Class action lawsuit for false advertising?

Started Mar 3, 2014 | Discussions thread
captura Forum Pro • Posts: 26,355
Re: Ridiculous

viking79 wrote:

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...

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.


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."


This is what I am saying, if the A7 and A7R are no longer considered "dust and moisture resistant" by Sony, they need to do something about it as they advertised this as a feature, which is actually a big selling point on a camera today.

In the case of Nissan with my Juke, they offered to buy back, and this is a car we are talking about here, for something as simple as a gas tank spec issue. As Ron mentions with IPX water ratings, this is easy to point them out on since the spec sheet said something like 13 gallons when it was 11 instead. This is easily disputable and measurable.

Sony should really offer a buyback or at least a recall to fix the light leak issue. The dust and moisture resistance they can probably weasel their way out of since they don't say how dust and moisture resistant, but I imagine their lawyers made them take that off the page, which gives them a guilty appearance.


Right you are. And I'd forgotten that other camera manufacturers employ special rubber seals in the construction of their "weather sealed" cameras. Do Sony? (I don't know but don't think so.)

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Sony a7 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow