Razer Spain RMA asks me to "destoy" my headphones so they can send me new ones

[blue_alien_bg]

Hello!

 

I bought Barracuda X headphones in March and a couple of weeks after that I noticed a crack on one of the plastic peaces, nothing major and it was on a cosmetic part, no structural problems.

A few weeks ago the crack opened completely and a peace of plastic fell off, no problem with that either, the headphones are still covered be the warranty.

 

I contacted Razer Spain, explained the problem, sent photos and they concluded that in fact it is a defect.

What struck me as really odd is that the next message instructed me to essentially "destroy" the device.

Depending on the type of device there were instructions to remove the serial number and cut it in half, or to cut the cable with scissors and in the case of a certain product even break it in half.

They even insisted on me cutting the charging cable, having in mind that these headphones can charge with any USB C cable.

 

Last year my girlfriend had a cosmetic problem with a Razer Kraken wired headphones and they made her send it before sending her the new ones.

 

I understand that they don't want you to sell the product that is supposed to be defective or try to RMA it again, but in my case the problem is only cosmetic.

The device works perfectly! Why create more electronic waste?! It can be repaired!!! IT'S ONLY A BROKEN PLASTIC PEACE!!!

And if they care so little about the device, why bother?!

 

Am I the only one getting triggered by this?

Does anyone else find this policy completely stupid?

Are there more companies that do this?

Should we just accept it? (I don't want to)

[Poinkachu]

26 minutes ago, blue_alien_bg said:

Hello!

 

I bought Barracuda X headphones in March and a couple of weeks after that I noticed a crack on one of the plastic peaces, nothing major and it was on a cosmetic part, no structural problems.

A few weeks ago the crack opened completely and a peace of plastic fell off, no problem with that either, the headphones are still covered be the warranty.

 

I contacted Razer Spain, explained the problem, sent photos and they concluded that in fact it is a defect.

What struck me as really odd is that next message instructed me to essentially "destroy" the device.

Depending on the type of device there were instructions to remove the serial number and cut it in half, or to cut the cable with scissors and in the case of a certain product even break it in half.

They even insisted on me cutting the charging cable, having in mind that these headphones can charge with any USB C cable.

 

Last year my girlfriend had a cosmetic problem with a Razer Kraken wired headphones and they made her send it before sending her the new ones.

 

I understand that they don't want you to sell the product that is supposed to be defective or try to RMA it again, but in my case the problem is only cosmetic.

The device works perfectly! Why create more electronic waste?! It can be repaired!!! IT'S ONLY A BROKEN PLASTIC PEACE!!!

And if they care so little about the device, why bother?!

 

Am I the only one getting triggered by this?

Does anyone else find this policy completely stupid?

Are there more companies that do this?

Should we just accept it? (I don't want to)

Soo, what solution do you propose ?

In my country its standard practice to send the broken/defective one first before replacement is sent.
It is also standard practice to make a video of unboxing when the stuffs we order arrives, in case a solid proof is needed.

Sucks? kinda. But yep, there's that many peoples out there trying to rig the RMA process or trying to cheat.

If given the option, I'd probably choose to break the one I have over sending it back, less trouble. Sending it back means I have to pack it securely, and probably video the whole process of packing it in case something happens with the courier or whatever.

Plus it means I still can dismantle the working parts on the broken one, use it in a DIY project, or keep it as spare parts.

[Mark Kaine]

i would report it to some authorities tbh -- and yes idk who exactly either but im sure there are suitable organizations for this kind of thing.

 

And well, technically they need to "replace" the defective item, i don't think they can really force you to destroy it, so i would insist on a replacement... 

 

And avoiding shipping costs isnt a great argument for them either because the environmental impact of destroying something is surely greater than just sending it back and possibly repair it for reuse.

 

Just sounds like they want to save on shipping costs and aren't considering repairing it anyway. Which one hand is understandable,  on the other hand, depending on specific laws they *have* to take it back or at least *replace* it otherwise. 

.Again i don't think they can force you to "destroy" it, that just seems weird, but who knows maybe there are regulations suggesting that?

 

 

the tldr is: you can insist on a replacement,  but you may have to ship it back on your own costs (that depends on regional laws)

 

 

9 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

given the option, I'd probably choose to break the one I have over sending it back

thats the thing... as weird as it is, here the customer (usually) has to cover the shipping costs to sellers / manufacturers in a warranty case, *they* are responsible for shipping costs sending it back to customers...

hence i think this company just says to "destroy" the item because it seems "easier" to them... and it probably is, just leaves some ethical/ environmental questions,  also regarding actual laws... i mean its certainly a weird demand,  if they're so worried about someone scamming them they should doubly want it back, but they don't, they just want the "fastest/easiest" route imo...

[Needfuldoer]

They don't want you to get two functional headsets for the price of one, and it's not worth the cost of shipping a relatively low-ticket item back to get refurbished (if they even have a system to manage that inventory in the first place), so they just ask for proof of destruction.

[Poinkachu]

22 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

thats the thing... as weird as it is, here the customer (usually) has to cover the shipping costs to sellers / manufacturers in a warranty case, *they* are responsible for shipping costs sending it back to customers...

hence i think this company just says to "destroy" the item because it seems "easier" to them... and it probably is, just leaves some ethical/ environmental questions,  also regarding actual laws... i mean its certainly a weird demand,  if they're so worried about someone scamming them they should doubly want it back, but they don't they just want the "fastesr/easiest" route imo...

Well, here, most often we (the customers) have to pay the shipping cost of sending the broken ones out of our own pocket.

I saw some reddit post about this practice Razer use, and yep, it seems like what you said.
ethical questions, well.. it's probably above my paygrade, but at the very least if its me, I'd use the still working parts of the broken one for something.

Currently my brain thinks of this : If not broken, then someone (might not be the first owner) might try to RMA it again, the first (or subsequent) owner may also sell the product without telling about the defect(s), might even say that it's near mint condition, repeat endlessly. If it's at 2nd world or 3rd world country, the box might even be resealed like it's brand new.

If I were to say it honestly, and I don't intend to offense anyone with this, just an honest opinion from other side of the world.
I think first world countries are the one that are often triggered by this kinda stuffs, in 2nd or 3rd world countries, we're glad enough if the RMA process isn't too convoluted or feel like the companies are trying their best to reject our RMA over every little insignificant stuffs.

I never actually researched it, but I think why companies here doesn't give the "break it" option is that they know a lot of peoples here will dismantle the broken one and salvage the working parts. Or dismantle it first, and then break it if they can make sure it won't be noticed.

[Mark Kaine]

6 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

Currently my brain thinks of this : If not broken, then someone (might not be the first owner) might try to RMA it again, the first (or subsequent) owner may also sell the product without telling about the defect(s), might even say that it's near mint condition, repeat endlessly. If it's at 2nd world or 3rd world country, the box might even be resealed like it's brand new.

yeah, you're right that could also be something they think of, and its probably the reason most want the items back even when they have no intention of repairing (depends on the item obviously) 

 

6 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

I think first world countries are the one that are often triggered by this kinda stuffs, in 2nd or 3rd world countries, we're glad enough if the RMA process isn't too convoluted or feel like the companies are trying their best to reject our RMA over every little insignificant stuffs.

ya, well, that happens regardless of country, there are just sellers / manufacturers who try *everything* to not to have to honor their warranties...

 

like i say "dont buy from shit companies", but thats easier said than done lol

[Poinkachu]

5 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeah, you're right that could also be something they think of, and its probably the reason most want the items back even when they have no intention of repairing (depends on the item obviously) 

 

ya, well, that happens regardless of country, there are just sellers / manufacturers who try *everything* to not to have to honor their warranties...

 

like i say "dont buy from shit companies", but thats easier said than done lol

Well, all I have to say is, at the very least customer protection is way better in first world countries.
Here, it is shit. Hence why we video the unpacking and unboxing process of every item we ordered, up until we try whether it is working correctly or not. Without it, we're more prone to rejection or being cheated by scummy sellers.

edit : Actually, I think the word "shit" for what I said above is too generous.

[porina]

I just looked up the product, and as a low value one, it will not be repaired. In case of any problem it is usually cheaper to replace with new than try to work out what went wrong with the old one and fix it. So any measures taken are just to prevent the claimant having two products at the end of the process. This is typical for many low value consumer products.

 

Note they will have stats on the claims regardless if they get the product back or not. So if for example they get a lot of claims for a particular claimed fault, they can investigate and improve on it. Only if they need a physical item to inspect might they request some returns.

[blue_alien_bg]

2 hours ago, Poinkachu said:

Soo, what solution do you propose ?

That:

2 hours ago, Poinkachu said:

In my country its standard practice to send the broken/defective one first before replacement is sent.

But, hey, looks like most of the people don't mind so... looks like I'm pissing against the wind here.

 

2 hours ago, Needfuldoer said:

They don't want you to get two functional headsets for the price of one, and it's not worth the cost of shipping a relatively low-ticket item back to get refurbished (if they even have a system to manage that inventory in the first place), so they just ask for proof of destruction.

1 hour ago, porina said:

I just looked up the product, and as a low value one, it will not be repaired.

That's the thing, I don't consider it to be low value, but what do I know...

 

2 hours ago, Poinkachu said:

Plus it means I still can dismantle the working parts on the broken one, use it in a DIY project, or keep it as spare parts.

I AM going to keep the old one for spare parts, but most people would not, it's not every day that someone like you or me willing to DIY repair or start a new project opens a warranty claim and that's my point.

 

...

I guess I was expecting something else, but that's obviously not the place.

[aDoomGuy]

3 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

And avoiding shipping costs isnt a great argument for them either because the environmental impact of destroying something is surely greater than just sending it back and possibly repair it for reuse.

Well yeah, I get you. Sadly that's not the world we live in. If he sent it in as a part of RMA, Razer would throw it in the bin. So the environmental impact is smaller to have the customer throw it in the bin, but then postage services ship stuff anyway so probably not heh..

 

Razer is not going to repair a broken headset, It cost them less money and time to manufacture a new one, which they will do anyway. So our landfills ain't gonna dry up anytime soon... 

[Needfuldoer]

23 minutes ago, blue_alien_bg said:

That's the thing, I don't consider it to be low value, but what do I know...

$80 may be a lot to you as an individual, but it's not to a company the size of Razer. To them, once they pay to ship the broken headset back to them, pay someone to fix it with spare parts (which they may not have), put it into inventory as a refurb (which they may have no workflow for), and resell it for less than the price of a new headset, they'll have lost more money than they would have if they just gave you a replacement and asked for proof of destruction.

 

If it was a $1,500 gaming laptop, they would absolutely send you a shipping label.

 

If you're that worried about creating waste, just glue the broken parts back together instead of requesting an RMA for a purely cosmetic problem.

 

2 minutes ago, aDoomGuy said:

If he sent it in as a part of RMA, Razer would throw it in the bin. So the environmental impact is smaller to have the customer throw it in the bin, but then postage services ship stuff anyway so probably not heh..

Exactly. It's a "here, you throw it away" item at this point.

 

[porina]

4 minutes ago, blue_alien_bg said:

That's the thing, I don't consider it to be low value, but what do I know...

Where I used to work, part of my role was related to returns. I don't know how Razer does it, and it may differ, but this may give some insight to how a company works. The company I used to be at has been taken over so it is hard to do a size comparison, but in financial terms it was of a comparable size to Razer today. Part of the company's product offering was consumer facing audio devices, of which I had some involvement although my main focus was office/business products.

 

Basically the cost of replacing the product is generally cheaper than getting the product repaired. Someone has to manage the return process, get the product returned, have someone look at the return product, repair the product, check the product works correctly after repair, and return the product to the end user. Not to mention the time it would take while the user does not have the product, they're not happy.

 

If the product is returned, it is unlikely to be looked at beyond checking it is the correct product that was returned. Once that is done, it is sent on to recycling as scrap. Parts are not salvaged or reused, because again it is cheaper to have a known good new part than to check an old part.

 

The reason given for the return will be logged, and if a lot of similar cases appear, then Quality might get involved if it is a suspected manufacturing problem, or Engineering (where I worked) if it is suspected to be a design problem. Only in these case might some representative samples be obtained for further investigation. They would generally not be returned to the customer as they would be provided a replacement separately.

 

The above process also applied to business products of much higher cost than consumer ones, but the same economic considerations apply.

[porina]

7 minutes ago, aDoomGuy said:

Razer is not going to repair a broken headset, It cost them less money and time to manufacture a new one, which they will do anyway. So our landfills ain't gonna dry up anytime soon... 

Generally agree with the rest but I'd hope they were responsible enough to send it onwards for recycling, not to a landfill.

[aDoomGuy]

6 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

If you're that worried about creating waste, just glue the broken parts back together instead of requesting an RMA for a purely cosmetic problem.

This.

[Mark Kaine]

6 minutes ago, porina said:

Where I used to work, part of my role was related to returns. I don't know how Razer does it, and it may differ, but this may give some insight to how a company works. The company I used to be at has been taken over so it is hard to do a size comparison, but in financial terms it was of a comparable size to Razer today. Part of the company's product offering was consumer facing audio devices, of which I had some involvement although my main focus was office/business products.

 

Basically the cost of replacing the product is generally cheaper than getting the product repaired. Someone has to manage the return process, get the product returned, have someone look at the return product, repair the product, check the product works correctly after repair, and return the product to the end user. Not to mention the time it would take while the user does not have the product, they're not happy.

 

If the product is returned, it is unlikely to be looked at beyond checking it is the correct product that was returned. Once that is done, it is sent on to recycling as scrap. Parts are not salvaged or reused, because again it is cheaper to have a known good new part than to check an old part.

 

The reason given for the return will be logged, and if a lot of similar cases appear, then Quality might get involved if it is a suspected manufacturing problem, or Engineering (where I worked) if it is suspected to be a design problem. Only in these case might some representative samples be obtained for further investigation. They would generally not be returned to the customer as they would be provided a replacement separately.

 

The above process also applied to business products of much higher cost than consumer ones, but the same economic considerations apply.

Its still weird to tell the customer to destroy the item, not only from an ecological view,  but also pr wise. So the customer probably already isnt happy and now they're telling them to destroy the otherwise possibly still usable product *instead of sending it back* like, so what if the customer sells the old part for scraps or gifts it to someone (both much more difficult with a specifically "destroyed" product obviously) maybe this could even encourage the company to make higher quality,  longer lasting products in the future ? (as if lol...) Just request a photo of the serial number sent out an replacement and be done with would be the more consumer friendly approach for sure... i mean i get it otherwise,  but basically telling the customer "we think you're kinda scummy and we don't want to be taken advantage of by you" would definitely lead to me not using products of said company anymore. 

 

i know ultimately they don't care, but that's only as long this tactic works for them of course. 

 

[porina]

7 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Its still weird to tell the customer to destroy the item

The main goal of this request is to take out the product from normal circulation. As you say, it doesn't prevent someone from reusing the remaining parts, but that'll be a relatively niche area. Most would dispose of it (hopefully correctly) and move on. As described, that a call was logged may be used to determine if a product improvement is needed somewhere. Affected products doesn't have to be all returned and examined to do that.

 

If there wasn't a problem worth reporting, it would continue to be used. That there is a problem needs resolving, replacing the product is likely the most economic method to do so. If the product is destroyed or returned is just a small detail in part of that.

 

While not the same scenario, I recently moved out of my house and closed my ISP account. On this occasion they wanted the equipment they supplied back, and they paid to do it. When I received this equipment to replace older equipment, they told me to recycle it. They didn't want it back. In this case they didn't ask me to destroy it, but it would not be of value outside the ISP so it doesn't affect them.

[Poinkachu]

31 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Its still weird to tell the customer to destroy the item, not only from an ecological view,  but also pr wise. So the customer probably already isnt happy and now they're telling them to destroy the otherwise possibly still usable product *instead of sending it back* like, so what if the customer sells the old part for scraps or gifts it to someone (both much more difficult with a specifically "destroyed" product obviously) maybe this could even encourage the company to make higher quality,  longer lasting products in the future ? (as if lol...) Just request a photo of the serial number sent out an replacement and be done with would be the more consumer friendly approach for sure... i mean i get it otherwise.

It's probably worse PR wise if the defective product then get resold as near mint or new even, then turns out it's defective. Especially if the defect is only superficial and can be "quick fixed" by glue. Someone might go : "WTF RAZER!!?, $150 mice using HOT GLUE & CYANOACRYLATE ALL OVER THE PLACE ?!".

But yeah, not like I know for sure since I've never been in the position of being told to break something by the brand itself. There's probably a "send us the broken one then we'll send you the replacement" as an option, since OP mentioned his gf got a broken Razer headset before and was asked to send it in first. But yep, it'll take longer time, and probably some money as well.

Well, we all want higher quality and longer lasting products, but yep, factory defects will still exist here & there regardless.

If they request just a photo of the S/N, and if it's my country & some other countries I know of, oh boy... a lot of peoples gonna jump for joy. . They'd buy something, claim it's defective, send photo of S/N, get a new one, repeat. They'd even go as far as faking a defect.

Quote

but basically telling the customer "we think you're kinda scummy and we don't want to be taken advantage of by you" would definitely lead to me not using products of said company anymore. 

uh...  that might mean all companies?

 

1 hour ago, blue_alien_bg said:

But, hey, looks like most of the people don't mind so... looks like I'm pissing against the wind here.

Trust me, I want to be sent a replacement before I ship my broken one a lot.
But I also know that is pretty much a pipedream.

I was saying all those on my previous post just to let you know that sending broken one first before the replacement comes is very common practice.
And unless someone comes up with a rigproof solution, it's pretty much unlikely to change.

[Mark Kaine]

35 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

It's probably worse PR wise if the defective product then get resold as near mint or new even, then turns out it's defective. Especially if the defect is only superficial and can be "quick fixed" by glue. Someone might go : "WTF RAZER!!?, $150 mice using HOT GLUE & CYANOACRYLATE ALL OVER THE PLACE ?!"

not if it's privately sold.

 

35 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

If they request just a photo of the S/N, and if it's my country & some other countries I know of, oh boy... a lot of peoples gonna jump for joy. . They'd buy something, claim it's defective, send photo of S/N, get a new one, repeat. They'd even go as far as faking a defect.

yeah, thats, besides a possible repair, the reason why most companies *want* it back in the first place (although they might be bound by law too, idk that)

the funny thing with this argumentation is what stops people from doing all of what you said and then send a "pre faked" photo of the same kind of product (maybe even photoshopped) to get a "replacement"...? i think absolutely nothing tbh... 

 

which is why most companies want their products back even $80 products, or $10 products...

company that asks *me the customer* to destroy and dump the product i bought from them during a warranty case is immediately and very highly super suspicious!  

 

35 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

uh...  that might mean all companies?

nope, because most companies want their stuff back (to check, which is only fair as long they dont blame me directly beforehand already lol)

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, porina said:

The main goal of this request is to take out the product from normal circulation.

i think that may actually be illegal in the eu because the seller or manufacturer is responsible for the disposal of certain "old or defective" products ... 

 

note im not entirely sure, no, but this seems likely because the replacement is technically a "new" product,  and also im fairly certain this isnt the only law with such requirements for sellers...

 

https://www.t-online.de/heim-garten/wohnen/id_89133708/ausgediente-elektrogeraete-das-aendert-sich-ab-1-januar-2022-bei-der-ruecknahme.html

 

And im not sure in which countries these regulations are in place.

the more i think about it though,  i think what razer is doing here is probably illegal in most eu countries  

 

 

[Poinkachu]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

not if it's privately sold.

Yeah, there's no guarantee that all will be exlusively privately sold though.
 

Quote

yeah, thats, besides a possible repair, the reason why most companies *want* it back in the first place (although they might be bound by law too, idk that)

the funny thing with this argumentation is what stops people from doing all of what you said and then send a "pre faked" photo of a similar product (maybe even photoshopped) to get a "replacement"...? i think absolutely nothing tbh... 

 

which is why most companies want their products back even $80 products, or $10 products...

company that asks *me the customer* to destroy and dump the product i bought from them during a warranty case is immediately and very highly super suspicious!  

Yep, that's why in my country there's only 1 option for RMA. Which is send them back the defective one first, which then gonna be scrutinized for possible user fault first before replacement shipment is scheduled.

Well, if it's me (skeptic arse), and since I never encountered that kind of practice my entire life, I'd probably be like "Is this guy trying to make me void my warranty?!".

 

Quote

nope, because most companies want their stuff back (to check, which is only fair as long they dont blame me directly beforehand already lol)

Ahh I see. I thought you meant companies that doesn't send replacement first.

[Mark Kaine]

31 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

Yep, that's why in my country there's only 1 option for RMA. Which is send them back the defective one first, which then gonna be scrutinized for possible user fault first before replacement shipment is scheduled.

honestly thats how it's here too usually... as i said above im also pretty sure companies are required by law to take their old and broken junk back, they cant just force the customer to do that for them (at least for electronics etc)!

 

thats basically what i suspected right away, razer cheaping out to save costs!

 

 

31 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

Well, if it's me (skeptic arse), and since I never encountered that kind of practice my entire life, I'd probably be like "Is this guy trying to make me void my warranty?!".

thats a good point, see how scummy it is to make customers break their paid for items on purpose?  company could just go "well you broke it,  no replacement! "

 

id definitely suspect that immediately! And probably call my lawyer lol.

 

 

1 hour ago, aDoomGuy said:

Well yeah, I get you. Sadly that's not the world we live in. If he sent it in as a part of RMA, Razer would throw it in the bin. So the environmental impact is smaller to have the customer throw it in the bin, but then postage services ship stuff anyway so probably not heh..

 

Razer is not going to repair a broken headset, It cost them less money and time to manufacture a new one, which they will do anyway. So our landfills ain't gonna dry up anytime soon... 

well i kinda woulda have agreed,  but since its dawning to me this practice is very likely very illegal in the eu (op is in spain, right?)

 

although im not a lawyer,  etc, this practice is really totally sus, especially also due to concern of the disposable of such items,  we don't do the landfill thing here,  things must be recycled properly and wouldn't surprise me if they wouldn't also be required to be made to last longer in the future (which the irony when talking about razer is *not* lost on me  )

 

tldr: razer probably isnt going to repair it,  but they're are very likely required to pay for proper recycling, which in this case is something the OP is hopefully able to figure out for their country.

 

[aDoomGuy]

53 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

well i kinda woulda have agreed,  but since its dawning to me this practice is very likely very illegal in the eu (op is in spain, right?)

 

although im not a lawyer,  etc, this practice is really totally sus, especially also due to concern of the disposable of such items,  we don't do the landfill thing here,  things must be recycled properly and wouldn't surprise me if they wouldn't also be required to be made to last longer in the future (which the irony when talking about razer is *not* lost on me  )

 

tldr: razer probably isnt going to repair it,  but they're are very likely required to pay for proper recycling, which in this case is something the OP is hopefully able to figure out for their country.

 

Well I don't know what EU and Spanish laws have to say about this as my country isn't a part of the EU. How we do it in Norway is we can turn in EE waste at grocery/electronics stores for recycling. There are however no laws that prohibit me from throwing it in the garbage bin. Such laws would be extremely hard to enforce anyway. EU probably have something similar to our system, so it is likely the responsility of the consumer to ensure proper disposal of his/her e-waste.

[Mark Kaine]

14 minutes ago, aDoomGuy said:

EU probably have something similar to our system, so it is likely the responsility of the consumer to ensure proper disposal of his/her e-waste.

indeed, similar.  the difference is that sellers *have* to take the old junk back, even if it's not from them. like i said, the replacement is technically new, manufacturer has to take the old one with no cost for consumer.  razer said "nope, we'll just let them destroy the junk instead!"  Clever, but probably illegal (im not a lawyer tho)

 

which in this case very well could be in OPs favor... 

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, aDoomGuy said:

There are however no laws that prohibit me from throwing it in the garbage bin

yeah, that is 100% illegal in the eu, and if its your own garbage bin, they *will* get you. : p

[aDoomGuy]

4 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeah, that is 100% illegal in the eu, and if its your own garbage bin, they *will* get you. : p

I seriously doubt they have people to open all the garbage bags to check what's thrown away ....but then it is the EU we're talking about so they probably do. With forensics so they'll probably take the fingerprints of discarded items and will use it in courts of law. 

 

[Mark Kaine]

4 minutes ago, aDoomGuy said:

doubt they have people to open all the garbage bags to check what's thrown away

no they absolutely do! (if they suspect something) 

 

4 minutes ago, aDoomGuy said:

With forensics so they'll probably take the fingerprints

if its necessary yes yes they will!

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

 

Spoiler

im not saying you couldn't get away with it but the people taking the garbage away are absolutely supposed to check and there are hefty fines for throwing away electronics ...

 

[aDoomGuy]

Just now, Mark Kaine said:

no they absolutely do!

 

if its necessary yes yes they will!

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Oh christ... Now I'm scared of going to the EU.