Google Pixel 8 – authorised repair removed IP68 water resistance (any advice?)

VicariousThrills

tl;dr

My Pixel 8 had a manufacturing fault and was repaired under warranty. The Google-authorised repairer told me the phone is no longer water-resistant, and Google’s own website confirms repairs can remove IP68 protection. Google refuses to confirm my phone still meets its original spec or offer a replacement. What are my rights?

Background

I bought a Google Pixel 8 about 18 months ago. I’m dyspraxic and a bit prone to accidents so I chose it for the IP68 water-resistance.

The fault

A known display fault developed (a bright pink line), and I had it repaired under Google’s Extended Repair Programme for Pixel 8 devices.

The Google-authorised repairer replaced the screen but told me the phone would no longer be water resistant, as their resealing process isn’t identical to the factory one.

Google’s response

I queried this with Google support who first said:

“I can confirm that the IP68 rating is applied during the original factory assembly under strict, controlled conditions. When a device is disassembled for any repair, even by an authorized partner using official parts, the integrity of that factory-applied seal is compromised... We cannot guarantee or warrant that the IP68 rating is fully retained after any repair.”

I escalated this to a manager who said that "We assure you that the device will be repaired with utmost care without disturbing any of the features of the device". But they refused to give me any specific assurance about my device - just general statements that repairs will not damage phones. 

However, even Google’s own product page says:

“Water and dust resistance… diminish or are lost over time due to normal wear and tear, device repair, disassembly or damage.”

Why it matters

The phone was repaired for a manufacturing defect, not misuse, yet now I don't know if it's water resistant anymore, which was the main reason I bought it.

What I’ve done

• Raised a formal complaint with Google and escalated it to a final response, which was "we do not provide any written justification on water-resistance specification following the authorised repair".

• Quoted the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (repaired goods must be of equivalent quality and fit for purpose).

• Asked about further escalation or ADR - they've ignored this.

What I’m asking

They're just fobbing me off and I don't know what to do next.

Has anyone had success challenging a manufacturer when a warranty repair needed because of a manufacturing fault was not of equivalent quality to the original product?

Google is not going to take it further. It feels like I should be able to go to the Ombudsman or something but I don't think Google is registered with one. So how can I actually challenge the fact that my phone is worse now than it was before? Can Trading Standards do anything? Is the only route legal action? That seems a bit ridiculous - I'm not going to take Google to court over this. So is there anything I can do?

Any advice gratefully received.

Thanks,

Sam

Undervalued

Had the phone failed during the statutory period it may well be that they would have had no choice but to replace it (or refund you) if they could not repair it "as new" i.e watertight.

However, once you are relying on the warranty, which is in addition to your statutory rights and as such is subject to its own terms and conditions. One of those conditions may be that it can no longer be guaranteed watertight.

So yes, legal action may well be your only option- if you thing you have a "watertight" case (as it were) but I am not sure you do.

Trading standards do not fight individual cases for you but might possibly use your case along with many others if they feel there is a widespread problem.

eskbanker

VicariousThrills said:

However, even Google’s own product page says:

“Water and dust resistance… diminish or are lost over time due to normal wear and tear, device repair, disassembly or damage.”

I get why you've bolded those words, but the immediately preceding ones may be relevant here too, i.e. if they publish up front that water resistance can be diminished or lost over time due to normal wear and tear, then this would presumably preclude any claim against them for this even if an 18 month old phone is otherwise working fine.

VicariousThrills

Thanks very much - that's really helpful. I hadn’t properly appreciated the distinction between my statutory rights with the retailer and the manufacturer’s warranty.

What puzzles me is that Google’s own documentation for the Pixel 8 Extended Repair Programme doesn't say anything about the phone no longer being IP68-rated after repair, or about any change in specification at all - it just describes it as a "free display replacement" if there's no user damage to the phone (which there wasn't in my case).

If Google had told me in advance that the repair would likely remove the IP68 water resistance, I might well have decided not to have it repaired and kept the vertical line instead. It's quite annoying they only told me when I got the phone back.

But being annoying is not unlawful. It sounds like you're saying that the Consumer Rights Act doesn't apply here because it's under the warranty rather than during the statutory period? Even though they've accepted that it was a manufacturing fault and extended the warranty because of it? (Not that I needed the extension as in my case it was still under the original two year warranty).

Realistically I don't think I'm going to take Google to court over this. I might well report to Trading Standards but as you say they're not going to do anything about my particular case. So essentially Google have removed the water resistance from my phone while fixing their own manufacturing fault and there's nothing I can do about it?

Undervalued

VicariousThrills said:

Thanks very much - that's really helpful. I hadn’t properly appreciated the distinction between my statutory rights with the retailer and the manufacturer’s warranty.

What puzzles me is that Google’s own documentation for the Pixel 8 Extended Repair Programme doesn't say anything about the phone no longer being IP68-rated after repair, or about any change in specification at all - it just describes it as a "free display replacement" if there's no user damage to the phone (which there wasn't in my case).

If Google had told me in advance that the repair would likely remove the IP68 water resistance, I might well have decided not to have it repaired and kept the vertical line instead. It's quite annoying they only told me when I got the phone back.

