EU doesn't impose a minimum manufacturer warranty period. What it imposes is a _seller_ guarantee, for which the manufacturer's limited warranty conditions don't really apply directly anyway. Many companies will offer a 2-year warranty because they know that's how long they need to support the buyer anyway, but I've often seen conditions like "2 year warranty for EU, 1yr in US".
Anyway, iiuc pebble is not doing anything illegal as long as they don't refuse seller warranty for these 2 years
In this case the seller is American and shipping from Asia, so while the warranty should be 2 years in the EU, there is no way to force them as they have no presence in the EU.
They are selling it though. If I (from the EU) buy something directly from the US (or China), I don't expect EU conditions to apply. It's quite common and it's fine if both sides of the transaction understand the deal.
Interdiction at the ports is the buyer's problem, not the seller's. Kidnapping people because of their employer sounds like a great way to lose tourism permanently.
I'm not quite sure what that implies. That they have to support EU customers (since they sell directly to them) for 2 years and their "30 day warranty claim" is overridden?
I think its the same as the UK. The person who sells to the customer is responsible, so if they sell to a retailer who sells to users then the retailer is responsible. If they sell directly the warranty terms cannot override the law so they are responsible.
You realize the EU let Chinese sellers sell lead-containing painted toys to EU babies for 12 years despite endless warnings, right? They will not act unless forced or it's easy enough.
The EU came from the "European Union of coal and steel". It's a business first, not a government. And yes, they've really deceived a lot of people about this.
That's why we have the DMA ... except for Apple ... except for Google, as if that doesn't negate the entire law.
That's why we have the GPDR, except for (just for the Netherlands) any company the government wants https://www.avgregisterrijksoverheid.nl/ (specifically this negates the purpose of the GPDR. The first purpose of it was to protect your medical data from insurers, taxes, police and courts, so the insurer cannot decide you're committing fraud based on your medical data, or raise prices for you, or ... for example) well "ministerie-van-sociale-zaken-en-werkgelegenheid" has a specific exemption so they can regulate whether unemployment money can be used for medical treatment, and which ones ... And that's just one example.
> The EU came from the "European Union of coal and steel". It's a business first, not a government. And yes, they've really deceived a lot of people about this.
That is true, but omits an important part of the motive for that. The aim was to tie France and Germany together economically to discourage them from going to war again.
It became irrelevant quite quickly due to the cold war and NATO, but it was an important part of what was intended.
EU doesn't impose a minimum manufacturer warranty period. What it imposes is a _seller_ guarantee, for which the manufacturer's limited warranty conditions don't really apply directly anyway. Many companies will offer a 2-year warranty because they know that's how long they need to support the buyer anyway, but I've often seen conditions like "2 year warranty for EU, 1yr in US". Anyway, iiuc pebble is not doing anything illegal as long as they don't refuse seller warranty for these 2 years
In this case the seller is American and shipping from Asia, so while the warranty should be 2 years in the EU, there is no way to force them as they have no presence in the EU.
The pressure is “you can’t sell this here”
They are selling it though. If I (from the EU) buy something directly from the US (or China), I don't expect EU conditions to apply. It's quite common and it's fine if both sides of the transaction understand the deal.
What's the mechanism for stopping them?
Interdiction at the ports. Seizure of persons related to the enterprise crossing into the jurisdiction.
Interdiction at the ports is the buyer's problem, not the seller's. Kidnapping people because of their employer sounds like a great way to lose tourism permanently.
Because the warranty is too short? I'll go with 'no chance' on that one.
Oh yeah, as a practical matter I totally agree though lack of enforcement invites more participation by other actors.
I'm not quite sure what that implies. That they have to support EU customers (since they sell directly to them) for 2 years and their "30 day warranty claim" is overridden?
I think its the same as the UK. The person who sells to the customer is responsible, so if they sell to a retailer who sells to users then the retailer is responsible. If they sell directly the warranty terms cannot override the law so they are responsible.
You realize the EU let Chinese sellers sell lead-containing painted toys to EU babies for 12 years despite endless warnings, right? They will not act unless forced or it's easy enough.
The EU came from the "European Union of coal and steel". It's a business first, not a government. And yes, they've really deceived a lot of people about this.
That's why we have the DMA ... except for Apple ... except for Google, as if that doesn't negate the entire law.
That's why we have the GPDR, except for (just for the Netherlands) any company the government wants https://www.avgregisterrijksoverheid.nl/ (specifically this negates the purpose of the GPDR. The first purpose of it was to protect your medical data from insurers, taxes, police and courts, so the insurer cannot decide you're committing fraud based on your medical data, or raise prices for you, or ... for example) well "ministerie-van-sociale-zaken-en-werkgelegenheid" has a specific exemption so they can regulate whether unemployment money can be used for medical treatment, and which ones ... And that's just one example.
> The EU came from the "European Union of coal and steel". It's a business first, not a government. And yes, they've really deceived a lot of people about this.
That is true, but omits an important part of the motive for that. The aim was to tie France and Germany together economically to discourage them from going to war again.
It became irrelevant quite quickly due to the cold war and NATO, but it was an important part of what was intended.
The toys are the problem because there are so many being imported they can't possibly control them all.
And if the EU tries to do something structural about it the backlash is enormous - look at that 3 euro fee for packages for example.
Same in Québec, where the legal minimum for guaranteeing against defects is 1 year (enforced at both the manufacturer and seller).
Usually the terms will use wording like "30 days or the minimum applicable by law".