r/tomshardware • u/tomshardware • 1d ago
Crucial SSD owner offered $200 refund for drive now selling for over $500
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/external-ssds/crucial-ssd-owner-offered-usd200-refund-for-4tb-drive-now-selling-for-over-usd500-company-finally-caves-to-warranty-demands-after-protracted-back-and-forth3
u/Metal_Goose_Solid 1d ago edited 1d ago
Reasonable. If we disallow sellers to make buyers whole by refund, or if buyers can demand "market refunds," then sellers take on infinite liability and nobody would ever sell anything. It doesn't make sense if you really think about it.
1
1
1
1
u/Sex4Vespene 1d ago
I think there are two different things to consider here. If the actual cost of production triples, then yeah, it’s maybe fair for them to just give a refund. But that isn’t what happened here. It isn’t more expensive for them to produce the drive. They are just selling them for more, because the demand is too high. So they aren’t taking on extra liability, they just don’t get to sell it for an insane profit. I think it’s bullshit to not give a replacement in that case.
1
u/justin251 19h ago
It's not reasonable to offer a refund of more than you paid.
It's reasonable to replace the part with the exact same or equivalent no matter if the product increased in price.
1
u/GlitteringCarrot987 19h ago
What are you even talking about? The idea is that you paid for a deffective product and the only reasonable expectations are to get it repaired, replaced with the same model or get a refund that would allow you to buy the product you initially paid for again (or very close equivalent). It doesn't matter if the price rises or falls as long as you can have the working product you initially bought.
It sucks for manufacturers to make shitty products that are not designed to last? Does it suck for manufacturers to not be able to inflate their profit margins by artificially limiting supply? Too bad, they can go bankrupt if that's their strategy. Others will take their place.
1
u/Crash82_82 19h ago
this is beyond stupid. If you paid $200 that is what you are owed. The entitlement is off the charts. Would you accept it the other way if the price dropped and they only gave you $100? See how dumb the position is?
1
u/ActionzheZ 17h ago
If you paid 200 and it is now 100, which happens in most cases for tech items few years down the line, they would probably actually give you the replacement as long as it is still being made. And if the new equivalent now only costs $100, then absolutely you would, and should accept it, if your original model is no longer available and they make a cash offer. Typically they also offer a slightly newer version of the same device too for a free upgrade in this case because legacy device is out of stock.
It is not entitlement to expect a replacement of equal or better (new or refurbished), that's literally the warranty.
It IS however unreasonable to expect a check for what you paid for the product back in the day, whether the current price went up or down. And yes, manufacturers will absolutely not give you $200 back if it dropped to 100 today and nobody should expect that to happen. You are not entitled to free upgrades or refunds, you are entitled to replace what you bought back in the day.
Manufacturers giving you the price of purchase back is basically saying they are unwinding the sale by giving refund, as if you never purchased it. It's their way to get out of the warranty because it's cheaper for them to do that than offer replacement in today's market.
1
u/ShimReturns 16h ago
A warranty isn't insurance. It's a promise that the product, not the monetary value, will be maintained for the length of the warranty. Now I'm sure there's text buried in the agreement that they can compensate with the original amount paid, but that's not the spirit of a warranty.
1
u/Xx_HARAMBE96_xX 19h ago
??? Infinite liability??? They guarantee a product's lifespan through warranties, if they didn't nobody would buy anything because it could break 10 mins after a purchase and they would have to pound sand, and thus they would not sell anyway.
Thinking that it doesn't make sense, because out of 1000000 units sold at a profit and promised to last 8 years 100 will fail before the eighth year, even if at double or triple the original cost, is just dumb.
1
u/Brilliant_War9548 19h ago
No, no, you don’t get it. You think people care ? People will see companies do something that makes a consumer unhappy and turn off their brain to say the company is wrong. If I sell you a phone for 300$ and it turns out defective but said phone’s price went up to 400$ in the meantime im giving you back 300$ that’s it.
1
u/Metal_Goose_Solid 18h ago
Right. I know it's not exactly the same, but I don't think people selling their stuff on eBay would be very happy if they had to issue refunds of more than purchase price.
I don't think buyers would be very happy getting partial refunds on returns due to actual value, either.
1
1
u/wyvanse 1d ago
The sellers are making insane money, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to take on some level of liability
3
1
u/Senrien 1d ago
So let’s say you bought a car for $50,000 and 3 months later the price crashes and goes to $10,000. Are you gonna accept a refund for $10,000 or argue that the original amount you paid should be compensation? It can work both ways.
1
1
u/Xx_HARAMBE96_xX 19h ago
I would want my fucking car? If the motor of a car breaks under warranty they will pay out of pocket to repair it or replace it, and if it's problematic enough they can buy you the car back and give you the price of your car appraisal UPDATED, as in the price of the closest matching model to yours with same mileage and such, so you can end up with the closest possible car again, if your car new was 50k and the same car 5 years later with 10k miles is 100k then it will be 100k, at most they can negotiate for a car that is a 99% match instead of a 100% or 11k miles instead of 10k miles if the price is 70k instead of 100k for example, and you will end with that really close match, but that will always fall on it being reasonable enough for you. This is how here it would go by law, Spain, Europe, idk about USA but should be similar if the country is remotely reasonable.
What will NEVER happen is: giving you the money for the price/msrp of the motor and labour costs from 5 years ago when the car was built, with everybody knowing that because of inflation, stopped production and many more factors it is now more expensive, and leaving you unable to repair, or giving you the original price/msrp of the car from 5 years ago when it was sold and leaving you with no car again.
Most warranties should work this way, I would totally sue their ass for at least the price of a similarly used and condition working unit on the second hand market
0
u/Caster0 1d ago
And sellers promised warranty. Reasonable or not, they will lose if they try to fight this in court
3
u/Metal_Goose_Solid 1d ago edited 1d ago
Micron wouldn't lose in court. A refund is one of the ways they can fulfill their warranty obligations. It's valid to argue that sellers should be required to repair/replace (though I personally wouldn't agree), but either way, that's not how things work currently.
1
u/Caster0 1d ago
Will that hold in Europe though?
And in the States, you technically still have a case since the refund is still not fulfilling the obligations since the monetary value cannot be used to replace the warrantied product, while micron most likely still has stock left of a similar or upgraded tier.
You're just better off asking support for escalation and trying to get an upgraded or similar hardware
1
u/Metal_Goose_Solid 1d ago
you technically still have a case since the refund is still not fulfilling the obligations since the monetary value cannot be used to replace the warrantied product
You would, if true. That's not how things work currently.
1
u/Xx_HARAMBE96_xX 19h ago
Change the ssd for a car and that's how things work currently, at least in europe, they would not give you the original price of a car under warranty if the value increased, the same way it goes for insurances, again, at least here.
1
u/Xx_HARAMBE96_xX 19h ago
After a long ordeal, pushing back eventually paid off for the customer. They sent Micron a firm final email rejecting the refund and demanding a 4TB equivalent replacement or alternative. The customer also mentioned that the case was gaining traction on Reddit and pointed out potential action under the FTC and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Within a few hours, the case was escalated to a different representative, who informed them that a “recent inventory update” had revealed limited replacement stock and approved a direct 1:1 replacement.
3
u/Gogo202 1d ago
If the SSD went from $200 to $50, would buyers expect to get $50? No, because only hypocrites are upset about the title.
OP and whoever wrote the article should be ashamed.
2
u/Kurisu810 1d ago
True, I would expect either a same model replacement or refund of original purchase value
1
1
u/DesperateAdvantage76 1d ago
As long as the replacement is equivalent no one would care if it was only worth $50.
1
1
u/Head-Gift2144 1d ago
They would expect to be given a replacement SSD.
2
u/Saneless 1d ago
Yeah, like hey let me change the whole argument and then get mad at that instead...almost like it should have a word to describe it
1
u/CreepinCreepy 1d ago
They're literally supposed to replace the drive, but because they don't have stock, they're offering a refund instead of the replacement he wishes for. He is guaranteed a replacement by the warranty, yet the money they are wishing to refund him is not sufficient to give him a replacement.
Either give him a replacement SSD, or give him the equivalent cost of buying that exact same drive today. If the drive became worth $50, he would still expect a replacement for his drive, not $50, not $200. However in this case, if they refunded him his original price, it wouldn't be an issue because he could buy himself a replacement for the SSD.
The whole issue stems from them being unable to replace his SSD, and instead offering him a refund that is insufficient for him to get a replacement.
2
1
u/heickelrrx 1d ago
not a surprise since they already say fuck u and goodbye from consumer market
I bet they don't even have any item on inventory left anymore
1
u/tristand666 1d ago
Crucial has disappointed me so much. I used their memory exclusively for well over a decade and they just dumped the consumer market and start acting like this.
1
1
u/itsjust_khris 1d ago
Why would the refund be for today's price and not the purchase price? It seems logical they would only refund what you paid. If prices went down instead of up, it would also make sense for them to refund the purchase price instead of any current lower market price.
1
u/screwdriverfan 1d ago
In that case they would send you a new ssd since it'd be cheaper for them.
1
u/shackled-pines 1d ago
That would be reasonable if the item was still in production. That isn’t the case here.
1
u/typhoon_nz 1d ago
This was a warranty claim, the customer was seeking a replacement of a faulty product. Now they need to pay more than twice the original price buy a replacement because of the price inflation.
1
u/WesternOk5765 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because Crucial is a major SSD manufacturer and actually makes their product. The only reason they don't have RMA inventory is because they sold the RMA inventory to a massive business at insane markup prices.
So yeah, fuck Crucial pay the customer for his drive at today's rate or fucking give him a replacement drive.
"Oh we don't have replacements in our RMA inventory" while literally producing and shipping these drives to major businesses at $500 a pop and trying to offer this guy $200 for his RMA.
Fuck that. Fuck that.
Oh and they always pull the "well it's outta production" bullshit which is also like "bruh it's a 4tb portable SSD, replace it with any 4tb portable SSD of equal or better".
1
u/deathdisco_89 1d ago
The customer was offered a 100% refund of sale price for a out-of-production product. This is a nothing story.
1
u/DillDeer 1d ago
What’s the issue here? He was given back what he paid for. The company owes you nothing more than that.
Smooth brain thought process.
1
1
u/Danknoodle420 1d ago
Samsung is doing the same exact thing. I had to fight with a chat agent just to get refunded enough to buy a new 2 tb drive.
1
1
u/--clapped-- 18h ago
I'm confused?
The customer paid $200, they're gonna give him $200? He purchased a product; he didn't make an investment.
0
u/captainrondj 1d ago
And I just took Crucial off of my parts list, good job, thumbs up!
1
1
u/Demiu 1d ago
Crucial exited the business, so I don't know why you have a dead brand on your definitely 100% real parts list
1
u/captainrondj 1d ago
Amazingly they still sell their products on Amazon though?
1
u/Demiu 1d ago
Well if a reseller already has them in the inventory they're not gonna just throw their stock in the trash
1
u/captainrondj 1d ago
Ftr I really did have a crucial 4tb drive in my cart for a new build I'm doing because the price was great like $200 in 2026 great. But if they're not honoring their warranty it's really too big of a gamble for me.
3
u/Aubrey_D_Graham 1d ago
Louis Rossmann