Right to repair: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m add warranty void if removed section from monoprice article. Credit to anon who created it |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
There are several forces that result in interference with a right to repair, some intentional and some incidental. The Consumer Action Taskforce generally focuses on practices that are intentional. The motivations for interference in a right to repair are sometimes but not limited to direct financial benefit or market control. | There are several forces that result in interference with a right to repair, some intentional and some incidental. The Consumer Action Taskforce generally focuses on practices that are intentional. The motivations for interference in a right to repair are sometimes but not limited to direct financial benefit or market control. | ||
==Anti-repair practices== | |||
Practices by companies and organizations that result in interference with right to repair often have other stated goals than to interfere with repair, or argue the importance of that goal supercedes any repair considerations that may be interfered with. Common stated goals used in the examples of this wiki are for security, to make warranty possible, to indemnify, safety, compliance with other regulation, or quality control. Right to repair advocacy seeks to challenge the validity of the stated goals, both on its merit and on its truthfulness as the motivation for the practice, due to the resulting interference with a consumer's right to repair. These goals are argued to be a mask for other outcomes that are meant to benefit that organization in other ways, often for financial benefit by limiting access to repair resources that result in higher costs to the consumer and fewer choices in repair options. | Practices by companies and organizations that result in interference with right to repair often have other stated goals than to interfere with repair, or argue the importance of that goal supercedes any repair considerations that may be interfered with. Common stated goals used in the examples of this wiki are for security, to make warranty possible, to indemnify, safety, compliance with other regulation, or quality control. Right to repair advocacy seeks to challenge the validity of the stated goals, both on its merit and on its truthfulness as the motivation for the practice, due to the resulting interference with a consumer's right to repair. These goals are argued to be a mask for other outcomes that are meant to benefit that organization in other ways, often for financial benefit by limiting access to repair resources that result in higher costs to the consumer and fewer choices in repair options. | ||
===Parts=== | |||
A way that companies can make their products more complicated is by using specialized parts in different ways: | A way that companies can make their products more complicated is by using specialized parts in different ways: | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
In the case of parts that aren't used in other devices, this can cause repair prices to shoot up, since there isn't an incentive for repair shops to have this part readily available. Using phones as an example, Phone A and Phone B are both from the same manufacturer, and are physically indistinguishable. However, on the inside Phone A uses a completely different screen connection than Phone B, and Phone B has a completely different battery shape than Phone A. The parts are no longer interchangeable between the phones, and more parts need to be stocked as a result. As well, the repair shop takes a risk on keeping a stock of parts that may or may not sell because they are exclusive to a certain phone. This can also lead to people not wanting to have their phone repaired, since they will be without their phone for a week or two while the shop waits for a part to ship. | In the case of parts that aren't used in other devices, this can cause repair prices to shoot up, since there isn't an incentive for repair shops to have this part readily available. Using phones as an example, Phone A and Phone B are both from the same manufacturer, and are physically indistinguishable. However, on the inside Phone A uses a completely different screen connection than Phone B, and Phone B has a completely different battery shape than Phone A. The parts are no longer interchangeable between the phones, and more parts need to be stocked as a result. As well, the repair shop takes a risk on keeping a stock of parts that may or may not sell because they are exclusive to a certain phone. This can also lead to people not wanting to have their phone repaired, since they will be without their phone for a week or two while the shop waits for a part to ship. | ||
====Software | ===Use of "warranty void if removed" stickers=== | ||
These stickers, commonly found on electronic devices and appliances, are intended to prevent consumers from tampering with products, often in relation to repairs or modifications. However, their use has raised concerns about whether they unfairly limit consumer rights, particularly their right to repair, and circumvent warranties. | |||
Under U.S. consumer protection law, particularly the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, manufacturers are prohibited from voiding warranties solely due to the removal of labels, including "warranty void if removed" stickers.{{citation needed}} This rule aims to ensure that consumers have the right to repair or modify products without fear of losing warranty coverage. Despite this, many manufacturers continue to use such stickers, and some place them over screws or other components necessary for standard use, leading to potential issues with warranty claims. | |||
===Software=== | |||
Some ways that companies can and (some) have been making software worse for consumers is among the following: | Some ways that companies can and (some) have been making software worse for consumers is among the following: | ||