|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 27: |
Line 27: |
| ===Order-deadline urgency=== | | ===Order-deadline urgency=== |
| The Model F Labs homepage displays an order deadline set to the end of the month, urging customers to have their orders in by that date. Presenting a month-end cutoff as urgency is a [[Dark pattern|dark pattern]] that draws on [[Fear of missing out|FOMO]].<ref name="homepage" /> The company has paired this with statements that production will eventually cease without a specific end date, while continuing to sell from existing stock.<ref name="homepage" /> | | The Model F Labs homepage displays an order deadline set to the end of the month, urging customers to have their orders in by that date. Presenting a month-end cutoff as urgency is a [[Dark pattern|dark pattern]] that draws on [[Fear of missing out|FOMO]].<ref name="homepage" /> The company has paired this with statements that production will eventually cease without a specific end date, while continuing to sell from existing stock.<ref name="homepage" /> |
|
| |
| <!-- INCIDENT_SCORE: Order-deadline urgency | 24 | Documented dark pattern on the company's own homepage (archived); a design/disclosure concern with no lawsuit, regulator action, or quantified consumer loss. -->
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Finish wear and the company's response=== | | ===Finish wear and the company's response=== |
| [[File:Model f labs wear.jpg|thumb|Finish wear reported on a Model F Labs F62 case, which the buyer who posted the photo said appeared after roughly nine months of use. The image is a community forum report.<ref name="forumnote" />]] | | [[File:Model f labs wear.jpg|thumb|Finish wear reported on a Model F Labs F62 case, which the buyer who posted the photo said appeared after roughly nine months of use. The image is a community forum report.]] |
| Model F Labs' Terms and Conditions require buyers to accept cosmetic flaws as a condition of sale: ''"All buyers agree to accept cosmetic defects on all products."''<ref name="ToS" /> The listed examples include chips, scuffs, lost or missing paint, scratches, and gouges, and the terms add that keyboard finishes and surfaces will wear down over time with usage, ''"sometimes exposing the bare metal material."''<ref name="ToS" /> The same terms state that such cosmetic defects are not considered ''"non-conforming"''.<ref name="ToS" /> | | Model F Labs' Terms and Conditions require buyers to accept cosmetic flaws as a condition of sale: ''"All buyers agree to accept cosmetic defects on all products."''<ref name="ToS" /> The listed examples include chips, scuffs, lost or missing paint, scratches, and gouges, and the terms add that keyboard finishes and surfaces will wear down over time with usage, ''"sometimes exposing the bare metal material."''<ref name="ToS" /> The same terms state that such cosmetic defects are not considered ''"non-conforming"''.<ref name="ToS" /> |
|
| |
|
| Rather than treating wear as a defect to be remedied, the Terms and Conditions tell buyers that each keyboard is powder-coated or anodized and direct them to buy their own touch-up paint, naming ordinary paint-store touch-up paint or Birchwood Casey Aluminum Touch Up to ''"improve any issues"''.<ref name="ToS" /> | | Rather than treating wear as a defect to be remedied, the Terms and Conditions tell buyers that each keyboard is powder-coated or anodized and direct them to buy their own touch-up paint, naming ordinary paint-store touch-up paint or Birchwood Casey Aluminum Touch Up to ''"improve any issues"''.<ref name="ToS" /> |
|
| |
|
| On the Deskthority keyboard enthusiast forum, several users reported that the powder-coated finish on their F62 and F77 cases wore through within a few months of use, exposing the bare zinc underneath, a timeline they considered inconsistent with the company's promotion of the keyboards as long-lasting.<ref name="dt-wear-a">{{Cite web |title=Forum reports of finish wear on Model F reproductions |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521878#p521878 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203141/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521878 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="dt-wear-b">{{Cite web |title=Forum photo of finish wear on an F62 |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521981#p521981 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203141/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521981 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="forumnote">These accounts are drawn from user discussion on the Deskthority keyboard enthusiast forum and a related social-media post, archived for the record. They are first-hand community reports, not independent journalism, court records, or regulatory findings. The wiki's sourcing standard does not normally treat forum or social-media posts as reliable citations, so this material is included to document the consumer-side dispute and is attributed to the forum rather than asserted as established fact. The underlying claims have not been independently verified.</ref> In the same threads, members said Strandberg defended the wear as normal and within the Terms and Conditions, and that he offered full case replacements in some instances, which the participants attributed to community pressure rather than a change in policy.