Over the Air Android Update Bricks Phone

Keycare

Who is liable?

I have a Motorola phone (which is under 1 year old), it had a cracked screen which wasn't covered under warranty so it was repaired by a third party and was in fully working order for several weeks. I understand that this invalidates my warranty.

Motorola sent an over the air update to upgrade the OS to Android Oreo (8.1). I was nagged by the phone to perform the update every day until i agreed. Immediately after the update completed and the phone restarted, the touch-screen stopped responding. I plugged a mouse into the phone and discovered that other than the touch screen, the phone was working fine.

I searched the Lenovo user forums and found a number of other users with the same problem and after some investigation, determined that all of these users had replaced their screen via a third party.

On that forum, one user had proved that it was the Oreo update that seems to have installed a driver into the bootloader that knobbles the screen. Motorola admitted that there was a problem and told the forum users to return the phone to them for repair, which I did.

They have since alleged that the phone has evidence of water damage and the now refuse to repair the phone unless I pay the repair costs.

I have pointed out that I was not seeking a warranty repair, I was seeking a remedy to the supply of digital content that has damaged my device (as per Consumer Rights 2015) this is tantamount to a virus. They have refused and claim that as a manufacturer, the CR Act 2015 does not apply to them.

I have asked that they return the phone to me in the state it was before the over the air update, i.e. Android 7.1 with the touch screen working. They have said that it is not possible for them to restore the previous version of Android (I suppose I could root the phone but that is not the point).

If they are correct, there seems to be a notable gap in the CR Act 2015 as most over the air 'system updates' come from the manufacturer and not the retailer.

Where do I stand on this?

Cheers.

bris

The 3rd party screen is not an official screen so I am surprised they even offered a repair. The digital content did not damage your device, it's just not compatible with your 3rd party screen, there is a difference you must surely see.


The water damage is however your biggest problem, no one covers the repair of water damaged phones.

Aylesbury_Duck

As bris says, I don't think you have a case. Third party replacement component and water damage? Even if the CRA was applicable to the circumstances, it was your choice to effect a third party repair and your accident that caused water damage.

If you can wind back the phone to make it work, I suggest you do so.

DoaM

bris wrote: »

The water damage is however your biggest problem, no one covers the repair of water damaged phones.

If it's the water indicators then this is a well-known scam by the manufacturers ... a normal UK environment will trigger these indicators - the phone doesn't have to get wet, or even be in a steamy bathroom, for the indicators to trigger.

JJ_Egan

OTA may have come from the network/ vendor .


I would look at XDA forums and see if you can revert firmware.

pmduk

Keycare wrote: »

If they are correct, there seems to be a notable gap in the CR Act 2015 as most over the air 'system updates' come from the manufacturer and not the retailer.

The manufacturer plays no role in the CRA.

Keycare

Thanks all.

My first thought is that they should roll back the update - i'd be happy with that, after all if you install software that is not compatible with your third party hardware, you either get new drivers or you un-install the software. You don't expect software to damage the device irrecoverably, if that was possible, they should have warned me and offered the option to not download and switch off the nagware.

They seem to suggest rolling back is not possible? I think that is irresponsible considering there are replacement oem parts available and plenty of third party repairers around.

Didn't Apple get vilified for doing this exact same thing a few years ago?

Raxiel

What model is it? I'm guessing some variant of the Moto G5 or G6?


They're technically correct that you can't flash an older system image over a newer one, unless you unlock the bootloader.


Unlocking the bootloader doesn't seem particularly onerous, although you do need to register on their website to request an unlock code. It's hard to toggle the required settings to unlock it without a working touch screen, but if you can get a USB OTG cable it you should be able to plug in a mouse and use that.


Then theres the small task of actualy finding a 7.1 system image for your model which isn't as easy as it should be, but somewhere like XDA or /r/motog (or equivalent if it's not a G) should be able to point you to one.

Keycare

Thanks raxiel. I would have thought that the manufacturer/authorised repairer would have access to a system image for the phone and should be able to unlock the bootloader and roll back. That's all I want them to do, I havent asked them for a new screen, the one that was on it functioned perfectly and was allegedly an oem replacement.

Thanks for your replys tbough. I still think the OTA system update thing exposes a gap in consumer protection law, not just for mobile phones but for all devices with embedded software.
I can see buck passing if/when it goes wrong.

agrinnall

pmduk wrote: »

The manufacturer plays no role in the CRA.

Unless they are also the seller - which is sort of the case for my Nexus 5X (actually made by LG, but under licence to Google so they have responsibility for both the hardware and the operating system).

JJ_Egan

Keycare wrote: »

. I still think the OTA system update thing exposes a gap in consumer protection law, not just for mobile phones but for all devices with embedded software.


I see your point but are the manufacturers going to claim One its your choice or Two sorry we are a Chinese company see our laws .
Three stricter laws probably lead to no more firmware updates.