Waterproof Phones Not Covered by Warranty After Water Damage: Industry Rule or Consumer Rights Violation?

Waterproof Phones Not Covered by Warranty After Water Damage: Industry Rule or Consumer Rights Violation?Earlier today, IT Home reported a lawsuit regarding iPhone's water resistance feature. Joey Zukran, a lawyer in Quebec, Canada, accused Apple of promoting iPhone's waterproof capabilities in its advertising, yet refusing to provide warranty coverage when iPhones experience water damage

Waterproof Phones Not Covered by Warranty After Water Damage: Industry Rule or Consumer Rights Violation?

Earlier today, IT Home reported a lawsuit regarding iPhone's water resistance feature. Joey Zukran, a lawyer in Quebec, Canada, accused Apple of promoting iPhone's waterproof capabilities in its advertising, yet refusing to provide warranty coverage when iPhones experience water damage. He claims that the warranty terms contradict the advertised features, infringing on consumer rights. Subsequently, the Weibo hashtag Waterproof Phones Not Covered by Warranty After Water Damage sparked heated discussions. Xiaomi Redmi's General Manager, Wang Teng, responded on Weibo, stating that the practice of not covering water damage in waterproof phones is an industry standard. He added that the new Redmi Note (likely Redmi Note 14 series) will continue to support IP68 and that he is confident in the new phone's water resistance.

According to IT Home, phone damage caused by liquid immersion is generally not covered under warranty. Even phones with IP68-level waterproof and dustproof ratings are not covered if they experience damage due to water ingress. Industry insiders claim that even if users don't intentionally submerge their phones in water, accidental water ingress can still occur. For instance, carrying a phone in humid environments like bathrooms or hot springs could allow water vapor to enter the phone and corrode components. Regardless of whether they are waterproof phones, users should try to avoid water sources and humid environments in their daily use to prevent unnecessary damage.

This lawsuit and Wang Teng's statement have triggered reflection on the contradiction between the advertised water resistance feature and warranty terms. On the one hand, phone manufacturers promote the water resistance feature to attract consumers. On the other hand, they avoid responsibility for water damage in their warranty terms. Is this practice justified? How can consumer rights be protected?

Firstly, it needs to be clarified that phone water resistance features are not meant to be completely waterproof. Their purpose is to resist water droplets or brief immersion under specific conditions. Water resistance ratings like IP68 are simply standards and don't guarantee that phones are completely impervious to water. Users should exercise caution when using their phones and avoid accidental water ingress.

Secondly, water damage to phones is not entirely the user's fault. Phones can be exposed to water during manufacturing, transportation, and use. Manufacturers should take measures to minimize the risk of water ingress during production and sales, and offer reasonable warranty coverage for water damage.

Finally, consumers must carefully read warranty terms before purchasing a phone to understand the extent of its water resistance and warranty coverage. If they have any questions, they can consult the phone manufacturer or relevant departments.

In conclusion, the contradiction between the advertising of water resistance features and warranty terms requires attention from both manufacturers and consumers. Manufacturers should clearly state the extent of water resistance and warranty coverage in their promotional materials. Consumers should rationally understand the functionality of water resistance and avoid accidental water ingress. Relevant regulatory bodies should also strengthen supervision and regulate the behavior of phone manufacturers to protect the legal rights of consumers.