But being annoying is not unlawful. It sounds like you're saying that the Consumer Rights Act doesn't apply here because it's under the warranty rather than during the statutory period? Even though they've accepted that it was a manufacturing fault and extended the warranty because of it? (Not that I needed the extension as in my case it was still under the original two year warranty).

Realistically I don't think I'm going to take Google to court over this. I might well report to Trading Standards but as you say they're not going to do anything about my particular case. So essentially Google have removed the water resistance from my phone while fixing their own manufacturing fault and there's nothing I can do about it?

It is a complex one and I can't give you a definitive answer I'm afraid. I seem to remember hearing similar stories about high end waterproof watches.

VicariousThrills

eskbanker said:

VicariousThrills said:

However, even Google’s own product page says:

“Water and dust resistance… diminish or are lost over time due to normal wear and tear, device repair, disassembly or damage.”

I get why you've bolded those words, but the immediately preceding ones may be relevant here too, i.e. if they publish up front that water resistance can be diminished or lost over time due to normal wear and tear, then this would presumably preclude any claim against them for this even if an 18 month old phone is otherwise working fine.

Yeah, it is problematic. I don't know for sure that the IP68 water resistance has gone now - they've just said that the integrity of the factory seal has been compromised. The only way for me to demonstrate it would be to drop it in water - but if the phone takes water damage then exactly, as you say, they could claim it had already lost its IP68 rating.

As it happens I actually dropped my phone in the bath a couple of weeks ago (before the screen repair) and it was fine so I don't think the IP68 rating had substantially diminished but of course I can't prove that a) that happened or b) that it wasn't lost after that, or even because of that (though if your water resistance is destroyed by water it's not really worth anything).

It feels to me that there is a more general point though - regardless of my specific case - why is there no recourse when a Google-authorised repairer fixing a manufacturing fault causes one of the key phone features to be degraded? 

MattMattMattUK

Just a quick note, I think most phone manufacturers state that IP68 either lasts only one or two years, the seals degrade, grease, salts and oils from human skin rot them so a phone is not IP68 forever. Each manufacturer has an idea of how long, they always say that they will last for the warranty period. A good phone, well looked after, kept in a case, not mistreated etc. might mean the seals last 3-5 years, but equally they can and often do last for only a year or two.

With regard to repairs the seals require very precise alignment, certain pressure and that will not be able to be replicated in a repair shop when done by hand. They still apply a seal, they still do it in largely the same way, but as it does not get pressure tested (using air) after they cannot be certain it will pass. 

VicariousThrills

MattMattMattUK said:

Just a quick note, I think most phone manufacturers state that IP68 either lasts only one or two years, the seals degrade, grease, salts and oils from human skin rot them so a phone is not IP68 forever. Each manufacturer has an idea of how long, they always say that they will last for the warranty period. 

It's actually worse than this and really a borderline scam if you take their claims at face value - they don't guarantee that IP68 will last for the warranty period (which I'm still in) or in fact any amount of time at all. Their T&Cs are a complete get out of jail free card:

The Google website says:

Pixel 8: Designed to comply with dust and water protection rating IP68 under IEC standard 60529 when each device leaves the factory... Water and dust resistance are not permanent conditions. They diminish or are lost over time due to normal wear and tear, device repair, disassembly or damage

This seems to me to mean the opposite of saying the IP68 will last for the warranty period. They're saying: it passed the test in the factory, but if the phone is ever water damaged then they'll blame that on normal wear and tear.

But it seems to me that UK law doesn't (or shouldn't?) allow for these kinds of shenanigans. If a company sells a phone as IP68 water resistant, the reasonable consumer expects that to mean that if the phone gets splashed and breaks, the manufacturer shouldn't just be able to say, sorry, it's on you.

In my case though - and presumably everyone affected by the manufacturing fault - they're admitting that the factory seal has been compromised by the repair process. But it seems like, even though it's very unlikely to be the case that Google's repairs have not damaged anyone's IP68 rating, because no individual consumer can prove that IP68 was in place before the repair, there's nothing anyone can do about it.

TELLIT01

Not exactly the same situation, but I had a watch which was guaranteed waterproof.  I chipped the glass and wanted to have that replaced.  The jeweller said that they could not guarantee the watch would be waterproof after repair, for much the same reason as given by Google regarding the conditions under which the work would be done.

VicariousThrills

TELLIT01 said:

Not exactly the same situation, but I had a watch which was guaranteed waterproof.  I chipped the glass and wanted to have that replaced.  The jeweller said that they could not guarantee the watch would be waterproof after repair, for much the same reason as given by Google regarding the conditions under which the work would be done.

Right and in general I think that's annoying but not necessarily unreasonable once you've damaged your own device (which I have done many times with many devices). But the difference in this case is that the repair was only required because of a manufacturing error. So they've just replaced a product which is faulty in one way with one which is faulty in another.

Okell

@VicariousThrills

Apologies if I've missed this, but from whom did you buy the 'phone?

And if it was a known manufacturing fault, why did you get it fixed under warranty rather than exercising your statutory consumer rights against the seller?