As noted previously in this blog, I am not a fan of Motorola phones. I find their software poor, the Bluetooth support sub par, and I don’t really care for flip-phones in general. But each time I was disappointed with a Motorola device I simply returned it. Simple, right?
Well, some don’t seem to think so. RCR Wireless News is reporting that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Verizon for “willful, deceptive and oppressive conduct” in limiting the Bluetooth capabilities of its Motorola V710 device. Basically, the Verizon V710 Bluetooth implementation does not support the OBEX profile and so files (business cards, for example) cannot be transferred. That’s a pretty stupid restriction, but grounds for a lawsuit? I have yet to see a single device that implements every Bluetooth profile. Heck, most don’t even implement headset and handsfree properly (which is why so many won’t work with Acura HFL and the like)! But a lawsuit? Whatever happened to returning the product for a refund?
Suing Over Poor Bluetooth Implementations
5 responses to “Suing Over Poor Bluetooth Implementations”
-
That’s America for you.
-
If everyone returned stuff when it wasn’t up to scratch then the companies that make these things would soon get their act together, or go bust.
The fact that they do neither suggests that they are getting away with selling substandard stuff, relying on the ignorance, laziness or apathy of enough of the buying public to make it worth their while. What they’re saying is: "this product doesn’t do what it should, but its good enough to con 80% of the buyers to not return it". If taking them to court makes the manufacturers take a bit more care over what they produce then I’m all for it.
Bert (who recently had to return 2 faulty LCD TVs) -
Ah baloney. Are you telling me that as a manufacturer, I should be forced to produce products that follow a certain standard (assuming I were a manufacturer, which I’m not)? I can see suing a company for lying about features in their products, but for purposfully leaving a feature out, for whatever reason? Comon, grow up people. What if they did studies and found the cost would be too high, or the battery drain would be to expensive, or whatever. According to you, they should be forced to put every feature in you want, no matter what. What happened to pre-researching your purchases, or as Ben said, returning them for a refund.
-
knowing Verizon – they’re probably being sued because they _refused_ to refund the products, had locked their clients into contracts and enticed these hapless souls with probably deceptive advertising, or something of a very similar effect.
You guys are sitting here sounding like, "geez – !#*&! Americans – always running to litigate, why didn’t they return the stuff". Well, quite possibly, because Verizon wouldn’t let them without some "fine print". And finally, from my personal experience I’ve twice encountered faulty technologies (from Verizon and Maytag) that the company was aware of – when I presented the problem I was not offered a satisfactory customer service solution – and in fact months later I received letters that class-action suits had been taken. So typically these companies are doing this to thousands of people and getting caught. -
The Moto v710 does support the ability to transfer files, via OBEX and SPP profiles. Verizon actually advertised those features, then disabled them so that user’s would have to pay Verizon for over-the-air time to accomplish the same tasks.
As for returning the phones, Verizon’s policy is 14 days. Anyone that called and complained that their Bluetooth stuff wasn’t working properly was told to "hang on, an update is coming soon to fix the problem."
THAT’s why their being sued–they lied to their customers for profit and they got caught.
Leave a Reply