While trying to resolve a warranty issue with my Librem 14, I read the full text of Purism’s warranty policies that has raised a few red flags about the Purity of the intentions behind them. For instance, my putting a tiny sticker on my own laptop without Purism’s prior permission would void all warranty, as the policy clarifies that doing so would be considered a temporary modification that does NOT affect the functionality of the laptop, but nevertheless voids the warranty.
Warranty does not apply:…(g) to a device that has been modified to temporary or permanently alter functionality or capability in any way without the written permission of Purism;
Warranty policy notes:…
… * warranty claim can be denied if the customer insists on returning a product with customization, such as stickers, privacy screen filters, etc, in a working state or undamaged, after the device was customized in a way that does not alter functionality thus haven’t invalidated point 3. (g)
I’ve pointed this out to the Purism support team during my Librem 14-related warranty discussions. These terms are very much illegal and unenforceable in most parts of the world since temporary and cosmetic modifications do not affect Purism’s legal obligation to ensure that their hardware products are manufactured in a way that is free from defects. And they provide no warranty on their software products, anyway.
Would be interesting to see this get challenged in a court of law.
Hardware warranty 5.g stands as enforceable, but I have brought up your concern with the team for clarification and/or revision:
warranty claim can be denied if the customer insists on returning a product with customization, such as stickers, privacy screen filters, etc, in a working state or undamaged, after the device was customized in a way that does not alter functionality thus haven’t invalidated point 3. (g)
Likely to hear back during business hours next week.
I heard back from the team. The following warranty note:
warranty claim can be denied if the customer insists on returning a product with customization, such as stickers, privacy screen filters, etc, in a working state or undamaged, after the device was customized in a way that does not alter functionality thus haven’t invalidated point 3. (g)
DOES apply to:
returns for refund
DOES NOT apply to:
in-warranty RMA
out-of-warranty repair
I’ll file an issue to have this section adjusted for clarity.
Well yes, if you got an RMA, you’re already “authorized” (as the acronym inplies). And if it is on out-of-warranty repair, your paying extra for the service anyway.
If you’re trying to get a refund, I’d compare this with trying to return a new car back to a dealer. A dealer wouldn’t refund it either if it had stickers. (That also do not affect the functionality of the car.) Although you may talk him down to a marked-down refund, or a trade-in.
@JCS Thank you for looking into this. Despite this response of yours from a couple days ago, I see that the Policies page has not been updated yet, so I assume those terms were not erroneous but intentional.
Would you kindly explain why there are return policy stipulations interspersed along with the warranty terms, on a policy labelled “Hardware Warranty”, and in a subsection labelled “Warranty policy notes”? There is a separate “Return Policy” specified on that same page, along with its own “Return policy notes”.
Also, I have to ask what percentage of your purchases get returned for there to be the need for iron-clad returns policy terms like this?
For this, it’s prudent to be proactive and have lawyers write up these kinds of documents proactively rather than reactively. As such the percentage of purchases that get returned now is largely irrelevant if the goal is to ever grow to a size where even a small percentage becomes a substantial business risk.
That said, most businesses fo tend to just take some other businesses policy, modify it, and hope that’s good enough rather than paying a lawyer. Enough consecutive intances of this and you get some interestind documents with significant legal flaws.
Any lawyer worth anything would tell them not to officially make that statement as it exposes unnecessary risk.
And even if they did, who decides what is an “error” or an “omission”?
If you’re genuinely concerned with the policy hire a lawyer to review it and inform you of what rights you would actually have, what rights you’re actually giving up, and what parts are unlikely to be enforceable in your specific jurisdiction.
That jurisdiction piece matters as parts may apply to some customers and not others because laws are complicated as are geopolitics.
I work for Purism. I have already stated the policy clarifications above. The clarifications will be rolled into published policy upon legal review but we’ll still honor my statement as official policy until such time that the policy is updated; the official policy will supercede my statement at that time.
