The difference is that we are talking about mobile phones and tablets here. A manufacturer can easily argue his device is intended for water immersion or intended to be washable. And the exception is fulfilled.
I mean they don’t really have to argue to begin with, they just keep selling their IP-rated phones as they are. Only if someone starts a motion that this would not be legal, then they can start the argument I mentioned above. And that’s all it takes.
A manufacturer can easily argue his device is intended for water immersion or intended to be washable. And the exception is fulfilled.
But the text says:
to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance
While a phone might be intended to be able to withstand rain and slight immersion, its not intended to be used in such an environment for the majority of its active service. Nobody is actually going to believe that imo.
Only if someone starts a motion that this would not be legal, then they can start the argument I mentioned above. And that’s all it takes.
For some time now the EU has shown a willingness to bite tech companies in such matters. I hope the EU keeps doing that and extends that willingness. But yeah, for now we can only guess. Although I do think manufacturers wont try to weasel out of this, and if they do, i hope they get bitten.
I think it’s telling that most manufacturers won’t do warranty for water damage despite advertising a suitable IP rating. From a legal standpoint that seems to show that the above clauses wouldn’t apply, and if the manufacturer did want to use those clauses to get around the removable battery thing then they’d probably have to start accepting water damage as covered by warranty.
The difference is that we are talking about mobile phones and tablets here. A manufacturer can easily argue his device is intended for water immersion or intended to be washable. And the exception is fulfilled.
I mean they don’t really have to argue to begin with, they just keep selling their IP-rated phones as they are. Only if someone starts a motion that this would not be legal, then they can start the argument I mentioned above. And that’s all it takes.
But the text says:
While a phone might be intended to be able to withstand rain and slight immersion, its not intended to be used in such an environment for the majority of its active service. Nobody is actually going to believe that imo.
For some time now the EU has shown a willingness to bite tech companies in such matters. I hope the EU keeps doing that and extends that willingness. But yeah, for now we can only guess. Although I do think manufacturers wont try to weasel out of this, and if they do, i hope they get bitten.
I think it’s telling that most manufacturers won’t do warranty for water damage despite advertising a suitable IP rating. From a legal standpoint that seems to show that the above clauses wouldn’t apply, and if the manufacturer did want to use those clauses to get around the removable battery thing then they’d probably have to start accepting water damage as covered by warranty.