Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Cellphones Google Hardware

Google Can Keep Your Phone If You Send It In For Repair With Non-OEM Parts [UPDATE: Changing Policy] (androidauthority.com) 148

Posted by BeauHD from the reversed-course dept.
UPDATE 6/4/2024: Google has changed its repair policy in response to the controversial clause that was brought to light. Google says it will not keep phones sent in for repair and that it's changing the wording of its ToS agreement to reflect this. Here's a statement from a Google spokesperson: "If a customer sends their Pixel to Google for repair, we would not keep it regardless of whether it has non-OEM parts or not. In certain situations, we won't be able to complete a repair if there are safety concerns. In that case, we will either send it back to the customer or work with them to determine next steps. Customers are also free to seek the repair options that work best for them. We are updating our Terms and Conditions to clarify this."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Android Authority: Like many other phone makers, Google has a self-repair program for servicing your damaged or malfunctioning Pixel device. As its support site explains, there are options to get repair tools, manuals, and certified parts so you can fix up your Pixel like new. Owners can also choose to simply send their device in to have it repaired professionally. As replacement parts can be expensive, some DIYers choose to use parts from third-party suppliers. But if you go down this route, you may want to avoid sending your device to Google if there's a problem you don't have the skills to fix on your own.

As YouTuber Louis Rossmann discovered, Google's service and repair terms and conditions contain a concerning stipulation. The document states that Google will keep your device if a non-OEM part is found. Apparently, this rule has been in effect since July 19, 2023, as marked on the page. Last week, iFixit said they are parting ways with Samsung because the company "does not seem interested in enabling repair at scale."

A separate report from 404 Media found that Samsung requires independent repair shops to give them the name, contact information, phone identifier, and customer complaint details of everyone who gets their phone repaired at these shops. "Stunningly, it also requires these nominally independent shops to 'immediately disassemble' any phones that customers have brought them that have been previously repaired with aftermarket or third-party parts and to 'immediately notify' Samsung that the customer has used third-party parts," reports 404 Media.

Google Can Keep Your Phone If You Send It In For Repair With Non-OEM Parts [UPDATE: Changing Policy] More | Reply

Google Can Keep Your Phone If You Send It In For Repair With Non-OEM Parts [UPDATE: Changing Policy]

Comments Filter:

  • How can they do that? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Monday June 03, 2024 @05:49PM (#64521057)

    The document states that Google will keep your device if a non-OEM part is found.

    I can't believe Google has a leg to stand on here. This is the exact equivalent of taking my car to a dealer for repair, and having the dealer tell me that I'm not getting it back because I put non-OEM brake pads on it. It is theft, pure and simple. I hope they have the feds crawling up their ass with cleats on. But I fear that won't happen.

    Several times here I've mentioned 'torches and pitch-forks'. If Google gets away with this shit, it would be time to grab those implements and start cleaning house. Fuck Google - they need to die.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rossdee ( 243626 )

      "Several times here I've mentioned 'torches and pitch-forks'."

      This is 21st century america, wouldn't semi-auto rifles and bayonets be more effective?

      • "Several times here I've mentioned 'torches and pitch-forks'."

        This is 21st century america, wouldn't semi-auto rifles and bayonets be more effective?

        Rifles are good - use those to herd the fuckers up against the wall and to discourage escape attempts. Forget the bayonets - the pitchforks are scarier and more impressive. The torches are needed because watching people burn is more of a deterrent than watching them get shot.

        • "Several times here I've mentioned 'torches and pitch-forks'."

          This is 21st century america, wouldn't semi-auto rifles and bayonets be more effective?

          Rifles are good - use those to herd the fuckers up against the wall and to discourage escape attempts. Forget the bayonets - the pitchforks are scarier and more impressive. The torches are needed because watching people burn is more of a deterrent than watching them get shot.

          Pitchforks need special care to be used on bodies. Trust me on this. And I doubt most civilians have the knowledge necessary to form the points in the correct orientation for a good proper set of stab wounds. And I'm sorry, but as an American I can say, without a single doubt, that most American's aren't gonna take the time to do this right.

