Sony OLED Dead after 6 Years - Can ACL Actually Help Me?

KingJuf on 23/04/2025 - 20:51
Last edited 24/04/2025 - 09:24 by 1 other user

Hey guys, I bought a 55KDA8F during the EB Games promotions from Sony for $1999, unfortunately my TV has stopped turning on after 6 years with no LED light showing.

Spoke with Sony and basically they told me they could send out a tech to repair but I would bear the full costs or they offer me a discount on a new TV (no details provided). I got them to send me that response via email and sent a follow up request but was knocked back again with the same options provided.

Ideally I want to see if I can get the TV repaired or replaced but considering its already 6 years old what are my chances in getting Sony to foot the bill?

I have doing some research and reading some of the stories people have had of success like this one

This definitely gives me some confidence that I may have a chance but not sure how far I will need to go with it.

I recently bought a new LG OLED for a different room so I am also considering my options if its worth TGG concierge to avoid the hassle for 5 years albeit.

I have had several Sony Bravia in the past all that are still working after more than 12 years use. Am I expecting too much from an OLED TV?

Electrical & Electronics OLED TV Sony Warranty

Related Stores

Sony Australia
Sony Australia

Comments

      • geekcohen on 24/04/2025 - 08:21

        Sorry, it was early…… and I had only had 1 coffee.

        Still $400 a year at $1.10 a day (or there abouts) is still reasonable. But again, depends if they have been using it every day or its just watching footy on the weekend.

    • Bruceflix on 24/04/2025 - 12:30
      +2

      Is this 5 years for a TV that has been used every day? Or is it 5 years of just being used on the weekends to watch the Footy?

      Apparently is was only used by his Grandma to watch the church service on the Sunday.

  • Ash-Say on 24/04/2025 - 06:53
    +6

    This is my experience - My 65inch Sony TV stopped working after 4 years. After lot of arguments and complaints, they finally gave me latest 75 inch model for $920 while this new TV was being sold by everyone for $3700.
    https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/82858/121135/screensho…

    My old TV was purchased for $1200 so I was happy with latest tech, better resolution and 10inch bigger TV for an extra $950. I think I also used Amex offer to bring cost down to $820.

    You may have more success getting a latest model for few hundred dollars than getting a free replacement. Everyone offcourse would like to have free replacement but may need to meet in the middle.

    Read this thread as you find useful info here.
    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/627668?page=2#comment

    • bbinc on 24/04/2025 - 09:41
      +1

      An excellent deal. Perhaps OP should find out what Sony is willing to offer.
      When my 7yr old LG OLED dies, I’ll be happily looking forward to the improved features and tech on the latest models. I’m stuck with an old operating system (now subbed with an Apple TV box). My Marantz CD player is around 50 yrs old and still sounds great.
      Technology change usually kills my electronics before they stop working.

      • plmko on 24/04/2025 - 10:51

        That's why I don't buy any TV without Google inbuilt.

        I have a 9yr old Bravia, whilst the apps still work fine I can simply cast content from my phone without any additional box or accessories.

        Zero desire to upgrade because picture quality hasn't changed that much, only inconvenience is HDMI limitations for the latest game consoles.

    • KingJuf on 24/04/2025 - 10:41

      Yeh ill try give it a go and see what they can offer, dont necessarily need another OLED

    • KingJuf on 24/04/2025 - 10:51

      Just spoke with their sales, they are prepared to offer around $295 off their current price on Bravia 3 or other higher end series.

    • ramb9 on 28/04/2025 - 13:43

      If im reading correctly, 90% of your supporters are trolling you to waste your time.

      This thread was for a under 1 year old tv.

      Honestly 6 years is very acceptable life span. I cant see how youre seeing it differently to most other people

  • ihbh on 24/04/2025 - 08:19

    I have had several Sony Bravia in the past all that are still working after more than 12 years use

    There is a distribution of length of life of TVs, people, etc. They don't all die at 12.6789 years, etc.

    There would be a minimum cut-off covered by manufacturer warranty and ACL. You're probably clutching at straws.

  • Cheaplikethebird on 24/04/2025 - 09:20
    +8

    The Choice magazine infographic in this ABC article on stat warranties back in 2018 gives an estimated lifespan of 5 years for budget TVs, 8 for mid-range, and ten for high-end. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-26/how-long-should-a-fri…

    • jv on 24/04/2025 - 10:18
      -1

      The Choice magazine infographic

      Is that enforceable by law ?

      • JimB on 24/04/2025 - 11:45

        Criminal law

        Sony CEO can be subject to capital punishment.

        • jv on 24/04/2025 - 12:13

          He is Japanese though, not Chinese…

          • JimB on 24/04/2025 - 12:16
            +1

            @jv: In that case, the only choice is Seppuku

            • jv on 24/04/2025 - 12:18

              @JimB:

              choice is Seppuku

              Is it different to Harakiri?

              • JimB on 24/04/2025 - 12:28

                @jv: same result- OP will have pay for his own repairs or buy a new TV.

      • Cheaplikethebird on 24/04/2025 - 12:17

        No but doubt OP would progress it that far. Really you just need as much ammo as possible for whichever call centre team leader is making the call on a refund.

      • BillyG687 on 26/04/2025 - 09:43
        +1

        It's not, but it can be a useful reference point to argue the implied expected life of a TV. Another commentor also linked a precedent that somewhat solves this.

  • Protractor on 24/04/2025 - 10:01
    +2

    Nasty storm,that.
    Try fusion claim via insurance

  • sponson on 24/04/2025 - 10:28
    +5

    see: Peters v Panasonic Australia Pty Ltd (Civil Claims) [2014]

    iirc it was decided that a good quality TV should last 8 years.

    • gyrex on 24/04/2025 - 10:38

      Can you please share how I can get access to court result searches? I've got a QCAT case coming up for a laptop and would like some guidance based on previous precedents.

      • gyrex on 24/04/2025 - 11:40
        +1

        For anyone else who's interested: https://www.austlii.edu.au/advanced_search.shtml

      • sponson on 24/04/2025 - 21:01
        +1

        also consider what the ATO considers reasonable for depreciating a laptop… which I think is 4 years but don't quote me.

        • BillyG687 on 26/04/2025 - 09:45

          Another reference point outside of the ATO is whether the product is still supported with software updates or service. I've successfully argued with Apple to have issues covered under ACL becuase while they don't sell the product anymore, it's still receiving full software updates - which if they didn't think was still within its lifespan would be doing.

  • Checkmate3023 on 24/04/2025 - 11:47
    +2

    6-years isn't unreasonable life for a TV but you can lodge a complaint

    • Bruceflix on 24/04/2025 - 12:33

      I'd think it it for a recognised brand name TV. I go back to my childhood where at least 10 years was the norm for a TV. At minimum. Now that I think about it, The TV in my bedroom is 7 years old.

      • Checkmate3023 on 24/04/2025 - 13:21
        +1

        it depends on usage i check the ACCC there is no 'timeframe' for electronics fair wear and tear
        chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Electrical%20%26%20whitegoods%20-%20an%20industry%20guide%20to%20the%20Australian%20Consumer%20Law.pdf

        i all depends on who you ask i guess for me 6 years isnt 'terrible' esp consider i got no indication of how much OP used it or looked after it

        • BillyG687 on 26/04/2025 - 09:46
          +1

          There is a precedent against Panasonic that actually makes this much easier to resolve, with them agreeing 8 years for a $1100 TV.

          • Checkmate3023 on 26/04/2025 - 12:13
            +1

            @BillyG687: 1100 TV when was it purchased 1100 30 years ago is like 5k now

            I wouldnt be suprised if the ACCC rules in OP favor but also I wouldnt be suprised if he was told yea bad luck

  • payless69 on 24/04/2025 - 19:38
    +1

    Ask Gerry
    get $1 off his $800 hdmi cable….

  • hypie on 25/04/2025 - 09:34
    +3

    6 years in my opinion is on the verge of what would be considered reasonable. Disregard anyone who mentions the manufacturers warranty as that has absolutely no bearing on your statutory consumer rights.

    I would give it a go. Download the letter of demand from consumer protection. Im a little confused, did you purchase from EB or Sony.

    • KingJuf on 25/04/2025 - 09:50

      Purchased from Sony directly on their website, the EB games bit was a promo code I think.

  • TightAl on 25/04/2025 - 10:40
    -3

    People pay $2k for an iphone that last 2-3 years and expect a $2K TV to last a decade lol

    • Save 50 Cent on 26/04/2025 - 08:35
      +6

      What $2k lasts two years mate?! People voluntarily upgrading their phone after two years is absolutely irrelevant to what is going on here!

      • TightAl on 26/04/2025 - 09:09
        +2

        Imagine someone whinging their Iphone 10 died and if they can ACL it? LMAO
        Is that relevant?

        • Save 50 Cent on 26/04/2025 - 17:40

          TV’s don’t get as much use and abuse as phones being used all day and recharged at least once a day. It is mostly the battery that gets understandably shit after a few years of use.
          For TV’s that are used for a couple of hours a day on average nowadays, they should last way longer than a phone.

  • Dyl on 25/04/2025 - 11:05
    +2

    You'll find it difficult to show the reasonable consumer expects more than 5 years from a TV these days

    • 2027 on 25/04/2025 - 20:34
      +1

      You'll find it difficult to show the reasonable consumer expects more than 5 years from a TV these days

      Don’t need to, VCAT in 2021 has this to say:

      1. The television was seven years old at the time the power supply board was replaced. I am satisfied that the full operating life of a television of this sort is likely to be approximately ten years.

      It’s all relative, those getting their TVs from the middle of Aldi are happy it works when they get home, those getting flagships expect much more.

      • Dyl on 26/04/2025 - 13:03

        What model was that?

        A $2,000 OLED isn’t exactly flagship, if it was say $6,000 and an early model maybe, it all depends

        Also I don’t expect an LED globe to last as long as a filament globe either, so it depends on technology too. I don’t think OLED is known to last as long; it’s known to have issues with burnin and other early failure issues (globes are a bad example because they were previously designed to fail, but LED lights are known to fail quicker than filament still)

  • cobknob on 25/04/2025 - 12:05
    +4

    Some people are suggesting to fix yourself. Be really f*#ing careful. Some components even with the power off, and cable disconnected are still live. Capacitors that are not damaged may contain a charge, and not all capacitors look alike - many different types.

  • bluemyself on 25/04/2025 - 13:49

    I've mentioned this elsewhere but something that you could try is asking a sales person (like at a Sony store, or maybe if they have a website chat) that you're looking into buying an OLED TV and asking them how long they usually last. If they say something like 5-10 years or whatever, that could be something you could use against them if you're looking into pursuing it.

  • 91rs on 25/04/2025 - 18:01

    How many hours are on the panel, how many boot cycles it has had (high hours & low boots, panel is left on extended times etc).
    Sony would want to know this and will impact the claim going any further 100%.
    This may or may not help you get in to service mode on your panel https://moito.com/blog/sony-usage-hours-tracking-display-af8…

    Just things to consider as this will strengthen or weaken your argument, if you're unlucky like me no one else will turn the panel off when not in use due to the photo frame/wallpaper style modes they seem to be happy to have on all day which is reducing the life of the thing every minute its on and isn't being used for normal viewing!

    • KingJuf on 28/04/2025 - 10:23

      Its completely dead not sure even Sony would be able to get this info.

  • drfuzzy on 25/04/2025 - 19:39

    Yes you are

  • Romain on 25/04/2025 - 20:33

    I think you’re pushing it. What’s a 6-years old TV worth today after depreciation? 6 years might be less than you expected but it’s not as if the TV has died two months after the end of the warranty.
    OLEDs are bought for picture quality, I don’t think manufacturers make any claims about longevity vs LED/LCD. Quite the opposite in fact, older OLEDs particularly had a shorter life span.

    If I had bought several TVs from a brand and they all lasted over 12 years except one, I’d think the brand is doing a pretty good job on average. I think your best course is to try to get a better discount from the sales rep, potentially on an older / open box model.

  • SirCH on 25/04/2025 - 20:38
    +5

    I love and hate the Australian Consumer Law.
    I think it's great for ensuring things last more than a stated 1 year warranty.
    But there are cases like this which can be easily argued either way.
    Should a $2000 brand-name TV last more than 2 years? Most people would probably agree yes.
    Should a $2000 brand-name TV last more than 6 years? Debatable. If the manufacturer won't come to the party, you will have to fight it in court.
    But my $500 Kogan TV has lasted 10 years (and still going). By that logic should a $2000 TV last for 40 years?

    Oh, and although the manufacturer might come to the party, it's technically the retailer who is responsible under the ACL.

  • CocaKoala on 25/04/2025 - 20:41
    +1

    6 years seem like just around the limit of what one may consider reasonable lifetime of a TV these days. But there's no harm in trying.

