218
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2026
218 points (99.1% liked)
PC Gaming
15551 readers
421 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Few commenters so far seem to have read the article.
It's not notable that they're complying with their warranty terms, but that they shipped him a replacement kit when providing a refund of the original purchase price can also fulfill the terms of the warranty (EDIT) in some situations that other manufacturers, like Crucial, have intentionally created to limit their liability.
I don't see how that claims that refund also fulfills the terms of the warranty. In fact, looking at the G.SKILL RMA policy there is never a mention of a refund option, only a return and replacement.
If the claim is that these companies are able to bend or hide the terms of their RMA policies then this is an issue with the legal system itself for allowing this. In fact, I would wager that a fight in small claims court would see the customer win any dispute.
Are you reading something I'm not?
I was actually slightly wrong in my original comment. I'll fix it.
It's not the terms and conditions, but US law (I'm assuming he's from the US).
15 U.S.C. Chapter 50 §2301(10) defines a warranty "remedy" as...
It goes on to define a refund as...
As I recall, these other companies were either offering but not mandating a refund, which is legal, or claiming they didn't have equivalent products in stock, which allows them to unilaterally opt for a refund of the original purchase price instead.
This is a perfectly acceptable policy in a sane world, but it's 2026. Party to the bottom! Wooo.
Ah. I should have known that gratitude over basic consumer protection is an American-centric problem, especially when laws are an escape hatch for corporate greed.
When in doubt, the root of the problem always seems to be: "America".