<ref name="dt-wear-c">{{Cite web |title=Forum discussion of the company response to wear reports |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521991#p521991 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203144/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521991 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="dt-wear-d">{{Cite web |title=Forum discussion of case-replacement offers |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=522038#p522038 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203149/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=522038 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="forumnote" /> | | On the Deskthority keyboard enthusiast forum, several users reported that the powder-coated finish on their F62 and F77 cases wore through within a few months of use, exposing the bare zinc underneath, a timeline they considered inconsistent with the company's promotion of the keyboards as long-lasting.<ref name="dt-wear-a">{{Cite web |title=Forum reports of finish wear on Model F reproductions |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521878#p521878 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203141/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521878 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="dt-wear-b">{{Cite web |title=Forum photo of finish wear on an F62 |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521981#p521981 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203141/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521981 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref> In the same threads, members said Strandberg defended the wear as normal and within the Terms and Conditions, and that he offered full case replacements in some instances, which the participants attributed to community pressure rather than a change in policy.<ref name="dt-wear-c">{{Cite web |title=Forum discussion of the company response to wear reports |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521991#p521991 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203144/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521991 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="dt-wear-d">{{Cite web |title=Forum discussion of case-replacement offers |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=522038#p522038 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203149/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=522038 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref> |
| | |
| <!-- INCIDENT_SCORE: Finish wear and the company's response | 30 | The wear and the no-free-replacement stance are documented in the company's own terms; ties directly to the EU non-waivable-conformity question, but no regulator or court has acted and the independent severity timeline is forum-only. -->
| |
| | |
| ===Shipping damage===
| |
| Forum users reported that keyboards arrived with shipping damage, which they attributed to the packaging. The keyboards ship in a tab-locking box with foam endcaps, with the keys left uninstalled so the barrels and springs are exposed, and with loose parts bagged on top of the springs.<ref name="dt-ship-a">{{Cite web |title=Forum reports of shipping damage to Model F keyboards |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521308#p521308 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203146/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521308 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="forumnote" /> Members said the company generally replaces parts damaged in transit on request, and that Strandberg acknowledged the problem and said more tape and padding would be added to future shipments; the posts noted that he did not say whether the bags resting on the springs would be secured.<ref name="dt-ship-b">{{Cite web |title=Forum discussion of the company response to shipping damage |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521310#p521310 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203143/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521310 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="forumnote" />
| |
| | |
| <!-- INCIDENT_SCORE: Shipping damage | 22 | Buyer reports of transit damage tied to the packaging design, documented only in community forum threads; company replaces parts on request, no regulator or court involvement and no quantified loss. -->
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Group-buy conduct and forum disputes=== | | ===Group-buy conduct and forum disputes=== |
| Model F Labs presents itself as a small enthusiast group buy while its own homepage reports thousands of orders and millions of dollars in sales.<ref name="homepage" /> On Deskthority, some members argued that the operation functions as a retail business and criticized its refusal to share certain production details with contributors who had helped develop the designs.<ref name="dt-conduct-a">{{Cite web |title=Forum discussion of the company group-buy status and production transparency |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521855#p521855 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203147/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521855 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="forumnote" /> Members also said Strandberg promoted Model F Labs products in community group-buy threads rather than the sub-forum set aside for keyboard manufacturers, and asked moderators to move the discussion; as of February 20, 2025 the posters said that had not happened.