There is a risk with unaffiliated and untrained service technicians. Because they have not availed themselves of the available training, this type of service technician may not be familiar with the appliance at hand or the software manufacturers provide for service technicians to repair products correctly and safely. As a result, there could be greater risk of an improper diagnosis, use of incorrect or substandard parts or even, unknowingly, counterfeit parts. The repercussions not only jeopardize the life of the product but may also leave the consumer worse off than before either with a new malfunction or a product rendered unsafe due to a repair conducted improperly or with the wrong parts. For example, a product could experience a major malfunction following the attempted repair causing fire, flooding or other potential hazards (and property damage).
Safety considerations are a critical part of any discussion about repairs. Concerns about the safety of users, repair personnel and the public, however, should not automatically justify restricting repairs to authorized repair networks without further analysis.[1] Upon closer review, some of the safety considerations cited give pause. First, other than citing to the mobile phone thermal runaway occurring in Australia in 2011,[2] manufacturers provided no data to support their argument that injuries are tied to repairs performed by consumers or independent repair shops. This is so despite the fact that the Call for Empirical Research specifically asked for data concerning “[t]he risks posed by repairs made by consumers or independent repair shops”[3] and several manufacturers and their associations submitted comments and were provided the opportunity to participate in the Workshop. Nor have manufacturers provided factual support for their statements that authorized repair persons are more careful or that individuals or independent repair shops fail to take appropriate safety precautions, or that independent repair workers who enter homes pose more of a safety risk to consumers than authorized repair workers.[4]
- ↑ By not making parts and manuals available to individuals and independent repair shops, and not including information in these manuals about the dangers of particular repairs, manufacturers may be exacerbating the very safety concerns they have raised.
- ↑ Mobile phones that catch on fire on airplanes are a serious safety concern. But, the record at hand does not support the proposition that phones repaired by individuals or independent repair shops are more likely to result in thermal runaway events than phones repaired by manufacturers. In fact, new phones have been known to have unsafe designs that result in spontaneous thermal runaway events. Samsung Recalls Galaxy Note 7 Amid Explosion Worries, https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianmorris/2016/09/01/samsung-galaxy-note-7-recall-exploding/?sh=2003b75a152f. In 2016, the FAA advised consumers to refrain from turning on or charging Samsung Galaxy 7 devices or to stow them in checked baggage. See Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Statement on Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Devices (last modified Sept. 8, 2016), https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=86424.
- ↑ Call for Empirical Research, https://www.ftc.gov/nixing-the-fix-call-for-research.
- ↑ In the context of medical devices, where the potential risks of improperly repaired machinery are especially acute, IAMERS stated that “there is no significant safety problem related to servicing maintenance and repair by independent services,” noting that a 2018 FDA report “evaluated medical device reports [“MDRs”] pertaining to events allegedly involving third party servicing. Significantly, of the 4,301 MDRs identified (as discussed by the FDA) only three contained sufficient information to conclude that servicing caused or contributed to death. Moreover, the FDA noted that it was unable to establish a conclusive relationship between device third party entity servicing and the subsequent adverse event.” IAMERS comment at 2. We note that the FDA concluded that they “believe the currently available objective evidence is not sufficient to conclude whether or not there is a widespread
28