          Bayonets are sharp. I give the nod to bayonets by default.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by rossdee ( 243626 )

            "Ever think. Lieutenant, that every military generation since World War I has thought theirs would be the last to carry bayonets?"
            " Think about it. A weapon originally designed to convert a musket into a pike, and it's still around when we're going to war in starships."

                -- John Christian Falkenberg

        • not to mention hearing people burning, and smelling people burning... the smell of long pig in the morning, that wakes ya up.

      • Only if you're going after the leadership. On a more local level, torches would nicely repair their repair shops.

    • I heard from someone that if you come into a car repair place after having your car repaired somewhere else, they will make sure some of the bolts don't fall off by putting Loctite on the threads.

      Just something I heard, and don't tell anyone you heard it from me.

      • ...or not understanding the purpose of threadlockers. [wikipedia.org]

        • I heard this from only one source, and I don't have confirmation.

          The point is that if a car shop wants to teach customers "a lesson" to not shop around for car repairs, they can engage in subtle levels of sabotage that will not be known directly to a customer but will be apparent "to the next guy" working on the car when they try to wrench a bolt off. They don't need to confiscate your car for "non OEM parts."

          Are service providers that jealous? Certainly the case with music and other private-lesson t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by stooo ( 2202012 )

        You lose your business mid-term with anti-customer practices like this

    • If just plain theft IMO. Unless they are swapping it out for a brand new one.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Yeah, that makes no sense. Just because I send my phone in for a warranty repair, does not give them the right to keep it - at the very least they need to return the item back unfixed. Otherwise I'd be out a phone that's legally mine and not Google's to keep.

      Even Apple returns your item if there's third party items or water damage - they don't keep it. They refuse to fix it and give it back to you. And given it's Apple, I'm sure a good number of devices come back to them with third party screens and batteri

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by msauve ( 701917 )
        Where does it say anything about warranty repair?

      • Yeah, that makes no sense. Just because I send my phone in for a warranty repair, does not give them the right to keep it - at the very least they need to return the item back unfixed. Otherwise I'd be out a phone that's legally mine and not Google's to keep.

        Even Apple returns your item if there's third party items or water damage - they don't keep it. They refuse to fix it and give it back to you. And given it's Apple, I'm sure a good number of devices come back to them with third party screens and batteries.

        And we all know Apple is no saint in the repair department.

        Actually, in that Regard, I think Apple is getting a lot better recently:

        https://support.apple.com/self... [apple.com]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by stooo ( 2202012 )

          >> Apple is getting a lot better recently
          Apple is getting a lot better at PR. Nothing else than good old cheap talk with no action.

          On the other hand, the EU mandating easily exchangeable battery (or even screen?) is going to be a huge leap for everybody.

    • They can do what ever they want providing they are happy to be punished for it. That's how all laws, contracts and civil disagreements work. I really hope they do take my device. I could do with a quick payday from court.

      • They can do what ever they want providing they are happy to be punished for it. That's how all laws, contracts and civil disagreements work. I really hope they do take my device. I could do with a quick payday from court.

        Unless you're Elon Musk, the courts will, at most, agree to give you compensation in the amount of value left in the device that was confiscated. Perhaps a bit more to get new replacement value. You'll pay more to lawyers than you'll make. But good luck going up against the behemoths. They'll swat you.

    • I can't believe Google has a leg to stand on here. This is the exact equivalent of taking my car to a dealer for repair, and having the dealer tell me that I'm not getting it back because I put non-OEM brake pads on it. It is theft, pure and simple. I hope they have the feds crawling up their ass with cleats on. But I fear that won't happen.

      Google, like most large corporations, is aware that laws do not apply to it.

      I know a girl who got her phone stolen, and somehow, that phone worked its way back to Apple

      • Truer words were never spoken. I wish that a) people would not bury their heads in the sand and instead wake up to these facts, and b) start talking and writing about them a lot. That level of discussion and complaint would make the dissatisfaction top-of-mind throughout society, and would have a chance of bringing about actual change.