    Actually, I take that back. It looks like Panasonic was taken to VCAT and they agreed that the expected lifetime of a TV is 8 years: https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCA…

    • ramb9 on 28/04/2025 - 13:48

      Dunno…

      The television operated without fault for two and a half years.

  • Hayesy22 on 25/04/2025 - 21:01

    I got the 65 inch from the same deal. The main board went on mine 2022 so about 4 years old which is outside manufacturer warranty. Sony did a full repair without me really pushing them with ACL.
    I had the same problem as you with the TV and from memory they said it would be the power supply or main board. Talking with the tech its not uncommon for the main board to go on this model.

    But to answer your question I think you are expecting too much from Sony on this 6 and half year old TV.

  • obatem on 25/04/2025 - 21:36
    +3

    Heya OP. Had a similar issue with my Sony TV, 5 years old and out of warranty. I spoke with the official Sony repair centre, and they told me the issue likely involves multiple components, not just one. They said repairs would probably cost hundreds—if not more—and that parts could take months to arrive. In the end, they more or less admitted they wouldn’t be able to fix it. I then took the TV to a local repair guy who was happy to check it out. He confirmed that it wasn’t just the main board or the display—it had multiple faults.

    After that, I pushed Sony for a replacement option since repair clearly wasn’t viable. I used some of the consumer rights language others have recommended, explaining that I paid a premium price for a Sony product and expected much better quality and longevity. At first, they only offered a $500 discount on their website, which I felt wasn’t nearly good enough. I stayed polite but firm, and kept pushing for a better offer. They eventually came back back with a $2,500 offer for a 65" OLED, which was decent as I couldn't get an OLED for that price at the time even going with another brand. That specific model they were offering I couldn’t find for under $4,500 on sale even or in OzB search.

    • serpserpserp on 26/04/2025 - 08:44

      Yeah but you are getting another Sony tho

  • gweidion on 25/04/2025 - 22:01

    This is typical of Sony rubbish that dies outside warranty and the authorised repairer says "Inexplicable electronic problem, buy another one". Seen it on a number of Sony products. No longer stupid enough to buy another.

  • richmond12 on 26/04/2025 - 01:08
    +2

    I had my $3k lg oled die just over 3 years and got a full refund from jb. Quoted acl a few times.

    • Nebargains on 27/04/2025 - 06:41
      +1

      I know someone who had an LG OLED and within about 12 months the colors started going funny, within about 2.5 years it was basically unwatchable as the problem had gotten progressively worse and worse, the colors were all washed out or orange etc. They dealt with it for some time and after about 3 years finally caved and called LG, tech came out took one look at it and said it needs a new panel, common problem where some of the components are too close to the screen and they get hot and basically ruin the panel, then LG got in contact and said they would organize a replacement through the retailer (JB HiFi in this case) and JB were fine, they basically said they can pick out any TV up to X price and has technology had gotten better they were basically getting a much better TV for the same price, they took the old TV in and walked out with a new one.

      Really for all the problems you hear about people getting stuff fixed out of warranty I was amazed that this just went so smoothly and didn't require anyone to kick up a fuss.

      • richmond12 on 27/04/2025 - 10:30

        Yeah thats awesome. I got my money back and would have preferred to spend at jb again but lg had an employee deal i couldnt pass up!

  • serpserpserp on 26/04/2025 - 08:42

    Sony and their build quality issues with OLED are well documented over the Internet. My condolences OP.

  • Plasma on 26/04/2025 - 13:54

    I'd get the Sony tech out. No point speculating what may be wrong. Actually get the fault diagnosed properly and go from there. If it's something that is economical to repair cost and parts-wise, then see if Sony will waive the original call out fee for the tech and any further labour charges. But from experience you are going to be pushing sh#t uphill trying to claim this against any statutory warranty. Holden wouldn't play ball on my wife's old Cruze that was one year out of its 3 year warranty, when the transmission gave out. Went through the process with consumer affairs and blah blah, got no where in the end. And that lemon cost in excess of $30k at the time.

    • 2027 on 26/04/2025 - 14:32
      +1

      Consumer Affairs may choose to initiate action on your behalf, but they have guidelines to follow before starting action on your behalf. The circumstances need to meet their requirements.

