EU 2 Year Warranty (Directive 1999/44/EC) & Sony PS3

WizZard

Background:

Sony recently made available an "optional"* update to the PS3 firmware. This update removed the ability of the PS3 to load and run other operating systems. This was a marketed feature of the product when it first launched.
Since this is a feature which has now been removed the PS3 is now reduced in functionality since it was sold, and is no longer:

fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase.

Can this EU Directive (Directive 1999/44/EC) be enforced in Ireland against retailers who sold the PS3?

References:
http://www.wak-tt.com/tt/2yearwarranty1.htm
http://www.playstationuniversity.com/ps3-owner-refunded-without-return-for-missing-other-os-3555/
http://us.playstation.com/support/systemupdates/ps3/index.htm

* it's not really optional as to continue to play online you are required to have this update

slimjimmc

If this update was remotely installed without the owner's consent or the owner was wasn't informed of the consequences of installing it then I reckon Sony could find themselves with a load of claims. If the consumer chose to install it in the full knowledge of it's effect then I doubt any claim would stand.

BTW : the EU directive requires that EU state change their laws to provide a minimum 2 years cover. Ireland's consumer law includes this requirement but is better as it doesn't have a time limit but the Statute of Limitations restricts any claim to 6 years.

WizZard

The update has to be manually installed (i.e. you click ok after being prompted to insatll when you use your PS3).

The problem is that whether you install it or not you lose functionality.
If you don't install it you keep Other OS but lose Online Play
If you install it you lose Other OS but keep Online Play

FreudianSlippers

In the end the End User Licence Agreement that you enter with Sony upon purchasing the device probably would prevent you from being successful:

Without limitation, services may include the provision of the latest update or download of new release that may include security patches, new technology or revised settings and features which may prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3 system

You're also missing a part of the Directive there:

(b) are fit for any particular purpose for which the consumer requires them and which he made known to the seller at the time of conclusion of the contract and which the seller has accepted

If I was acting on behalf of the seller, I would argue that the onus was on the buyer to inform the seller that they intended to use it to install an "other operating system".

( c ) are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same type are normally used;

Well, what is Playstation3 usually used for? I'd venture that the vast majority of the use is playing PS3 games and watching BluRay discs - an insignificant amount would likely be installing other operating systems.

In the end, the PS3 is still capable of doing what its primary purpose is: gaming and bluray. I think you'd be hard pressed to successfully argue that the primary purpose of the PS3 is installing other operating systems. Especially with anti-piracy and security concerns these days, Sony could easily say that allowing other operating systems opens up security flaws in the system or the network it connects to (etc...)


Anyway, I'm rambling... it's late. I don't think you'd have a case really, but that's just my personal opinion.
Furthermore, the first port of call in this jurisdiction is the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980