Casio Stops Claiming Fingerprint Found Inside New Camera, Repairs Fully

Update on “Casio Voids Warranty, Claims There’s A Fingerprint Inside New Camera“: After Sam’s story went live on Consumerist and he got escalated at Casio, they repaired his camera fully under warranty, acknowledged their mistake, and gave him a free 8 Gig Class III SD card. Sam writes, “Once the right people found out things moved around quickly.”

PREVIOUSLY: Casio Voids Warranty, Claims There’s A Fingerprint Inside New Camera

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Git Em SteveDave loves this guy--> says:

    You know, I love when stories make the news, and all of a sudden, the “evidence” the company had that voided your claim all of a sudden disappears. I mean, who’s handling their evidence? Mark Fuhrman and Henry Lee?

  2. rushevents says:

    The fact is they probably still believe he did something to the camera – the Sr magmt is just smart enough to realize pushing it with him would give them a black eye that could cost sales with other consumers.

  3. SkokieGuy says:

    Once again, a company does something fair and reasonble, but only after heroic efforts on the part of the consumer and public pressure.

    No applause required or deserved.

  4. Adisharr says:

    He would have been stiffed it this didn’t make the Consumerist.

  5. Greasy Thumb Guzik says:

    There’s a lot more here than we’re getting.
    It’s highly doubtful that the consumer opened the camera, most modern cameras & other small electronic devices are next to impossible to open unless you know exactly how. Otherwise you’re going to leave pry marks all over the thing.
    Odds are that he got a refurbished camera that was either deliberately or mistakenly sold as new. The fingerprint, if it existed was of a Casio technician or a Casio authorized technician.
    The other problem is why didn’t they supply him with a photo of the fingerprint. If it was his, he would have looked foolish, if not his, he was in the clear.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      It’s highly doubtful that the consumer opened the camera, most modern cameras & other small electronic devices are next to impossible to open unless you know exactly how. Otherwise you’re going to leave pry marks all over the thing.

      @Greasy Thumb Guzik: My thoughts exactly. If the customer had actually opened the thing Casio should have been complaining about a lot more damage than just a fingerprint.

    • mmmsoap says:

      @Greasy Thumb Guzik: It’s highly doubtful that the consumer opened the camera, most modern cameras & other small electronic devices are next to impossible to open unless you know exactly how.

      For that matter, they’re even hard to open when you do know how…most laptops that I’ve seen that have been repaired by the manufacturer (both my own and friends’) have scuff and pry marks, and components that don’t fit together quite right when they get back. The original items are often assembled robotically, and really aren’t designed to be pulled apart at all.

    • Git Em SteveDave loves this guy--> says:

      @Greasy Thumb Guzik: I doubt he got a refurb by accident. They keep track of the serial numbers, and a lot of refurbs have makings(some permanent) which say this. If it was a refurb, Casio would have told him.

    • Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

      @Greasy Thumb Guzik: Exactly. Most electronic gadgets (cameras, laptops, MP3 players, etc.) have a whole plethora of screws hidden under escutcheons along with those awful hidden plastic snaps.

      You would have to know exactly where the snaps are, where all the hidden screws are, and you’d have to have replacement adhesive escutcheons because once you peel them off to get to the tiny hidden screws, they’re scratched and wrinkled. Even then, unless you have the dexterity of a safe-cracker, it’s unlikely you could pry open the case without leaving screwdriver marks or breaking some of the snaps.

  6. Krustey says:

    Too late!

    After reading this story I’d never buy a Casio again.

    • Moosehawk says:

      @Krustey: Sssshhh, don’t say that until the customer gets a new camera …

      .. What’s that? Oh wait, he got it already?

      Yea fuck em. Worthless piles of shit, Casio is.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Too little too late. Spent $550 on a hard drive video camera yesterday. At the outset I’d already determined that it wouldn’t be a Casio b/c of the previous story(ies) about their poor customer service. The front lines generally provide plenty of clues about a company’s culture.

  8. InThrees says:

    It’s great that Sam’s camera got fixed, but I’m still not buying a Casio product.

    Sam isn’t on retainer to take care of Casio warranty issues, and neither are sites like Consumerist – but apparently you need go above and beyond as an owner AND enlist the help of potential-public-reaction/relations via the media/blogosphero-tubes.

    Unacceptable.

  9. mzs says:

    It’s great what the consumerist can do for us all, but a nit:

    That ‘SD’ card must really be an SDHC card since there are not enough bits in the SD spec to specify a 4K block size.

    • mewyn dyner says:

      @mzs:

      Well, that and regular SD cards aren’t speed rated by classes.

      There is only SDHC cards that are larger than 4GB (and 4GB SD cards are out of spec, 4GB SDHC cards are in spec.)

  10. scootinger says:

    Aren’t Class 3 cards pretty shitty ones? Class 6 (6MB/sec) cards are the decent ones, and you can get them for almost the same price as lower-speed ones. So I think Casio must have given her a crappy deal there.