      • and remember the Legislative Branch writes the laws, that's your elected bozo's who tell you all about how they care about you, how they're thinking about 'the people'.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It might be a legal obligation on Google.

      eBay started doing this years ago. If an item is deemed to be a fake, apparently in some US states it is illegal to send fake goods through the postal system so the buyer is instructed to destroy the item for a refund. Of course they screwed up and destroyed genuine antique violins and the like, but the key point is that law.

      If the parts are "non genuine" they could be considered fakes. Of course it's still a dick move because the owner may have been fully aware that

      • It might be a legal obligation on Google.

        No, it can not be in this country.

        In the USA we have the Magnusson-Moss act which explicitly forbids cancelling a warranty because someone has used third party parts or supplies, as long as those parts are compatible.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by flink ( 18449 )

        Like you said, this is not analogous to the counterfeit items situation with eBay:

        1) The user is not attempting to sell "fake" parts to Google. 2) Google is not acting as an intermediary in a transaction involving "fake" parts. 3) No one sold the user "fake" parts. The user knowingly had a compatible replacement installed. 4) The user is not representing the replacement parts as being manufactured or supplied by google.

        Even if the user is lying to Google about the parts being OEM, the customer is not tryin

  • How does Magnusson-Moss not apply here?

  • And... what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by franzrogar ( 3986783 ) on Monday June 03, 2024 @05:55PM (#64521061)

    I don't know in your country, but in mine they can write in the license/TOS/terms and conditions/whatever want, even requesting you give them your firstborn and there's no problem at all.

    Why? Because if anything written in it is ILLEGAL, then it does NOT apply.

    In this case, the phone is YOUR property. If they keep it, it's THEFT, thus that clause is ILLEGAL and you can win a lawsuit against them.

    • Re: And... what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wgoodman ( 1109297 ) on Monday June 03, 2024 @06:38PM (#64521177)

      Yes, but why are you going to spend more than the cost of your phone on a lawyer fighting against a company that has more money than god?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ukoda ( 537183 )
        Lawyer? Isn't theft something the Police are meant to deal with?

        • Re: And... what? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by viperidaenz ( 2515578 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2024 @12:28AM (#64521609)

          If you give something to someone, it's not theft.
          If they break an agreement and don't return it to you, it's a civil matter.
          If they said they won't return it it you and you don't think that's legally enforceable, also a civil matter you'll probably need a judge to rule on.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by flink ( 18449 )

            If you give something to someone, it's not theft.

            No one gave anyone anything. You requested a repair service. You don't "give" your car to your mechanic when you leave it overnight with them.

            If they break an agreement and don't return it to you, it's a civil matter.
            If they said they won't return it it you and you don't think that's legally enforceable, also a civil matter you'll probably need a judge to rule on.

            Let me try that with my next rental car and see how that goes. I bet you 100% of the time police will get involved and you'll be talking to a prosecutor RE grand theft auto.

      • Re: And... what? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Monday June 03, 2024 @07:39PM (#64521313) Homepage

        Small claims court would be the appropriate venue.

        -No attorney representation is allowed, by either party.
        -Filing fees are ~$50 and commonly waived for those who can't afford it.
        -The paperwork is a simple fill-in-the-blanks format.
        -Judges don't accept bullshit "it's in the fineprint of the terms-and-conditions" excuses: They expect a clear answer in common language as to why the actions should be permissible.
        -Most small claims court actions are resolved by a judge within a few weeks of initial filing.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          What's the limit on a "small claim" this year. ISTM it used to be a lot less than the current cost of a good phone. (OTOH, I haven't priced phones recently.)

        • That sounds like a pretty good idea, but if I can sue Google in my local small claims court and neither of us can have an attorney, who shows up from Google? Like do they have to send an employee I wonder?

          • Sounds tailor made for Judge Judy.

          • They can send a company representative - must be management or above (able to "represent" the company).
            Typically they will not bother. If they no-show they lose by default. If they send someone, they still probably lose, and they are out the cost of the person's time.
            You can appeal if you are sued and lose, but not if you initiate the suit and lose. Also you cannot appeal a default judgement.

