Nintendo television? Of course. It’s only in the event that a third party device causes damage or would hinder Nintendo’s ability to fix it that this comes into play, and then it is of course enforceable, probably even without this clause in the warranty text.

Huh a lot of people seems to have trouble understanding the article... knee jerk 1point - Reading comprehension zero

Nintendo:
So the FTC won't let me be,
Or let me use this sort of warranty.
They'll try to shut it down just wait and see,
But without us you can't play Kirby.

(I'm so sorry)

"I fought the law, and the..."

Xbox One