Pixel 9a proprietor claims Google sought after to rate them just about $300 for non-existent harm

pixel 9a owner claims google wanted to charge them nearly.jpg


Someone holding the Pixel 9a, showing the back of the phone.

Joe Maring / Android Authority

TL;DR

  • A Pixel 9a proprietor just lately despatched their telephone in for a warranty-covered restore referring to eSIM connectivity problems.
  • The landlord claims the software was once in mint situation, however Google sought after to rate the landlord $287.44 for harm to the display, body, and cameras.
  • The Pixel 9a was once despatched again to the buyer with not one of the exterior harm in Google’s claims.

It’s no longer unusual to listen to about buyer improve horror tales. Alternatively, every so often there are tales that in point of fact stand proud of the remainder. Like this one from a Pixel 9a proprietor who merely sought after to mend their eSIM connectivity problems.

Don’t need to omit the most productive from Android Authority?

google preferred source badge light@2xgoogle preferred source badge dark@2x

In step with the landlord, their Pixel 9a was once in superb situation, however they had been having problems with downloading and putting in eSIMs. After sending the telephone in for a warranty-covered restore, the landlord says Google messaged them again, in need of to rate $287.44 for harm to the display, body, and cameras. On the time, it was once unclear if the handset were broken right through transit.

The landlord claims that they reached out to the Google improve group to dispute the invoice. Alternatively, it’s stated that the improve group stopped replying as soon as the landlord requested to escalate the problem. Refusing to pay the invoice, the case timed out, and Google notified the landlord that their software was once being shipped again to them, possibly now with new harm and the eSIM trojan horse unaddressed.

The telephone has now returned to the landlord, totally devoid of the exterior harm the corporate claimed. After checking the IMEI, the landlord was once in a position to substantiate it was once the similar software they at first despatched out. Incorporated within the packaging was once a notice from the tech large pointing out, “No upkeep had been achieved to your software since you both denied or didn’t reply to the alternate order request that was once despatched to you by way of e-mail.”

The landlord says that they’re submitting a proper criticism towards Google. “I’ve filed a proper criticism to my state’s Division of Trade and Shopper Affairs and to the California BBB.”

Thanks for being a part of our neighborhood. Learn our Remark Coverage earlier than posting.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *