Class action lawsuit for false advertising?

Started Mar 3, 2014 | Discussions thread
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 8,617
Re: Ridiculous
1

viking79 wrote:

captura wrote:

viking79 wrote:

....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.

If there are no seals, then they shouldn't have called it weather-sealed, if that's what they did.

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."

You read it on the internet, so it must be true!

Steve

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.

Even "resistant" is a vague term. Did they call it water-proof? Heck, even my A100 and Nex-5 didn't get ruined; I've gotten them a bit damp out in the snow and drizzle before.  Could I call them water-resistant?  They resisted getting ruined quite well, considering.  However, I was not under the illusion that they had any special protection. I considered it a calculated risk. Using a camera in the snow one time was really bad, though! Very difficult to keep from getting wet.

I think Sony should avoid any claims of water resistance unless they do something special that isn't part of a typical digital camera.

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.

Since no one is claiming that Sony had an IPX rating, I guess they are off the hook?

Sony should really offer a buyback or at least a recall to fix the light leak issue.

This light leak issue seems pretty contrived.

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.

Eric

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 +8 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