      Typically smaller claims are dealt with by a different process compared to larger claims. For example, in SA, if it’s under $12,000 lawyers are not allowed in the proceedings. These are relatively simple to prepare for, and the evidence requirements are based on “likely/not likely” rather than “beyond reasonable doubt”

      In essence, if the government department will not assist, the next step is to sue to retailer or manufacturer. No body can guess the outcome if you had chosen that step, but had you chosen to peruse that, Holden would no doubt have had something to offer during mediation.

    • KingJuf on 28/04/2025 - 10:25

      Yeh I think this is what I am going to do, get the sony tech out to see how much to repair and if it can actually be repaired (parts available etc) then take it from there.

  • zyj494949 on 26/04/2025 - 15:05
    -1

    6 years is long enough and it's old tech TV already.
    It's good timing for a better new TV when good deal appears.

    • Kranbone on 29/04/2025 - 19:46

      How someone can neg you for common sense is beyond me. Agree with your point entirely.

      It's decent run and the tech now will be better and more efficient.

  • Skramit on 26/04/2025 - 16:27
    +1

    Dont know if this helps you or not but my brother law had his TV fully replaced by Samsung after 8 years after its power supply died. Argued consumer law etc.

  • jlogic on 26/04/2025 - 18:26
    +1

    The good news is with the plethora of cheap as chips TV and that Sony TV retailing at $3999 when released, you can argue that you bought for quality and expect at least a decade of use from it, if not you would of bought a cheap one and be done with it.

    I had my an issue with broken pixel on the top row of the screen, same model as yours except 65". Two years out of warranty, so owned if for 3 years. Messaged them and then called them, discussed my options with the consultant. They escalated it, and through out this process I made sure that I expressed that the reason I bought such an expensive Sony TV was the quality and longevity of it.

    Ended up getting the whole panel replaced for no charge.

    Still working great to this day.

  • SaintKev on 26/04/2025 - 19:23
    +1

    Recently had a Sony 55" TV screen go, first off ghosting, now it's a blank screen.
    Lasted just under 3 years with little use. Did the online Sony fault reporting.
    First emails, Sony offered a trade in option, would be paying more then $1500 for a replacement.

    Went down the Australian Consumer Law track stating the TV should have lasted more then 3 years.
    Got a positive response from Sony after I logged a claim with QLD Fair Trading.
    Replacement TV on the way.

    • jlogic on 26/04/2025 - 21:58

      Yeps push it with them… companies will always push back to see how much resistance you give.

      Always put it to them and ask them if they don't help you, are they admitting that their product is dogsh*t.

  • garage sale on 26/04/2025 - 23:06
    -1

    the tv came with a warranty, you could have bought extended warranty but decided to save some money and rolled the dice. problem can be precedent if they start fixing for free outside warranty period people will start to short out the TVs to get new ones as sony won’t have a replacement of same model after 5 years so would need to give you new equivalent if not worth fixing. Using a piezo is good way to kill electronics and not leave marks. Went through this warranty claim for large item saga with a fridge luckily had 2 weeks warranty left but rather than fix they refunded after tech looked at it.

  • Nebargains on 27/04/2025 - 06:37

    Feel like 7 years is a pretty good run IMO, depending on usage of course.

  • StonedWizard on 27/04/2025 - 13:00

    OP all you need to do is email Sony and tell them you want this reviewed under ACL as TV should last 8 years. Especially a more premium model like yours.

    Had a similar experience with Hisense, but the moment I mentioned this they approved the repair within 48 hours.

    • Muppet Detector on 27/04/2025 - 16:23

      Was that a court finding or an agreement between the two parties during settlement talks for that TV in those circumstances?

      There is a difference. The latter is not a legally binding precedent, yardstick or promulgation of a law.

      Pretty sure it is quite disingenuous to represent the ACL as having specific expectations for a product/ class of products because they have to consider both objective and subjective expectations when arriving at a decision.

      For contract law purposes, there simply is no way to apply a one size fits all framework for product reliability or longevity.

      • StonedWizard on 27/04/2025 - 16:28

        @Muppet Detector - There was a case in NCAT against Panasonic for this and the ruling was a TV should last 8 years.

        You'll find most manufacturers may initially fob you off, but the moment you mention ACL, they will comply as precedent has been set.

        • Muppet Detector on 27/04/2025 - 16:36

          Pretty sure that wasn't a ruling determined by the courts. Only a voluntary agreement between the two parties during court proceedings that was supported by the courts in that specific situation with those specific circumstances.

          The court didn't actually make this decision therefor, it isn't legal precedent for anything other than Sony will negotiate settlement agreements.

