fbpx

Fry’s Electronics Refusal to Honor Advertised Warranty Class Action

Fry’s Electronics advertised the sale of computer graphics cards with warranties, but the complaint for this class action questions whether it intended to honor the warranties.

The class for this action is all consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations, bought used items on which Fry’s stated that it would honor any manufacturer’s warranty.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Aaron Ramos bought an open-box PNY GeForce GTX graphics card, which had an advertisement Fry’s had added to the box stating that it came with the same warranty offered by the manufacturer, and that even though the box had been opened, Fry’s would honor that warranty. The box itself said that the graphics card had a lifetime warranty from the manufacturer.

Ramos used the card for several years, the complaint alleges, but when it began to malfunction, he took it back to Fry’s and asked the store to replace the card or refund the purchase price.

However, Fry’s refused to do so because Ramos had not registered the card with the manufacturer, PNY Technologies—something Fry’s had not mentioned that Ramos needed to do. In fact, according to the complaint, Ramos could not have registered the card because the papers required for that are only available to buyers of brand-new cards.

The complaint alleges that Fry’s refusal to honor the warranty violates a number of state and federal laws.

  • The California False advertising Act, for the use of advertising “which is untrue or misleading” when Fry’s said it would honor the manufacturer’s warranty.
  • The Unfair Competition Law, because Fry’s made false statements that benefited only itself in claiming that the product came with a warranty when it did not.
  • The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, because the graphics card does not work as it was supposed to, and because, within the term of protection, Fry’s has been unable to repair the defects; also, because the company’s refusal constitutes disclaiming an implied warranty. 
  • The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, because the graphics card came with written factory warranties that were part of the contract between buyer and seller; and because the graphics card had an implied warranty of merchantability.

The complaint asks that the court have Fry’s notify all class members of the “unlawful and deceptive conduct herein”, engage in corrective advertising, and pay actual, statutory, and punitive damages as well as attorneys’ costs and fees.

 

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer

Most Recent Case Event

Fry’s Electronics Refusal to Honor Advertised Warranty Complaint

November 15, 2017

Fry’s Electronics advertised the sale of computer graphics cards with warranties, but the complaint for this class action questions whether it intended to honor the warranties. Ramos bought an open-box graphics card for which Fry’s claimed it would honor the manufacturer’s warranty, but when the card malfunctioned, Fry’s refused to replace the card or refund the purchase price, on the grounds that Ramos had not registered the card with the manufacturer. However, the papers needed for the registration are only available to buyers of brand-new cards. 

fry_warranty_complaint.pdf

Case Event History

Fry’s Electronics Refusal to Honor Advertised Warranty Complaint

November 15, 2017

Fry’s Electronics advertised the sale of computer graphics cards with warranties, but the complaint for this class action questions whether it intended to honor the warranties. Ramos bought an open-box graphics card for which Fry’s claimed it would honor the manufacturer’s warranty, but when the card malfunctioned, Fry’s refused to replace the card or refund the purchase price, on the grounds that Ramos had not registered the card with the manufacturer. However, the papers needed for the registration are only available to buyers of brand-new cards. 

fry_warranty_complaint.pdf
Tags: Deceptive Business Practices, Misrepresentation of Terms of Sale, Refusal to Honor Warranty