Investigation Finding Report

After analyzing the information and evidence from both parties, we determined that the service provider reasonably performed its obligations towards the customer and found no fault in its handling of the issues brought forth.

Issue 1: The customer’s complaint is that the service provider makes an error or takes an action which the customer considers to be a breach of an existing agreement.
• The customer reports that on December 21, 2024, they visited one of the service provider’s retail locations to upgrade their wireless device and sign a new two-year agreement. Upon returning home and closely inspecting the device, they discovered a dead pixel on the screen. In response, the customer returned to the store on December 30—well within the 15-day return policy window. However, the customer asserts that their request for a return or refund was denied by a store associate, who claimed the device was “damaged” and therefore not eligible for return. The customer strongly disputes this, maintaining that the issue was a manufacturing defect and not damage caused by them.
• A review of the service provider’s Terms of Service showed that the customer may return a device purchased from the service provider if the device is returned within 15 days of the start date, in “like new“ condition with the original packaging, manuals and accessories, and with the original receipt from the store of purchase. Additionally, we note that the signed agreement also mentions that the customer may return or exchange the device within 15 days of the commitment period start date where they purchased it, in “like new“ condition with its packaging. The service provider will refuse the device if usage is excessive. Lastly, we would like to point out that the back of the customer’s receipt also shows these details.
• A review of the service provider’s Terms of Service showed that the service provider makes no warranties, guarantees or conditions with respect to the equipment or devices. The equipment and devices that a customer buys from the service provider may be covered by a manufacturer’s warranty or other type of warranty. To understand what coverage such warranties include and how long they last, a link is provided. It also notes that the customer can review any warranty document provided with the equipment or device.
• A review of the link provided showed that if the customer buys a brand-new phone, it is subject to the manufacturer’s limited warranty, which is typically valid for at least 12 months from the purchase date. If the phone is not working due to a manufacturer issue that occurs within 30 days of the purchase, the customer can exchange it for a brand-new phone. If it is over 30 days, but within the manufacturer’s limited warranty period, the phone can be repaired at the manufacturer’s expense. The warranty only covers manufacturer defects. Therefore, things like water damage or physical abuse aren’t covered. (The customer must be sure that they haven’t dropped or damaged the phone in any way.) A phone is generally considered to be defective and covered under warranty if it has stopped properly functioning due to a manufacturer defect. Phone damage that is not considered defective includes but is not limited to LCD damage to the point of the phone screen being cracked. Dropping a phone would make it unrepairable and void the manufacturer’s warranty.
• We would like to point out that both parties agree that the customer attempted to return the device in-store on December 30, 2024, well within the 15-day ’s return period, and that the associate indicated that the device was damaged.
• We noted that the customer expressed dissatisfaction with both in-store exchanges, which took place on December 21 and 30, respectively. That said, we are not able to analyze in-person interactions and rely on the available evidence by way of analysis.
• A review of a screenshot from the service provider’s system showed that the customer’s device, identified by its serial number, was marked as available as of July 13, 2024 and was activated solely on December 21, 2024—the date the customer took possession of the device. This indicates the store held the device in inventory for approximately five months before the customer acquired it. The device in question, a silver 256-GB Samsung Galaxy Z Flip6, is a 2024 model that was only released in July 2024. The service provider maintained that, according to their records, the device had not been previously owned or used prior to the customer’s purchase. The service provider also confirmed that their return policy requires the equipment to be in “like new” condition. Following the customer’s attempt to return the phone, the customer acknowledged that the store associate inspected the device and confirmed physical damage—an assessment that was also reflected in the service provider’s response. Consequently, the device’s condition does not meet the criteria for return under the return policy. Additionally, the service provider provided an email received from the customer on January 24, 2025, including a photo showing a small white dot on the screen. Due to the damage, the service provider declined the return but suggested the customer could pursue a manufacturer warranty claim with Samsung, or have the screen repaired by a third-party service. They also offered to cover 50% of the repair cost, which the customer declined.
• Since both parties agree that the device was inspected at the store and ultimately not accepted, we conclude that the device did not meet the “like new” condition required. While the customer may disagree with the service provider’s decision and contend that the service provider is violating their own policy, the policy clearly states that the device must be in “like new” condition—a standard the service provider has determined was not met. Accordingly, the service provider is not obligated to accept the return, even within the 15-day return period, if the conditions of this policy are not met.
• It is important to note that the customer has not attempted to use the manufacturer’s warranty and has declined, on two occasions (during the initial referral and conciliation), the service provider’s offer to cover 50% of any repair costs resulting from a warranty claim, should user damage be found.
• In light of our analysis, since the device was inspected in-store on December 30, 2024 and the return was declined during the 15-day return period due to the device not being in “like new” condition, we find that the service provider did meet its obligations. While the customer may disagree and believe the service provider had no valid grounds to refuse the return, if the inspection concluded otherwise, the CCTS cannot require the service provider to alter its policies or procedures regarding the assessment of return conditions.