          Sony didn't lose that case/have a ruling found against them or forced on them, they reached a settlement with the plaintiff that the courts thought was fair in the circumstances.

          • 2027 on 27/04/2025 - 16:57

            @Muppet Detector: Maybe it’s this one from 2021 where the tribunal, in its reasons for decision, states

            I am satisfied that the full operating life of a television of this sort is likely to be approximately ten years.

            https://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCA…

            This case was ultimately unsuccessful for the applicant, in part due to having their son replace a component inside the TV.

            • Muppet Detector on 27/04/2025 - 17:00

              @2027: Did you read and understand even the part you quoted?

              You haven't even identified what the variables were , the arguments made or proof presented that the court considered in arriving at that decision.

              "Of this sort", "is likely", "approximately"…

              The law is more precise than that. It simply does not work that way.

              • 2027 on 27/04/2025 - 17:10

                @Muppet Detector:

                The law is more precise than that. It simply does not work that way.

                The ACL isn’t precise lol. Show us where it says xyz TV = abc years.

                All we can do from our chairs here in this forum is consider previous written decisions, the model in that case was a flagship plasma. While OPs was not a flagship plasma, it was not a cheap Aldi special either.

                These cases don’t carry the burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt” and the wording of the legislation leaves a lot of interpretation to be had.

                If a member finds “the full operating life of a television of this sort is likely to be approximately ten years”, surely that carries more weight than a random number plucked out of thin air, does it not?

                These are in the small claims court. Not HCA btw

                • Muppet Detector on 27/04/2025 - 17:28

                  @2027:

                  The ACL isn’t precise lol. Show us where it says xyz TV = abc years.

                  That is my exact argument?

                  I cannot show you where that is and I defy anybody else to find it either.

                  The legislation is intentionally silent on this and there is not enough case law to support any generalised binding decision.

                  If a member finds “the full operating life of a television of this sort is likely to be approximately ten years”, surely that carries more weight than a random number plucked out of thin air, does it not?

                  Only for that situation.

                  Again, the answer lays in the language used, "is likely", or "approximately", simply aren't recognised legal yardsticks.

                  These cases don’t carry the burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt” and the wording of the legislation leaves a lot of interpretation to be had.

                  They are subjected to a finding "On The Balance of Probabilities", though.

                  The legislation is intentionally silent on this. That's not an accident.

                  Crikey, I'm sorry I bought any of it up.

                  • 2027 on 27/04/2025 - 17:32

                    @Muppet Detector: It is being used to demonstrate to OP that in 2021 a tribunal member wrote those words, that there is hope that the OP can convince another member that perhaps his TV should have lasted 10 years, or maybe longer if OP found marketing material or board reports or something from Sony about advancements in manufacturing techniques or something…

                    And to demonstrate to you and others that it’s certainly within the realm of possibilities to expect a TV to last 10 years.

                    I’m also mentioning it because as you rightly say, Panasonic vs Peters was the two parties agreeing to a set term, and this case was a member themselves giving indications to a reasonable length of time.

                    I mean, we’re pretty much on the same page. We can only look at this on papers lol. Even then there isn’t much to go on, and you are correct by pointing out to people on OzB that there is no relevant case law that will scare every TV manufacturer, but I feel that there are enough snippets to encourage OP into litigation.

                    Personally I was deliberating LG v Sony a few years ago for my living room OLED. I kind of wish I’d gone with a Sony, I get a special kind of joy from serving. Alas, I didn’t need to flex ACL with LG, they did the right thing.

                    • Muppet Detector on 27/04/2025 - 18:10

                      @2027: Well, it wasn't what you initially used, but now that you have…

                      Sure, both cases certainly serve to provide the OP with hope, but first and foremost, they are only relevant in a meaningful way if they're discussing similar products subjected to similar circumstances, considerations and any direct representations that may have been made about the respective goods.

                      If the two cases bore any meaningful resemblance to each other, then why wasn't the first one used as precedent for the other?

                      That case is a long way away from the ACL determining that a TV should last 10 years which has pretty much been the entire point I was making from the beginning.

                      Think about it:

                      If this was such a well defined area with any meaningful precedent, then why would a court agree that "8 years was fair", if 10 years was the real expectation?

                      Furthermore, if this really was established law, considering a manufacturer warranty is a marketing tool and they have no choice but to follow the law, then why wouldn't the manufacturer just advertise a 10 year warranty from the get go?

