What are my consumer rights when a smart appliance is remotely downgraded?

speaker_guy

Hello,

I'm looking for some community help with interpreting my consumer rights with respect to a purchase of Google Nest Speakers.

Background:

I purchased 4 Google Nest speakers a little more than a year ago. 2 were purchased from Google Store directly, and 2 were purchased from BT Shop. The total cost was circa £200.

The speakers were purchased specifically for use as a "speaker group" in a single room, and I researched the various alternatives (Sonos/Amazon/Google) based upon this requirement.

The speakers have worked worked as advertised and met my requirement until just recently, because...

...Google has just recently lost an IP lawsuit with Sonos. The lawsuit relates to the volume control of the grouped speakers. My understanding is that rather than paying Sonos royalties for the use of the IP, Google have chosen to remotely downgrade every Google Home speaker such that the IP is not infringed. Volume for grouped speakers must now be set by physically touching the speaker controls themselves, or using the Google Home phone app.

(I'm a new forum member and can't post links. Google search for "google speaker downgrade" to find news stories and reactions about the lawsuit)

Not the end of the world, I'll agree. But certainly not the product I bought. I feel that Google has transferred the cost of their loss to me, the consumer.

Question:

What are my consumer rights when a smart appliance is remotely downgraded? Is my interpretation of the MSE consumer rights page correct?

• The product is more than 6 months old, so therefore I must prove that a fault existed at time of delivery.
• The observed fault (the restriction of volume control) occurred after 6 months, therefore didn't exist at the time of delivery.
• However, I argue that a fault must have existed at the time of delivery: the fact that the device could be remotely downgraded
• Proof of the fault is relatively easy: 1) If the fault wasn't there, it couldn't have been downgraded , and 2) many hundreds of message posts from other disgruntled Google Home speaker users
• I should be able to claim a full refund, minus the value of the benefit I have received from the speakers between the 6 month limit and now.

Am I right? Or is my argument too tenuous?

It seems to me that the consumer rights don't brilliantly cover this situation fantastically. Perhaps they require updating with respect to smart appliances?

The experience has made me think to avoid spending large sums of money on smart products, as this experience shows that you don't truly own them.

Thanks for your help in advance.

[Deleted User]

It isn't a fault, but a change in the software, which is known to change over time, so it's the wrong argument to use.

I can't see you have a case.

speaker_guy

Deleted_User said:

It isn't a fault, but a change in the software, which is known to change over time, so it's the wrong argument to use.

I can't see you have a case.

zx81 you might be right.

But consider this: What if Google had used their ability to remotely alter the software in a more extreme way? Silly example, but  let's say they made it stop being able to play music altogether? Would I still not have a case? By your argument (which may sadly be correct), when I buy any smart appliance, I have no consumer rights at all?

molerat

If it stopped playing music all together then you would likely have a case as then it would not be doing what it was advertised to do. It is a relatively minor change in software / functionality and not a fault. This sort of thing happens all the time in the tech world. Annoying but not a lot you can do, I doubt any function is guaranteed and it will likely be covered in the warranty / licence agreement

speaker_guy

I've looked up the "Nest Terms of Service" which (I presume) I must have agreed to when I initially configured the speakers. With regards to automatic software upgrades, they state:

Automatic software updates. We may, from time to time, develop patches, bug fixes, updates, upgrades and other modifications to improve the performance of the Nest devices and services. These may be automatically installed without providing any additional notice or receiving any additional permissions from you. You agree to receive these automatic updates. If you do not want such updates, you should stop using the Nest devices and services. 

I have highlighted the words I believe to be important. It seems I agreed to accept updates which would improve the device and service. I can see no part of the terms of service where I agreed that they could send updates which would downgrade the device or service.

So it seems that you are right: my problem is one of a (possible) violation of the terms of service, rather than a consumer rights issue. Any advice on taking on a multi-billion pound company that takes its users for mugs?

Grumpy_chap

I can see there could be something here (as a lay-person) as the agreement to software updates is to accept upgrades.

A software update that reduces functionality is not an upgrade.

Is this similar to the Apple thing where they were restricting older phones in some way?  Not quite sure the detail of that or how the issue ended.

TELLIT01

I would think it could be argued that the device infringed Sonos IP from the outset and was therefore 'faulty' from the date of purchase.  That should be fairly straightforward to prove, given that Google lost the law suit.  The question is, what do you want as the outcome?  Full refund and return the 'faulty' goods?  Partial refund because the item no longer functions as advertised?

bris

It.s not really a downgrade though as you can still do what you need by touching the speakers or using an app. You may have a point if it took away the ability but such a minor change would be hard pushed to be a breach of contract.

speaker_guy

TELLIT01 said:

I would think it could be argued that the device infringed Sonos IP from the outset and was therefore 'faulty' from the date of purchase.  That should be fairly straightforward to prove, given that Google lost the law suit.  The question is, what do you want as the outcome?  Full refund and return the 'faulty' goods?  Partial refund because the item no longer functions as advertised?

I feel I should have a partial refund. (Partial due to the fact I have gained a year of satisfactory usage as per the advertised functionality).

One way of looking at this is that Google have sold me stolen property (albeit stolen intellectual property). Should the seller of stolen property benefit out of that sale?

As I pointed out in my original post, I would have happily purchased the Sonos speakers in the first place - and would certainly have done so if I had known Google did not own what it was selling.

bris said:
It.s not really a downgrade though as you can still do what you need by touching the speakers or using an app. You may have a point if it took away the ability but such a minor change would be hard pushed to be a breach of contract.

When using a voice controller speaker such as Alexa, Google etc, the most common voice commands are "play xxx music", "volume up", "volume down" and "stop". So dropping two of these commands does drop 50% of the voice functionality which you purchased.

That said, I do appreciate that life is good if this is the only thing I have to worry about...! In large part, it's the principle I'm most upset by!

speaker_guy

Thanks for everyone's thoughts on this today.

Moral of the story: when buying smart appliances, you really need to be sure you trust the seller and the longevity of their offered services. Think carefully when buying smart appliances, particularly if they are expensive or essential services (such as a fridge).

For my "problem" I suspect I will either:

1. Sell the speakers second hand and use the proceeds to buy the speakers from Sonos (who would appear to own what they are selling...)
2. Get over it (the more likely outcome)

Question is: if I go with (1), am I any better than Google? Mmmm. (I don't need an answer to that question, btw!).

prowla

bris said:

It.s not really a downgrade though as you can still do what you need by touching the speakers or using an app. You may have a point if it took away the ability but such a minor change would be hard pushed to be a breach of contract.

It is most certainly a downgrade, because part of the attraction of these kinds of kit is ease of use; thereby removing a facility is a downgrade.