        • Binding arbitration is probably also in the terms.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by flink ( 18449 )

            They would have to send someone to argue that, which they probably won't. You may very well just win a default judgement.

            • They would be able to file a motion to dismiss on the basis of having a binding arbitration contract. Might not hold up, but it doesn't require sending anyone.

          • Tell it to the Judge! ;)

            Binding arbitration is a valid contract restriction, but an actual illegal action [theft] may supersede. The judge would have to decide. They would have to send someone in-person to make the case to the judge that it should be handled in arbitration instead of by the court (likely costing more for the person's time than the cost of the payout.)

            • Might not hold up, but it doesn't require sending anyone. They would be able to file a motion to dismiss on the basis of having a binding arbitration contract.

        • So they can pick a venue that leans heavily in their favor.

      • Yes, but why are you going to spend more than the cost of your phone on a lawyer fighting against a company that has more money than god?

        Because they have more money than god, and because it will work out well for you, not only costing you no money, having someone else do all the work for you, but netting you a nice payday at the end of it.

        You don't avoid the courts just because one side has more money when they do something so blatently stupid that a judge will likely rule against them summarily not even requiring you to show up.

  • A correction (I think) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Travelsonic ( 870859 ) on Monday June 03, 2024 @05:57PM (#64521067) Journal
    Correction... they CLAIM they can - somehow I doubt that they actually can do this. IANAL, but intuitively a lot feels so wrong about that claim.

    • Re:A correction (I think) (Score:5, Interesting)

      by loonycyborg ( 1262242 ) on Monday June 03, 2024 @07:39PM (#64521311)
      I don't think such terms would hold in a contract of adhesion. They're held to a higher standard by court. Anything remotely unreasonable could be considered void. And confiscation of entire phone for such silly reason is beyond unreasonable. After all it's still the person's property.

      • They're held to a higher standard by court

        Are they held to a higher standard by forced arbitration where the arbiter is hired by Google? I don't know if Google has a forced arbitration clause, but it seems to be very popular these days.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by flink ( 18449 )

          They did not license the phone they sold it. They can't contract away your right of first sale. They have no right to the physical device. The best they could do is void your warranty and refuse to repair it, arbitrator or no.

    • IANAL, but intuitively a lot feels so wrong about that claim.

      Sadly, intuition has very little standing in a court of law.

  • So the title talks about Google (Score:3)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Monday June 03, 2024 @06:00PM (#64521073)

    As does the first half of TFS. But then, halfway through, it just starts randomly talking about Samsung.

    The actual article might actually tie these together, since the subject is similar... but I don't want to click on it and potentially reward such shoddy writing.

    • It's almost like sometimes Slashdot summaries reference previous related stories run on Slashdot in the latter half of their summaries. The only thing shoddy about it is it is craving an additional carriage return before talking about the Samsung story.

      Since you seem to be oblivious to Slashdot doing this very frequently have an obligatory: "You must be new here"

  • How is that any different than Ford keeping your car if they find non-OEM parts installed?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by msauve ( 701917 )
      I'd assume that Ford doesn't have similar terms in written form which you must accept before getting service. That's a pretty significant difference.
  • Are we really "buying" these products or renting them? If I own it, I can do goddamned whatever I want with it.
  • I haven't actually seen a explanation for that. One obvious and reasonable one is this is directed at third party batteries which are notorious for blowing up. The reason for the rule to immediately disassemble the device is in case the thing goes pop.

    Not entirely sure why Samsung cares what my name is if I have a third party battery in one of their phones. That one I can't even come up with a good explanation for. Most large corporations are loathe to handle personally identifiable information for no g

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      So.. pure guesswork here.. I think they hired a paralegal who didn't understand the terms they were using and picked the wrong one.

      Years ago I worked for a company that had a similar policy, we would keep machines that were sent in for repairs. However, there was a keyword difference : rather than 'OEM', 'counterfeit./

      We didn't care if customers swapped out parts for off the shelf variants (though it WOULD void your warranty, so expect to pay more), but we were very concerned about counterfeit machines

      • At what point does a Ship of Theseus [wikipedia.org] become counterfeit?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jythie ( 914043 )
          Well, in our case, the whole thing was counterfeit. Made to look like our machines withour branding, and running our software, but inside the hardware was completely differnt and was built without the security devices.

