And as it is a hackable app that allows remote control of the vehicle by non authorised others why would you want such an unsafe app running?
A recipe for disaster in my opinion to have it operative and good on Nissan for disabling it. Imagine the claims for negligence they would have faced by leaving it in place.
The plot thickens!
Mine is a different model to the LEAF model that had the app withdrawn for a while. They obviously fixed that problem as “NissanConnect EV” is available on the Google Play Store for the LEAF.
My model (a Qashqai) was made in the UK in Dec 2018 and shipped to Australia in 2019. All the functionality is available on the dashboard, except that to activate it you need to log in to the app, which, as mentioned, Nissan Australia decided to drop. It’s still available in the USA and Europe but can’t be downloaded from here. If it was not to be released in Australia, why is the software on the head unit? This is misleading at best.
As to the warranty & sales documentation I read through it thoroughly before pursuing this issue and there is no mention that I could see of Nissan having the option to withdraw a feature. I have asked Nissan a number of times to advise if I had missed something and they have not pointed to anything.
I’m not stressing too much on this (too old at 70 to get upset with minor things) but its a matter of principle to me, and a defending of consumer rights.
Thanks again for everyone’s feedback.
The same applies to software shipped out on other smart devices as indicated above (TVs, phones, fridges, PCs, cars which have navigation map options etc)…where bloatware is preinstalled during manufacture. It isn’t misleading, it is the reality of the global world we live in where products are made in more centralised locations for world markets. As your car is made in the UK (possibly as the UK is a right hand drive market like Australia), the vehicles would be made to cater for every market that they are delivered and sold into, including the UK market where the app may still be locally supported by Nissan.
If it was never an option at the time you bought the demonstration vehicle, then there is nothing to withdraw. Just because it appears it could be a function, doesn’t mean that it is. I remember my first Mazda I owned had dummy buttons installed on the lower dashboard for fog lights and from memory cruise control, neither which came as standard on the vehicle model which I purchased. I suspected at the time that it was cheaper for Mazda to installed the buttons than to develop dashboards for each model they produce and every option available to the consumer. Likewise with the headset that you have in your Qashqai…it is installed on the interface to reduce the number of parts Nissan needs to manufacture for each model in each separate country. While I don’t know what the display looks like, removing it may also make the display unbalanced from a visual point of view.
It is but it is worth looking at the version date…2016. It is likely that it has been updated by Nissan and a request has not been made to remove it, as there may be car owners who own pre-2016 vehicles who wish to continue to use the app.
Do you have any Australian literature from the time of purchase of your vehicle that says the Nissan Connect App is free for your Qashqai and Nissan supports the app for the particular model that you purchased?
If you don’t, your thoughts may be misplaced as it was never a feature available to you.
The NissanConnect brochure that came with the car offers 3 years of free upgrades, but that’s not really an issue as I would be happy to pay if the service was available.
It mentions it being available on the Qashqai and I have the Ti version which is the top of the range, although the manual does not suggest it is trim-level specific.
To confirm it was available in Australia the Owner’s Manual on p4-37 clearly states so.
Nissan Australia have never denied this but just said they made a management decision to discontinue it.
Just to clarify, NissanConnect is actually installed on the car but it can’t be activated because the required registration page and app are no longer available in Australia.
So in my view it’s either:
It’s not like bloatware which is free and not under warranty, and usually has plenty of disclaimers about potential incompatibility. This is something that is fully documented as being available as an integral part of the vehicle and therefore, by extension, should be under warranty.
Do you have any documentation or evidence that suggests that the NissanConnect app was available at the time of the vehicles purchase and would be usable. As outlined above, as you have bought a demonstration vehicle, it is possible that at the time of purchase the app was no longer offered or was discontinued as it only applied to the model/manufacturing year of the vehicle. A lot of demonstrator vehicles are old models which are are sold off at a discount to the existing/current model. While you may have the brochure and also the manual, it is important to know what the status was at the time you made the purchase.
