The recent public scramble for the latest smartphone in fashion has led to a proliferation of some 2,400 cases of consumer complaints in total since September.
The rash of complaints stemmed from the sales practices deployed by some telecom service providers in capitalizing on this wonderful business opportunity in anticipation of a massive demand for the hot smartphone model.
According to the complainants, the service providers offered "preferential pre-order" enticing droves of phone enthusiasts and consumers intent on possessing the much sought-after cellphone gadget.
But, first, to secure their order, they were required to pay a deposit which the service providers pocketed without promise of a delivery date.
Much to their bitter disappointment, and despite repeated protestation to the service providers, the complainants were left out waiting, in vain and indefinitely, for the delivery.
In the ensuing disputes, some service providers would agree to refund the deposit but one flatly refused on the grounds that neither an exact delivery date nor refund of deposit was stipulated in the terms and conditions of the purchase order.
Complainants were also allegedly persuaded to switch to other model of less popular in demand, or to accept the smartphone on condition the existing service plan would be terminated and replaced by a new contract often less favourable.
In a typical case, the complainant placed an order for the new smartphone via the website of the telecom service provider, and paid a deposit of $300 with his credit card on September 12. He waited in vain for a week, from September 19 (the start of public sales of the phone) to September 26.
Despite many calls to the company, he was told the supplier had run out of stocks and no definite date could be set for the delivery. The complainant claimed that since many were in fact able to successfully purchase direct from other service providers, he could not accept being held in suspense indefinitely for his turn for the phone.
The complainant further alleged that the service provider had accepted pre-orders apparently far in excess of the quantity of the stocks that it could obtain from the manufacturer. That such sales practice could be in contravention of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance.
He demanded his money back. Upon conciliation of the Consumer Council, the service provider readily agreed to the refund in settlement of the complaint in mid-October.
In another case, the complainant paid a deposit of $500 and waited till September 19 when she received an email from the telecom service provider informing her that there was a shortage in supply of the smartphone model, and that she might wish to consider switching her choice to another model in order to shorten the waiting time.
The complainant was dissatisfied that the company had not ensured adequate supply of the merchandise before accepting pre-order, and then allegedly used that as a pretext to foist "bait-and-switch" tactic which is an offence under the Trade Descriptions Ordinance, on the hapless consumers.
She demanded to cancel the purchase order and refund the deposit, to which the company turned down referring to the pre-order which stipulated that there would be no guarantee of delivery date or provision of refund.
In the third case, the complainant paid a total of $1,000 for pre-order of 2 different models of the latest smartphone. But long after the sales opened to the public, she was still kept waiting. Until finally in mid-October, she was notified that one of the smartphones she earlier ordered was ready for collection.
However, it transpired that the condition for accepting the new phone was to change to a new service contract at a monthly fee of $518 including local calls and 6GB mobile data. The new plan compared less favourably than her existing one with $398 a month including local calls and unlimited mobile data, and was not due for expiry for another 1.5 years.
The complainant protested that she had been misled and demanded refund of her deposit. But the company insisted that the attention of customers had been drawn to the "important notice" on the pre-order website and that she had agreed and accepted the terms and conditions for the purchase order of the new smartphone.
The complaints drive home the need to take heed of the terms and conditions of such pre-order contracts relating to, amongst others, (a) refund of the deposit in the event of dispute; (b) guarantee of the date of delivery of the merchandise; (c) any other strings attached such as terminating and replacing existing telecom service plan with a new one less favourable.
The Communications Authority has also received some 300 similar consumer complaints and are in the process of following up these cases in consultation with the Customs and Excise Department on possible enforcement of the new prohibitions under the Trade Descriptions Ordinance.
In a related test report, a total of 20 models of smartphones - 13 4G and 7 3G - covering the flagship models of 4 brands (Apple, LG, Samsung and Sony) and 1 ultra-affordable smartphone (Xiaomi) were rated for their performance.
The overall rating was based on: handset basic capabilities (20%); ergonomics (16%); calling and SMS (15%); internet and email (15%); camera (10%); music (10%); video (5%); GPS navigation (5%) and synchronization (4%).
In terms of battery performance (operational time), the results indicated: internet ranging from 3.1 hours to 6.4 hours; GPS from 2.4 hours to 7.1 hours; charging time from 120 minutes to 225 minutes.
The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE (https://echoice.consumer.org.hk/).
- 2014.12.15