• gressen@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    What if an EU citizen brings a EU-bought Switch 2 to States? This is such a mess and anti-consumer move.

      • troed@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        21 hours ago

        No. That EU-citizen is fully protected by EU consumer laws. Has nothing to do with where that citizen make use of their product.

        • Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          The person is protected, not the device. While the device is outside of the EU they can brick it. At least that’s how Apple does it

          • troed@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Apple would lose such a case in an instant. EU consumer protections applies to the consumer for products bought from a seller within the EU. The laws do not care the slightest whether you’re using your devices on vacation or not.

        • jonathan@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Not true. For example, an EU resident (citizen is the wrong group) purchasing in the US is not covered by EU law.

          • beastlykings@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            20 hours ago

            I don’t know any of the law for sure, but isn’t that a different argument entirely?

            In one case, an EU resident buys a product in the EU, decides to use it while in the US for a week/month whatever. The argument is that he’s protected.

            You’re saying that’s not true, because if he buys it in the USA, then he’s not protected.

            But, that wasn’t the argument, was it? It’s different?