Apple guarantees contrary to competition law?

May Apple freely determine the content of its voluntary manufacturer warranty? The Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (vzbv) questioned this and issued an abatement notice to Apple for breaches of competition law, including breaches of the transparency requirement for its warranty clauses.

In addition to the statutory warranty provisions, Apple grants its customers a voluntary one-year hardware warranty for material and manufacturing defects in Apple products.

In the view of the vzbv, the wording of this warranty fell short of the statutory warranty provisions, since under the law a seller is liable for product defects in the hardware sold for two years. However, Apple only provided a warranty for one year and furthermore excluded warranty liability. For product defects, Apple only wanted to be liable if the hardware was used "normally" and in accordance with "published guidelines", without explaining this in greater detail. Nor did the US company want to assume responsibility for dents and scratches, provided that the defects do not impair the function of the product.

After the vzbv had requested Apple to cease the practice, the latter did change its warranty clauses. However, Apple did not provide a declaration of cessation. The consumer association therefore pursued this claim before the courts.

Court Decision

In a press statement, the vzbv announces that the Berliner Kammergericht (Berlin Court of Appeal) Judgment of 11.09.2015 (Az. 23 U 15/15) declared sixteen clauses of Apple's manufacturer warranty to be contrary to competition law and therefore inadmissible, because they disadvantaged Apple customers inappropriately.

In its reasoning, the KG Berlin stated that warranty declarations must be drafted in simple and intelligible terms and must describe the rights of the contracting party as precisely as possible. It must be clear that the rights under the warranty apply in addition to the statutory warranty rights and in no way restrict them. The warranty conditions of Apple did not meet these requirements, as they conveyed to consumers through incomprehensible and contradictory wording the incorrect impression that their statutory warranty rights were restricted.

Conclusion

Warranty declarations must be drafted in simple and intelligible terms, just like general terms and conditions. In particular, the consumer must be able to recognise that the rights under the warranty apply in addition to the statutory warranty rights and in no way restrict them.