                      Could it be because the expectation is fluid and subjective?

                      • 2027 on 27/04/2025 - 18:17

                        @Muppet Detector:

                        Could it be because the expectation is fluid and subjective?

                        Exactly, and it varies amongst the community here too.

                        I strongly believe that some manufacturers are relying on this instead of broadly accepting out of warranty repairs.

                        That because it’s so vague, with many variables, and it’s impossible to have a one size fits all approach, manufacturers can do what they please. Some are doing more than others.

                        No manufacturer in their right mind will offer 10 years as long as many consumers still believe when it’s out of warranty, they’re doomed, and are happy to get a discount on a new model after a failure.

                        The 2021 vcat case I linked clearly isn’t solid ground - the consumer was ultimately unsuccessful, however it does give hints at what one could possibly expect.

                        Until this is actually tested, with every make and model aha, all we can do is encourage people to get it examined.

  • Muppet Detector on 27/04/2025 - 16:11

    In Australia at least, the length of warranty a manufacturer may choose to offer is absolutely meaningless unless it exceeds that which is provided for us under ACL consumer guarantees.

    Warranties are pretty much marketing tools which are used to both compare and differentiate the products being offered for sale.

    Think about it:

    They are voluntary. A manufacturer is not required to provide any warranty. For what other reason would they offer any warranty at all if it weren't for advertising/marketing reasons?

    As its name suggests, a warranty is a promise, not a guarantee. There is a difference.

    As for the guarantees, well they're not generally specific for ACL purposes. They can't be as each person's expectations of a product are subjective and there are too many other variables, also often subjective, that can influence or impact upon the life and performance of a product outside of/ in addition to any objective expectations that may exist.

    Just as all murders aren't the same (so they receive different penalties), neither are each product, even if they were produced side by side on an assembly line somewhere.

  • Muppet Detector on 27/04/2025 - 16:44

    If price were an accepted indicator of performance and longevity, would you expect a $500 leather handbag to perform any differently than a $40,000 leather handbag?

    Those $40,000 handbags don't cost that much because they are made from leather.

    Sure, it may be a consideration and in some cases even an indication of quality/expectations, but just because another product that does the same thing is available for a higher or lower price, doesn't mean that price alone can (or should) determine legal expectations.

    Some people pay $70 for Calvin Klein boxer shorts. Do we really expect them to last longer or perform better than $10 anka ones from Kmart?

    • 2027 on 27/04/2025 - 17:04

      If price were an accepted indicator of performance and longevity, would you expect a $500 leather handbag to perform any differently than a $40,000 leather handbag?

      Price is indeed an indicator according to the ACCCs guidance for the white goods industry.

      https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Electrical%20%26%20whit…

      the price paid for the product – for example, a cheap toaster is not expected to last as long as a top-of-the-range one

      While it is listed amongst other considerations, it certainly is very relevant. And the fact that this was a $3999 TV at the time, competing against middle of the line OLEDs from other manufacturers (and not their cheap and nasty models), this would carry some weight in deciding if it satisfies the tests.

      • Muppet Detector on 27/04/2025 - 17:15

        You didn't read what I wrote. If you did, you haven't responded to what I actually said.

        I am sure that $20 leather bags exist, but I specifically excluded those from my example for a reason.

        • 2027 on 27/04/2025 - 17:16

          I’m actually somewhat agreeing with you, confirming this sentence of yours

          Sure, it may be a consideration and in some cases even an indication of quality/expectations, but just because another product that does the same thing is available for a higher or lower price, doesn't mean that price alone can (or should) determine legal expectations.

          with a publication to back your/my claims up!?! That price isn’t the sole indicator?

      • Muppet Detector on 27/04/2025 - 19:49

        the price paid for the product – for example, a cheap toaster is not expected to last as long as a top-of-the-range one

        It just occurred to me how truly misleading?, (vague?) this statement is (I know you quoted it, not authored it).

        There is no determination for how long a cheap toaster should last far less a high end one.

        Should a $10 toaster last 3 months? 6 months? A whole year?

        If we don't even know that, how can we work out what "longer" means or how long it actually is?

        Similarly, if we don't know how long a high end toaster is supposed to last, how do we determine how long a $10 one is supposed to last?

        I think that once you eliminate the outliers and just deal with the middle 80% or so, that price is more about the experience you will have whilst a product does what it does whilst it is doing what it is supposed to do.

        In television talk, I suppose that translates to how clear the picture is, what enjoyment or benefit you receive from any features it offers (apart from showing a picture I suppose) and how user friendly those features are.

        • 2027 on 27/04/2025 - 23:16

          Yes, it’s not clear cut. Hence threads like this - OP isn’t sure if they should chase it up, some are claiming 6 years is good and others are saying it’s too short. Questions pop up all the time for all sorts of things, failed dishwashers, laptops, mobile phones etc

          That document is paraphrasing the legislation, it’s just as vague.

          It boils down to what a “reasonable consumer” would expect, as written in the legislation - is this TV considered durable? That’s the essence of these posts - OP wants to know if they’re being reasonable.

          The “price” factor has been used in several cases, eg one involving a 7 year old BMW X5 that the applicant was successful with.

          For all we know, the various Tribunals or Courts may have come to a decision on TVs or toasters, unfortunately in SA no decisions are published from the Magistrates Court with this jurisdiction (I couldn’t find any appeals in the District Court), and NSW only selectively publish from their CAT. VIC is published though, but I have no idea how the other states handle these sorts of claims.

          Sometimes I wonder if it’s the wording of the questions resulting in the wide range of answers and debate here.

          Perhaps:

          would you call a 55” Sony TV with an RRP of $3999 that lasts only 6 years “durable”?

          would yield different answers, as it’s using terminology (durable) from the Act, not asking about anyone’s understanding of ACL, warranties etc.

  • AuQld on 27/04/2025 - 16:54

    Did you check the power lead, might be something simple. If not just buy a new one, if you can't afford a 2k TV, buy a cheaper one. My 1000$ Samsung is still going strong 8 years later. I can afford any TV on the market 1000 times over. But they all essentially do the same thing, when a movie is good nobody cares what it's on. Gladiator and T2 were the bomb on 20" cathode ray tubes. Games are fine on any screen, if you need higher refresh rates etc, you are either a pro or crap at the game in general and it won't make you any better.

    • 2027 on 27/04/2025 - 18:05

      Except for that infamous GoT night sequence, where they graded it, and forgot that 99% of their viewers dgaf about image quality and wouldn’t even know what reference calibration levels mean. The viewers had cheap screens, then cried when they couldn’t see anything. Just putting it out there, I had no problems aha ;)

      • AuQld on 27/04/2025 - 21:14

        You have me on that one, it was unwatchable during the day with the curtains closed.

        My missus gave up on the recent sequel for the same reason. I wasn't bothered after what they did to the original, books were never finished either. Waste of my time really. So she had to watch it during the day.

        I guess in that specific situation a 3k qled TV is needed..

    • KingJuf on 28/04/2025 - 10:22

      I have tried a new power lead and a different power source with no success. Its not really about the money here, I just was not expecting for it to completely die.

  • vid_ghost on 27/04/2025 - 17:13

    LG CX10 65" OLED TV Still going strong after 5 Years

    • KingJuf on 28/04/2025 - 10:21
      +1

      My parents LG OLED died at just before 5 years but they have goodguys concierge. My new TV in the other room is an LG.

      • vid_ghost on 28/04/2025 - 15:14

        use case?..left on 24/7 ?.. what size on model was it?

  • mavack on 27/04/2025 - 17:35
    +1

    I think the whole ACL thing gets a bit messy when it comes to $$$. At 6 years i don't expect a TV to fail but it can happen, what i don't expect after 6 years is that it becomes so broken that it is unrepairable. If it costs $xxx to fix it and xxx is resonable then all good, If they say that its unrepairable or parts not available then you go ACL on them for not providing something that is durable.

    I find it hard that everyone expects the repairs to always be free for everything on such a loose undefined timeframe, things to wearout. Yes there is the whole baked obseletness which is another problem alltogether.

    • KingJuf on 28/04/2025 - 10:20

      Yeh I mean it sounds like I may need to take steps for them to access repair costs and work out my options from that.

  • Jimmycfc on 27/04/2025 - 22:00

    My LG OLED died around 3 years in exact same symptoms, try leave the power out for 5 minutes and then see if it will work.
    I contacted LG support and they said seeing as its a premium model they will replace the power supply, 2 years on from that still going strong

  • Logical on 27/04/2025 - 23:31

    You will need to prove it wasn't a power surge/ and or you have a surge protector etc

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join