I don’t think it applies in this case.
Wording is : “The item is seriously defective.”
We’ve got similar consumer protections in the UK, and a split key wouldn’t be covered by that. If the mainboard failed and the computer wouldn’t turn on, then that’s seriously defective. The computer still works fine, apart from the missing keycap. Which the OP could superglue back together.
Apple covered my out of warranty MacBook Pro for Radeongate under the equivalent UK law.
The part you quoted was just one of the steps in how I think the procedure would have gone. To explain why I don’t think they said it was customer induced in response to being faced with the state’s longer implied warranty. Rather, they just didn’t get to that assessment yet.
Whether it would actually be covered under the state’s implied warranty is another matter.
The point is that by going from 0-60 (your first response after they told you it was CID was to threaten legal action) you almost guarantee you will get a poor customer service experience.
The assertion FW was “leading you on” seens to be predicated on the notion that they knew from the outset that they would not provide an RMA - but you’ve given no reason to believe this is true. They clearly asked for detailed pictures of the unit to ascertain whether or not the damage was due to manufacturing defects or QA issues.
You assert that FW invented the CID claim to absolve themselves of the warranty implied by Maine state law. However the chain of communication provides no evidence that this is true. They refused RMA due to the unit being out of warranty. They did not identify the cause of the damage and indeed, in the event the item is out of warranty there is no benefit to accusing the customer of CID. If you’d reserved the litigious comments until after asking pertinent questions such as “what do you believe was the cause of this keycap failure, based on documentation I provided” you might have had a stronger case.
Now all you have is a litany of examples from around the web of you attempting to pressure FW into a different decision by essentially badmouthing the company. Which is kind of funny given your candor in the early emails re: additional purchases.
I was absolutely clear with you on Reddit and I’ll be absolutely clear with you here.
Claiming that Framework is not adhering to the law and that I will use my AG’s consumer protection office is NOT a threat for legal action. At no point have I threatened to sue, and agree that would be ridiculous. Accusing me as such is misleading and distracts from the issue.
You use the word badmouthing here. On reddit the word is “defamation”. This is a very serious accusation. If any of my statements are inaccurate I’ll happily update my posts and take ownership. Otherwise, I have every right to publicly share an experience that contradicts Framework’s marketing.
While I’m impressed by your creativity, I’ve repeatedly responding to these points and clarified my position. I’d appreciate if you stopped.
Maine’s language is concerned with a reasonable expectation for the lifespan of the product.
A keycap failing in two years, with a precedent for warranty coverage for the same repair, cannot be a reasonable expectation.
Remember that in other jurisdictions (the EU), Framework offers a two year warranty.
Please point me to exactly how I smeared the company? That’s a very serious accusation and I’ll happily take ownership if this is the case.
As for taking advantage of kindness… Did you read through the screenshots? That goes both directions, bub.
Framework as a company is not entitled to charity, nor am I. I have been utterly transparent about my communications with them, and have every right to share an experience where Framework wastes my time and then appears to not honor the implied warranty law in my state.
Their product didn’t hold up within reasonable expectations of use. They flipped from “warranty” to “customer damage” only after they realized they were on the hook. They should take ownership for it.
I’d argue that they did not flip. They simply did not initially forward the ticket for assessment on that. There was no need when it appeared to be out of warranty.
The title of this thread is:
Framework worked hard to lose me: a terrible experience with customer support
How is that not slandering the company? You are implying in your thread title alone that they intentionally wanted to waste your time just so they could leave you holding the bag. None of your screenshots convey that to me (and this is a subjective matter to begin with), and yet you persist, insinuating that the company is moving forward with ill will. How does this not meet the definition of smearing or slander? Especially with it on various social media outlets?
By this logic, if you were still under warranty they were going to ghost you anyway. Only thing is, there is no evidence of this in any cases that have been discussed here. Framework has been VERY generous in cases under warranty.
I’m not here to argue with you either. I’ve said what I think and that is enough. I think people can make up their own minds regarding this.
Like others here I do wish you a successful resolution in whatever form that may be.
I’m not on reddit!
The community here welcomes all forms of productive feedback. We don’t want to stifle feedback or experiences. However, I believe this thread has run its course. Back and forth about claims being legit or not are not what this space is for.
Note: we are locking this thread NOT deleting it.