Class action lawsuit for false advertising?

Started Mar 3, 2014 | Discussions thread
RonFrank
RonFrank Senior Member • Posts: 2,130
Re: Ridiculous

captura wrote:

viking79 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Weather-sealed is one of the reasons I bought this camera so I don't have to worry about rain or dust entering my A7 camera but now...

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sonys-a7-and-a7r-cameras-are-not-dust-and-moisture-resistant/

This is quite deceptive for Sony to do this. Removing the weathersealed description on their website without informing the consumers!

This is where SAR and a few from forums combine to come up with nonsense. The cameras are as advertised.

But if people think there is such thing as absolute protection, they need to read up on Roger Cicala's blog on the subject.

Actually, false advertising is a pretty serious offense. If you advertise something as being weather and dust resistant and sealed it better be.

I received an offer from Nissan to buy back my Nissan Juke or accept a check for $400 US or so since they had advertised the gas tank capacity as 13 gallons and it was really 11 gallons. I just took the check since I was well aware of the gas tank size when I bought it.

If the camera is in fact not dust or weather resistant Sony needs to offer to buy back cameras or offer some form of compensation. You can't just lie on advertisements.

I am no lawyer, and don't personally care, because I didn't buy it based on weather sealing.

Eric

Normally I would agree with you Eric, but if there are light or dust leaks in some examples, (which is indisputable now,) then 'weathersealing' can no longer be claimed. Common sense, I believe. Of course this begs the question, "What is the true definition of Weather-sealing a camera?" Isn't that mostly just a marketing gimmick? Now Water-proofing would be a different story and easier to prove/disprove. Either something is waterproof or it is not waterproof.

SAR: "This is just pure speculation but it’s possible that the light leak issue discovered on the A7-A7r cameras also affects the dust and moisture protection."

Steve

Saying something is water resistant is like saying something is gold like... very slippery and meaningless.

There are many levels of IPX water resistance that are in place to make the term water resistance somewhat understandable. I am very positive this definition was put into place by lawyers in an attempt to define the term water resistant.

If the box says something like weather sealed but goes no farther like discussing what IPX level it is rated at then  there is no rating.  If the documentation says waterproof to 100' then that is a concrete definition.   Most companies are not willing to warranty a product against water damage.

•IPX-0 – No protection.
•IPX-1 – Protected against condensation or dripping water falling vertically.
•IPX-2 – Protected against spraying water when tilted up to 15 degrees vertically.
•IPX-3 – Protected against spraying water when tilted up to 60 degrees vertically.
•IPX-4 – Protected against splashing water from any angle.
•IPX-5 – Protected against low pressure water stream from any angle.
•IPX-6 – Protected against high pressure water stream from any angle.
•IPX-7 – Protected against water immersion. Immersion for 30 minutes at a depth of up to 1 meter.
•IPX-8 – Protected against continual water submersion in under water conditions.

The IPX8 rating is still vague is water pressure increases with each atmosphere.  Most water resistant products have a plainer system and just say what the product can handle.  For example my watch is water resistant to 200 meters.  The reality is if you are at 200 meters you have big problems!  

 RonFrank's gear list:RonFrank's gear list
Nikon D1X Nikon D200 Nikon D300S Sony a6000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Marti58
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow