Zenfone user wins court case against ASUS for failing to provide bootloader unlock

[Cela1]

Summary

A Zenfone user in the UK filed a small claims court case against ASUS for failing to provide bootloader unlock tools as they had previously promised.

ASUS has settled case with the user, who received payment covering the phones original cost (£700) and the court filing fee (£70)

 

Quote

Although ASUS makes some of the best Android phones you can buy, the company has fallen short in making bootloader unlocking tools available to buyers. Previously, these tools were easy to operate and readily available, but in May last year, things took a turn. Now, unlocking the bootloader of a recent ASUS phone — including the Zenfone 9, Zenfone 10, and Zenfone 11 Ultra — is not possible.

 

One buyer in particular, who we’ll call Timothy [...] told us that they bought an ASUS Zenfone specifically for the ability to unlock its bootloader. Upset by this broken promise, Timothy — who lives in the United Kingdom — sued ASUS in the UK’s version of small claims court.

 

Today, Timothy provided us with documentation of the court case and proof that ASUS has settled. In the settlement, Timothy received a full refund for the phone (£700) and the court filing fee (£70) for a total of £770 (~$973).

 

I'm glad somebody has finally called out phone manufacturers over broken promises and 'won'.

If any of you are in the UK and have a bootloader locked Zenfone then this is certainly an option

 

Source: https://www.androidauthority.com/asus-bootloader-unlock-settlement-3431818/

[CoveWolf]

Definitely nice to see. Hopefully they will open the boot loader on those phones at somepoint.

[LAwLz]

Was this an advertised feature/function? The article says it was a broken "promise" but with the (very limited) Google searching I did I never really found any promise from Asus regarding this.

 

I think it is also worth noting that he didn't win the court case. Asus decided to settle.

Basically, instead of actually taking this to court Asus just gave him a refund. It would probably have been more expensive for Asus to hire a lawyer and have that person represent them in court than to just pay the guy who tried to sue them. The total settlement was less than 1000 dollars.

[williamcll]

Zenfone 9, I remember when the bootloader unlocker was still available on their site when I bought it. Sucks their current model is no different to any other phone out there.

[porina]

11 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think it is also worth noting that he didn't win the court case. Asus decided to settle.

Basically, instead of actually taking this to court Asus just gave him a refund. It would probably have been more expensive for Asus to hire a lawyer and have that person represent them in court than to just pay the guy who tried to sue them. The total settlement was less than 1000 dollars.

That's a good point. With a big IANAL there are some factors that leave questions open. This is based on my limited understanding of UK law.

 

Do Asus sell directly? Generally a consumer contract is between a buyer and seller. If a product does not perform as claimed, you go back to the seller, which is not necessarily the manufacturer.

 

The loser of a case will pay the winners reasonable costs. So if Asus needed a lawyer, and they were confident of winning, they could claim the cost back. This might not cover all costs though, I'm not sure how it would work on indirect costs or things that are harder to quantify. So Asus settling could be for one or more of many possible reasons: 1, they were not confident of winning, 2, presumably the entity was Asus UK, and they might not be well set up to fight such a case and just want it to go away as quickly as possible. 3, they may have thought the publicity resulting from this would be worse than settling.

 

The article in OP said it sets a precedent. It doesn't, at least not in a legal sense of the term. I think a ruling from a higher court would be required. The Small Claims Court is probably the lowest tier, meant to be accessible and low cost for "small" disputes.

[Cela1]

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Was this an advertised feature/function? The article says it was a broken "promise" but with the (very limited) Google searching I did I never really found any promise from Asus regarding this.

 

I think it is also worth noting that he didn't win the court case. Asus decided to settle.

Basically, instead of actually taking this to court Asus just gave him a refund. It would probably have been more expensive for Asus to hire a lawyer and have that person represent them in court than to just pay the guy who tried to sue them. The total settlement was less than 1000 dollars.

I'm guessing it was the ZenFone 9 that they bought, which apparently previously had the bootloader unlock available but was then removed in later software updates.

[Cela1]

3 hours ago, porina said:

That's a good point. With a big IANAL there are some factors that leave questions open. This is based on my limited understanding of UK law.

 

Do Asus sell directly? Generally a consumer contract is between a buyer and seller. If a product does not perform as claimed, you go back to the seller, which is not necessarily the manufacturer.

 

The loser of a case will pay the winners reasonable costs. So if Asus needed a lawyer, and they were confident of winning, they could claim the cost back. This might not cover all costs though, I'm not sure how it would work on indirect costs or things that are harder to quantify. So Asus settling could be for one or more of many possible reasons: 1, they were not confident of winning, 2, presumably the entity was Asus UK, and they might not be well set up to fight such a case and just want it to go away as quickly as possible. 3, they may have thought the publicity resulting from this would be worse than settling.

 

The article in OP said it sets a precedent. It doesn't, at least not in a legal sense of the term. I think a ruling from a higher court would be required. The Small Claims Court is probably the lowest tier, meant to be accessible and low cost for "small" disputes.

ASUS do have a UK store, but the article doesn't mention whether it was bought directly from there.

 

The fact that they settled doesn't set a *legal* precedent, but it does set a precedent - that they are likely to settle similar cases.

 

Unless they have thousands of people all trying to get refunds, I imagine ASUS will probably just do the same thing they did for this case.

[dizmo]

£770 is a drop in the bucket compared to any PR grievances they'd go through if it started to gain exposure. This is less than peanuts to them. I've written off larger amounts at a paint store. 

[Stahlmann]

I wouldn't call it a win. Well maybe, for this one consumer, but not for consumers in general. If they settled, that means they didn't have a court ruling deciding the outcome. So there was no legal precedent that could influence future rulings in such a scenario.

 

Timothy made back his money and gets to keep the phone, but other than that nothing happened.

[darknessblade]

On 4/6/2024 at 5:30 AM, williamcll said:

Zenfone 9, I remember when the bootloader unlocker was still available on their site when I bought it. Sucks their current model is no different to any other phone out there.

I am a Zenfone 8 user myself, and when I try to look for the unlocker, I can only find threads of users asking where the bootloader went. 

 

I might unlock the bootloader later if there are no more security patches. [Though at that time, the phone might be old enough to warrant a replacement]

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, darknessblade said:

Though at that time, the phone might be old enough to warrant a replacement

With a 2021 release date it is very far from retirement. Ask my galaxy s5 about it (replaced it last year)......

/ON
Thats nice, lets hope others will be able to use this case to force asus to unlock their phone.

[wanderingfool2]

On 4/5/2024 at 3:39 PM, LAwLz said:

Was this an advertised feature/function? The article says it was a broken "promise" but with the (very limited) Google searching I did I never really found any promise from Asus regarding this.

 

I think it is also worth noting that he didn't win the court case. Asus decided to settle.

Basically, instead of actually taking this to court Asus just gave him a refund. It would probably have been more expensive for Asus to hire a lawyer and have that person represent them in court than to just pay the guy who tried to sue them. The total settlement was less than 1000 dollars.

Sounds like based on what I could find there was some public statement by Asus about supporting updates to the boot unlocker program until Q3 2023 but they ended up not doing it [at least from what I gather skimming some of the Asus forums and such]

[Biohazard777]

On 4/6/2024 at 12:39 AM, LAwLz said:

Was this an advertised feature/function? The article says it was a broken "promise" but with the (very limited) Google searching I did I never really found any promise from Asus regarding this.

Replying to you, but I think everyone interested in the timeline of Asus f**kery is welcome to read this reply.

Advertised or not, the feature existed:

 

I personally ordered my Zenfone 9 after that:

 

I didn't use the bootloader unlocker immediately because:

 

My original plan was to unlock it after Asus stopped pushing out updates.
I was fully aware it was going to receive only 2 years of updates, and I was ok with that as long as I could unlock my bootloader and load something else.

~Mid 2023 the unlock device app stops working, because it relies on Asus backend to operate.
A mod on the Asus forum (zentalk.asus.com) then says:

 

Also:

 

 

Anyhow, Q3 passes and:

(which is a huge pile of BS if you ask me)
 

This is what the "broken promise" refers to, they gave the tool, took it away, said it would be coming back and then it didn't.

Oh, but there is more... An unofficial way of unlocking it was found out and shared on XDA.
Next Zenfone 9 updated removed that option:

Quote

about a year ago and without warning, ASUS removed and disabled their official Zenfone 9 bootloader unlock tool. they have repeatedly promised to bring it back, but that never happened.

 

as can be seen in this XDA thread, an unofficial method has recently been found to unlock the bootloader that works in recent versions of the firmware.

 

in response, ASUS released firmware 33.0804.2060.189 which disallows unlocking and disables firmware downgrading (!). then they disabled the web endpoint dm.asus.com/unlock/register used by the unofficial tool.

They went above and beyond...
So much so that I will not be buying anything Asus for a very, very long time.

[thewelshbrummie]

On 4/6/2024 at 7:02 AM, Cela1 said:

The fact that they settled doesn't set a *legal* precedent, but it does set a precedent - that they are likely to settle similar cases.

It's not clear that this actually was a settlement - the source link doesn't provide enough information to actually determine that. All it says is that they've seen proof that Asus settled. That could simply be that Asus paid money, not anything else... and that's not the same thing as a settlement, that could be a default judgement that Asus have paid to make the whole thing go away without making any submissions or any kind.

 

There's also some misunderstanding about how the UK Small Claims Court works both above and in the original article - being British and having used it once (for an undelivered laptop), I have a solid idea.

 

Small Claims cases are for fixed amounts only - so they're ideal if you're after a refund for a product or service that wasn't delivered nor as described, as is the case here. Basically if you win, you get paid the amount you've requested and a refund of the filing fee, to be paid by the losing party (so if you're claim isn't successful, you're liable to pay the filing fee, in this case £70, and the defendant doesn't have to pay anything).

 

(I think this is correct but is from memory and I may be wrong so I've spoiler tagged this paragraph):

Spoiler

There aren't lawyers involved - they're designed for simple matters that only require a judge .  You need to do is file a written statement, the defendant get to do likewise and a judge decides based on those submissions.

 

Also, as a former employer found to their cost, if a defendant fails to respond, a default judgement is automatically made in the plaintiff's favour. I suspect that's what actually happened as that would be far easier for Asus, it's essentially the only way around making things go away without admitting liability in the UK (and avoid going to a full court). That and Asus are probably happy enough to pay the cost of one phone just to make the situation go away.

 

The TLDR - evidence that Asus settled hasn't really been provided, so if anyone else attempts to go this route Asus may just decide to fight further cases - precedent doesn't necessarily work in small claims cases (and for reference, small claims are always for a fixed amount - you can't use it for damages for suffering or the like, it has to be a fixed amount such as a refund for goods not delivered).

 

On 4/6/2024 at 5:02 AM, porina said:

Do Asus sell directly? Generally a consumer contract is between a buyer and seller. If a product does not perform as claimed, you go back to the seller, which is not necessarily the manufacturer.

 

Doesn't matter if they're sold via a proper 3rd party retailer (e.g. Currys in the UK) and the issue is with the the manufacturer not providing accurate information, then you can go this route and claim from the manufacturer, not the retailer. Obviously eBay sales would more than likely not be covered, though in theory there's nothing stopping you from filing a claim against eBay itself (though that probably wouldn't succeed).

[porina]

8 hours ago, thewelshbrummie said:

Doesn't matter if they're sold via a proper 3rd party retailer (e.g. Currys in the UK) and the issue is with the the manufacturer not providing accurate information, then you can go this route and claim from the manufacturer, not the retailer. Obviously eBay sales would more than likely not be covered, though in theory there's nothing stopping you from filing a claim against eBay itself (though that probably wouldn't succeed).

IANAL disclaimer still applies. If you could go after the manufacturer as opposed to seller (where they are not the same), why would it matter at all where you bought it from?

[darknessblade]

12 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

With a 2021 release date it is very far from retirement. Ask my galaxy s5 about it (replaced it last year)......

/ON
Thats nice, lets hope others will be able to use this case to force asus to unlock their phone.

Indeed. maybe not software updates, but security updates still come in,

 

Fun fact, I still have a Galaxy Xcover [1st model] that I use for a alarm. its battery last roughly a month [after I ROOTED it, and removed most junk apps that I don't need]

[thewelshbrummie]

12 hours ago, porina said:

IANAL disclaimer still applies. If you could go after the manufacturer as opposed to seller (where they are not the same), why would it matter at all where you bought it from?

Naturally it applies to me, I thought that was clear. But I can answer, in general terms from experience, specifically regarding eBay and resellers.

 

In 2016 I worked for a company that provided 3rd party customer support for a global TV OEM in the UK. eBay sales weren't covered in the same way as sales from an approved retailer. To my knowledge warranties did not transfer at all. That might have been different if a resold TV came with the original proof of purchase from the original retailer but it wasn't something we ever encountered. And that directive came from the OEMs UK Head Office.

 

Basically if a customer wanted an exchange on an eBay purchase and was within the statutory 28 days from purchase, their only option was the eBay reseller, not the OEM as original date of purchase was required - without that, we had no legal obligation to provide help. Had the original purchase been from an approved retailer and within 28 days, then we were obligated to do an exchange for pretty much any reason. But only for primary sales through a retailer, not 3rd party resellers (from memory the OEM didn't sell directly at the time and only provided links to retailers - sales via those retailers were covered).

 

Where it gets complicated is eBay sales via accounts managed by authorised retailers, which very much exist in the UK. But those would most than likely had a proper receipt to provide proof of purchase

 

YMMV with Asus, I can't answer for them. My original point though was to provide context as to why this story isn't necessarily a catch-all for everyone who has bought an affected phone.

[GOTSpectrum]

On 4/6/2024 at 11:02 AM, porina said:

The loser of a case will pay the winners reasonable costs.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe there is a legal requirement to cover the legal costs in UK courts.

 

Although I'll be looking into this because I may be taking the NHS to court 

[porina]

15 minutes ago, GOTSpectrum said:

I could be wrong, but I don't believe there is a legal requirement to cover the legal costs in UK courts.

 

Although I'll be looking into this because I may be taking the NHS to court 

Definitely don't listen to me for legal advice! Get someone who knows what they're talking about. In quick Googling it looks like small claims court works a bit differently from higher ones so that may be the disconnect we have here.

 

Edit: given in small claims court each side pays own expenses, that may explain Asus' reported actions more.