<ref name="dt-conduct-b">{{Cite web |title=Forum discussion of product promotion in the group-buy sub-forum |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521864#p521864 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203145/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521864 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="forumnote" /> Separately, members reacted critically to a proposal by Strandberg to buy the Deskthority forum with help from community funding, which some saw as a risk to independent criticism of the company on the platform.<ref name="fb-deskthority">{{Cite web |title=Social-media post regarding a proposal to buy the Deskthority forum |url=https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15xhzF92qc/ |publisher=Facebook (Model F Keyboards) |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=https://megalodon.jp/2026-0406-0731-45/https://www.facebook.com:443/ModelFKeyboards/posts/pfbid02KrbfKP8Hx72WjJx7nNWPBXx17LwHgGBmU42ykiqA5kXNfxLhMMsiqixre7EYeikSl |archive-date=2026-04-06 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="forumnote" /> | | Model F Labs presents itself as a small enthusiast group buy while its own homepage reports thousands of orders and millions of dollars in sales.<ref name="homepage" /> On Deskthority, some members argued that the operation functions as a retail business and criticized its refusal to share certain production details with contributors who had helped develop the designs.<ref name="dt-conduct-a">{{Cite web |title=Forum discussion of the company group-buy status and production transparency |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521855#p521855 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203147/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521855 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref> Members also said Strandberg promoted Model F Labs products in community group-buy threads rather than the sub-forum set aside for keyboard manufacturers, and asked moderators to move the discussion; as of February 20, 2025 the posters said that had not happened.<ref name="dt-conduct-b">{{Cite web |title=Forum discussion of product promotion in the group-buy sub-forum |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521864#p521864 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203145/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521864 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref> Separately, members reacted critically to a proposal by Strandberg to buy the Deskthority forum with help from community funding, which some saw as a risk to independent criticism of the company on the platform.<ref name="fb-deskthority">{{Cite web |title=Social-media post regarding a proposal to buy the Deskthority forum |url=https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15xhzF92qc/ |publisher=Facebook (Model F Keyboards) |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=https://megalodon.jp/2026-0406-0731-45/https://www.facebook.com:443/ModelFKeyboards/posts/pfbid02KrbfKP8Hx72WjJx7nNWPBXx17LwHgGBmU42ykiqA5kXNfxLhMMsiqixre7EYeikSl |archive-date=2026-04-06 |url-status=live}}</ref> |
|
| |
|
| <!-- INCIDENT_SCORE: Group-buy conduct and forum disputes | 20 | Community criticism of the company conduct on an enthusiast forum (transparency, self-promotion, a proposed forum purchase); documented only in forum and social posts, no independent reporting, regulator, or court action. -->
| | ===EU consumer-law=== |
| | |
| ===EU consumer-law shortfalls=== | |
| [[File:Model f labs warranty.jpg|thumb|Scan of a Model F Labs warranty flyer that ships with a keyboard. The company states in its Terms and Conditions that the warranty is otherwise available only by mail-in request or on arrival of the product, so a buyer does not see these terms before purchase.<ref name="ToS" />]] | | [[File:Model f labs warranty.jpg|thumb|Scan of a Model F Labs warranty flyer that ships with a keyboard. The company states in its Terms and Conditions that the warranty is otherwise available only by mail-in request or on arrival of the product, so a buyer does not see these terms before purchase.<ref name="ToS" />]] |
| Model F Labs ships to customers in the European Union, which subjects those sales to EU distance-selling and consumer-guarantee rules. Several of the company's terms conflict with those rules. Forum members were the first to raise the EU-compliance question, before the legal analysis below.<ref name="dt-eu">{{Cite web |title=Forum discussion of EU consumer-law compliance |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521939#p521939 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203144/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521939 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="forumnote" /> | | Model F Labs ships to customers in the European Union, which subjects those sales to EU distance-selling and consumer-guarantee rules. Several of the company's terms conflict with those rules, with forum members raising concerns around EU-compliance.<ref name="dt-eu">{{Cite web |title=Forum discussion of EU consumer-law compliance |url=https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521939#p521939 |publisher=Deskthority forum post |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708203144/https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?p=521939 |archive-date=2025-07-08 |url-status=live}}</ref> |
| | |
| ====Returns and the right of withdrawal====
| |
| For distance contracts, Directive 2011/83/EU gives consumers a right of withdrawal. Article 9(1) provides that, save where the Article 16 exceptions apply, ''"the consumer shall have a period of 14 days to withdraw from a distance or off-premises contract, without giving any reason."''<ref name="dir201183-art9" /> The company's ''"all sales are final"'' term offers no such withdrawal window.<ref name="ToS" />
| |
| | |
| The directive also requires that goods conform to what was agreed and to objective standards. Under Directive (EU) 2019/771, Article 7, a seller is not liable for a deviation from objective conformity only where the consumer was specifically informed of that deviation and ''"separately"'' and expressly accepted it when concluding the contract.<ref name="dir2019771-art7">{{Cite web |title=Directive (EU) 2019/771, Article 7 (Objective requirements for conformity) |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0771 |publisher=EUR-Lex |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260518100525/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0771 |archive-date=2026-05-18 |url-status=live}}</ref> Model F Labs' acceptance of cosmetic defects is set out in the Terms and Conditions rather than as a separate, express acceptance at checkout.<ref name="ToS" />
| |
| | |
| ====Article 16(c): made-to-order exemption====
| |
| Directive 2011/83/EU, Article 16(c) lets Member States withhold the right of withdrawal for ''"the supply of goods made to the consumer's specifications or clearly personalised."''<ref name="dir201183-art16">{{Cite web |title=Directive 2011/83/EU, Article 16 (Exceptions from the right of withdrawal) |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011L0083 |publisher=EUR-Lex |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260601063459/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011L0083 |archive-date=2026-06-01 |url-status=live}}</ref> Whether that exemption reaches a reproduction keyboard chosen from a fixed set of catalog options, such as a predefined layout, case color, or keycap set, is a contested legal question. The European Commission's guidance on the directive treats the exemption as covering non-prefabricated goods made on the basis of an individual choice by the consumer, such as tailor-made curtains.<ref name="ec-guidance">{{Cite web |title=Commission Notice: Guidance on the interpretation and application of Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights (2021/C 525/01) |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021XC1229(04) |publisher=European Commission / EUR-Lex |date=2021-12-29 |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260227125605/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021XC1229(04) |archive-date=2026-02-27 |url-status=live}}</ref> In Case C-529/19 (''Möbel Kraft''), the Court of Justice held that the exemption applies from the moment the contract is concluded, regardless of whether the trader has begun manufacturing, but the case concerned goods made to a customer's specifications.<ref name="mobel-kraft">{{Cite web |title=Judgment in Case C-529/19, Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG v ML |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62019CJ0529 |publisher=EUR-Lex / Court of Justice of the European Union |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260225013420/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62019CJ0529 |archive-date=2026-02-25 |url-status=live}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ====The two-year guarantee that cannot be waived====
| |
| Separately from withdrawal, Directive (EU) 2019/771, Article 10(1) makes the seller liable for any lack of conformity that exists at delivery and becomes apparent within two years.<ref name="dir2019771-art10" /> Article 21 (''"Mandatory nature"'') provides that a contractual agreement which, to the consumer's detriment, excludes or varies the directive's protections before the consumer notifies the seller of a lack of conformity ''"shall not be binding on the consumer."''<ref name="dir2019771-art21" /> A blanket ''"all sales are final"'' term therefore cannot remove the two-year conformity liability for buyers in the EU.<ref name="ToS" />
| |
|
| |
|
| ====CE marking====
| |
| A mechanical keyboard is electronic equipment, which brings it within EU harmonized product rules. The Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive 2014/30/EU applies to apparatus liable to cause or be affected by electromagnetic disturbance.<ref name="emc">{{Cite web |title=Directive 2014/30/EU (Electromagnetic Compatibility) |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0030 |publisher=EUR-Lex |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260425132526/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0030 |archive-date=2026-04-25 |url-status=live}}</ref> The Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive 2011/65/EU restricts substances such as lead and mercury in electrical and electronic equipment, and CE marking is required to show compliance.<ref name="rohs">{{Cite web |title=Directive 2011/65/EU (Restriction of Hazardous Substances, RoHS) |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011L0065 |publisher=EUR-Lex |access-date=2026-06-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260423064044/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011L0065 |archive-date=2026-04-23 |url-status=live}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| <!-- INCIDENT_SCORE: EU consumer-law shortfalls | 38 | Multiple of the company's written terms ("all sales are final," cosmetic-defect acceptance, no upfront warranty) conflict with primary EU directive text (withdrawal, non-waivable two-year guarantee, CE marking); no enforcement action documented, so the harm is established on legal text and the company's own terms rather than a regulator's finding. -->
| |
|
| |
|
| ==See also== | | ==See also== |