- Harvey Norman Sued Over Product Warranties
- Class action lawsuit claims that warranties were ‘waste of money’
Harvey Norman is being sued over allegations of “deceptive and deceptive” practices in the sale of extended warranties, which it claims are a “waste of money.”
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers filed a class action lawsuit against the retail giant in the Supreme Court of Victoria on Thursday, claiming the extended warranties sold to customers have “no real value”.
The warranties are still available for purchase at Harvey Norman and its affiliated stores Domayne and Joyce Mayne under the name Product Care. They are often purchased for products such as smartphones, computers, household appliances and home entertainment products.
Maurice Blackburn claims that the guarantees do not provide consumers with any protection to which they are not entitled under the Australian Consumer Law.
Lead plaintiff Peter Singh claims the Product Care warranty is a “waste of money” after he purchased it for a smartphone and security cameras.
“Product Care was sold to me as an added layer of protection. But it was just a waste of money,” Singh said.
The class action seeks compensation for consumers who purchased Product Care from Harvey Norman, Domayne, and Joyce Mayne between September 20, 2018, and September 19, 2024.
Jarrah Ekstein, managing director of Maurice Blackburn, alleged that Harvey Norman had engaged in “misleading and deceptive conduct” and “failed to provide customers with important information about their rights”.
Lawyers have filed a class action lawsuit against retail giant Harvey Norman over its guarantees
“Under the Australian Consumer Law, customers have an automatic right to a replacement or refund for defective goods if the goods stop working within a reasonable time after purchase,” Ms Ekstein said.
‘Harvey Norman’s Product Care extended warranties did not add anything substantial to that protection.
‘Harvey Norman has engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by charging its customers for protection they already receive for free under the Australian Consumer Law.’
Lawyers Maurice Blackburn also allege that the extended warranties were sold illegally. They claim that Harvey Norman did not have the required Australian financial services license.
Lead plaintiff Peter Singh alleged that ‘Product Care’ warranties are ‘a waste of money’
“Harvey Norman, Domayne and Joyce Mayne failed to provide customers with important information about their rights under the Australian Consumer Law which they needed to make an informed decision about purchasing Product Care,” Ms Ekstein said.
The class action lawsuit alleges that if Harvey Norman’s customers had known that Product Care was offering solutions that they already had free under the Australian Consumer Law, they would not have purchased them.
“Those customers should be compensated because they were misled into buying a warranty that had no real value to them.”
Harvey Norman has been contacted for comment.