          Though I think the more general answer : once the main board is differnt, the whole device is differnt.

  • Similarly, if you go to buy a new Pixel and choose to trade in your old phone, the contract states that if they determine your phone is intelligible for trade in, you won't get your phone back.

  • Not being a Google fanbois here. And I'm absolutely pro-user repair rights, etc. However, Google could be justified in their policy as their devices receive regulatory approval in a set configuration, with parts that meet set specifications. I posit that they could be liable if they fix a device that contains non-compliant parts and release it to the public.

    • And they may not be able to ship anything that they think might catch fire

      • Nope

        If You send in a Device with any of the above battery problems, Service Provider will return Your Device to You without making any repairs.

        They'll happily send back a battery that might catch fire.
        It's purely about unauthorised parts:

        Unauthorized Parts: You will not send in a Device containing non-Google-authorized parts – if You do, Your Device will not be returned to you.

        It's the only circumstance they will not return your device.

    • So that covers the cellular and WiFi radios and the antenna and very little of the rest.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by LazLong ( 757 )

        So that covers the cellular and WiFi radios and the antenna and very little of the rest.

        No, I think it probably covers anything that can potentially create any EM interference, which are basically most electronics.

        • Part 15 might be a valid reason to refuse to repair, but not to steal it. But really, they aren't liable for customer modifications. There's no good justification.

          A mechanic can refuse to replace your brake pads if you have a brake fluid leak. But refusing to repair your brakes because your modified exhaust system doesn't meet EPA restrictions is ridiculous. Legal, but ridiculous. The mechanic is not taking on liability for this. Stealing your car and refusing to give it back on that basis is NOT ok.

          Ev

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by flink ( 18449 )

      So report you to the FCC, they aren't police, they can't just confiscate private property.

  • Do I Own the Phone? (Score:3)

    by organgtool ( 966989 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2024 @12:01AM (#64521583)
    If they can take my phone, do I really own it? If not, then Google owns the phone. And in that case they can keep it because I'm not fucking buying any phones from Google (or Samsung) in the first place.

  • Google-free (Score:3)

    by BeaverCleaver ( 673164 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2024 @01:37AM (#64521645)

    Another reason to keep my dumbphone. It works as a hotspot so if I NEED internet access I can use a real computer. Fuck Google. You get no money and no data from me.

  • It's the Google & Samsung Stazis. Big Brother is watching you & he has informants everywhere. It's not governments but corporations that are bringing us this post-WWII dystopia. Be careful you don't get caught because you might be sent for re-education! Doubleplusgood, brother. Doubleplusgood!

  • Mostly won't repair it, just replace it - and most repairs need to be authorised, and will cost more than Apple doing it, or will not work at all

    At least Google let you repair it

  • android phones under the control of google are shit tier phones, it they break i toss em in the trash and go buy a new one,.

  • we need an Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 2.0 to stop this BS

  • a line of android phones not under the control of google (hardware and software) needs to be made available especially incthe USA where All android phone brands are under googles tyranny, FairPhone and PinePhone needs to be made availabile in the USA

  • alternative title (Score:3)

    by LazarusQLong ( 5486838 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2024 @10:28AM (#64524731)
    "Google tried to slip an illegal requirement in the terms of service past the populace, until eagle-eyed people called them to task and publicly published what Google was trying to do."

  • "In certain situations, we won't be able to complete a repair if there are safety concerns. In that case, we will either send it back to the customer or work with them to determine next steps." ????

    What does this even mean? These aren't firearms being sent in for servicing. They're just smartphones, with relatively small battery packs and charge with your run of the mill adapters that output low voltage.

    "Safety concerns" seems like the latest industry buzzword to fight your "right to repair", more than anything else. "Oh, you substituted the original factory screen with a third party replacement. We can't be sure that glass is as strong as the OEM glass so there could be a safety issue if it shatters and cuts you!"

Slashdot Top Deals

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T

Close