Rolex service requirement deemed unfair commercial practice

[GBD]

Over on Fratello there's an interesting read about someone trying to get a vintage OP bracelet fixed and being required by Rolex to also get a full service; the judge in the resulting lawsuit (filed in Amsterdam) deemed this an unfair commercial practice and the watch owner was reimbursed in full. Worth reading in its entirety: https://www.fratellowatches.com/unfa...mburse-client/

[Rolexken]

Interesting - reminds me of my wife’s Cartier Santos quartz watch which we asked the AD from where we bought the watch from to replace the battery when it ran out. We collected the watch and were presented with a large bill for a full service and battery change. After an assertive objection the AD cancelled the bill. Only went to standard battery change places after that.

[Cambo]

Congrats to the person for taking on Goliath, but they better find an alternative watch service for any future work. I somehow don’t see Rolex as the forgive and forget type.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Cambo

I somehow don’t see Rolex as the forgive and forget type.

No, I think you may be right, when one thinks about it there may be an element of truth to that

[Little machines]

Thank you ! Good post.

[rockysw]

Good to know that judge rules fairly.

[MILGAUSS88]

What I would like to see is a legal decision on the right to repair.
Which would require Rolex to sell parts to repairman, as they did in the past.

Currently John Deere is the commercial business that is making most of the news, but if a decision came down against them I could see how it could be applied to the watch industry.

[Nice marmot]

Originally Posted by MILGAUSS88

What I would like to see is a legal decision on the right to repair.
Which would require Rolex to sell parts to repairman, as they did in the past.

Currently John Deere is the commercial business that is making most of the news, but if a decision came down against them I could see how it could be applied to the watch industry.

I agree. I also think we are going to start seeing more and more right to repair cases brought before courts. I think it is a huge consumer rights issue.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Rolexken

Interesting - reminds me of my wife’s Cartier Santos quartz watch which we asked the AD from where we bought the watch from to replace the battery when it ran out. We collected the watch and were presented with a large bill for a full service and battery change. After an assertive objection the AD cancelled the bill. Only went to standard battery change places after that.

Totally different, in my opinion. AD did more work than you agreed to in advance, without first asking.

Originally Posted by MILGAUSS88

What I would like to see is a legal decision on the right to repair.
Which would require Rolex to sell parts to repairman, as they did in the past.

Currently John Deere is the commercial business that is making most of the news, but if a decision came down against them I could see how it could be applied to the watch industry.

While I certainly see the parallels, I have a difficult time believing that there would be enough momentum here when compared to one of the largest industries in the world (agriculture) and the number of interests involved.

[hutch300]

Take the case out of it and think about the customer. This is why we are lucky to have places like Rolliworks and LAWW for repairs. Craftsman.

[csaltphoto]

It's an interesting question at least. I can understand that Rolex wants to retain a given degree of quality over how it's product is treated. Watch repair is not replacing the battery on an iPhone. On the other hand there are watch repair people way more qualified than the average Rolex technician that cannot get a parts account.

[Me4u2night]

I think Rolex will be taking a look at their policies, requiring it mandatory to do an overhaul on watches.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Cambo

Congrats to the person for taking on Goliath, but they better find an alternative watch service for any future work. I somehow don’t see Rolex as the forgive and forget type.

Technically, the customer only took on the AD (and lost); the court decided on its own that perhaps Rolex policies were unfair on some level. However Rolex was never a party to the suit and it was still the AD who "enforced" the policy.

Originally Posted by Me4u2night

I think Rolex will be taking a look at their policies, requiring it mandatory to do an overhaul on watches.

Or Rolex will decide there's little advantage to repairing vintage pieces and start declining more and more repairs.