It is also worth noting that the brochure also states that ‘availability varies by grade’. Do you know that the spec of vehicle (grade) included the app and that it was available for that spec of vehicle at the time of purchase? One can’t rely on a manual as manuals are generic documents for all grades within a particular model.
It is similar to bloatware as such that is it an app not available for use at the time of purchase. Such the app isn’t covered by warranty.
The water gets muddied as also outlined above as the vehicle was not new (but second hand or dealer used/demonstration) at the time that you purchased. This is why it is important to know the status of the app at the time of purchase. It appears from the link above, that that if you bought the vehicle potentially since 2016, the app hasn’t been available and therefore was not an inclusion as part of the vehicles sale.
I am not trying to be difficult, but assuming something can often lead to problems. If the dealer selling the vehicle said that app would work when you purchased the vehicle, then this is misleading.
It appears you are relying on historical information about the vehicle model you have purchased. Having brochures or such information about a car which mentioned the app wouldn’t be classed as misleading, especially of the app was no longer supported when you purchased the vehicle.
Also it asks the user/owner to visit the Connect site to determine availability, if no site or a closed site or only an overseas site this would indicate no availability to an Australian user.
However if a purchaser had requested at the time of purchase that they needed/wanted the NissanConnect app in Australia and the Salesperson assured them that it was available and functional then it would be a breach of ACL.
Yes, I have a similar issue as mentioned above with Mercedes. The have discontinued a function of the vehicle which is factory fitted. It fails various ACL tests and would be classed a major because a reasonable consumer wouldn’t have purchased if they had known, and it can’t be repaired. (And there are no spare parts.)
MB have bought back one vehicle, as per the article above, and I know of two cases where they have offered compensation. Most of the time it’s difficult to find out because they have the consumer sign a none disclosure agreement.
The issue with MB is worldwide, affects every MB with the COMAND system is affected.
Check out MB COMAND system failure
Welcome @nickjm
I think as a non lawyer (me that is) that a browser that no longer has secure certificates for it’s use in a motor vehicle would be a minor issue and compensation might be the outcome likely and if it had been a specific item in the decision to buy only then it might be winnable as a Major problem on ACL grounds. I think Mercedes in the letter made a decision about publicity and adverse effects it might have had on future sales.
No liability was admitted, and their reasoning seems to support what a reasonable person might expect ie the car functions as a car as it should even without the browser.
The browser had become insecure and thus was unable to be used safely, imagine the outcry if they had allowed insecure browsing and a group of users were hacked.
ACL also protects businesses from unfair claims or outrageous claims. This could possibly fall into one of these categories.
Hi @nickjm, welcome to the community.
It appears the issue may be different. Buying a vehicle with software working and later removed, causing functioning issues is different to potentially buying a vehicle where is wasn’t installed and later after finding it was a option in the past, then expecting it to be installed by the manufacturer.
Your example does fall under the ACL as owners have expectation that the car they bought continues to function in the same way for a reasonable time after purchase. Mercedes-Benz removing the software after purchased changed the condition of the purchased vehicle.
However a modification to make the vehicle safer to use could alter the functioning of something in the car. I think even while the browser might still be part of the car, the fact that it became unsafe to use was then correct for Mercedes to cease it’s functioning.
I see from the letter they did offer possible alternatives to the problem even suggesting that they could supply an iPad as a remedy (noting this is able to be linked in most modern cars via Apple CarPlay). Possibly a reasonable remedy. One we can’t answer here. This requires legal resolution and we certainly can’t provide that service here.
Any purchaser of the Mercedes that are affected should seek the remedy they require. I am just not sure how Mercedes might react to a large amount of claims and they may push back if they feel it is financially worth their while to contest the quantum of remedy demanded.
There seems an elephant in the room that just because it is software, or just because, it appears many are happy to accept a manufacturer changing a product for virtually any reason the company feels justifies it, and that could be extended to their business interests (even to ‘not enough profit’ rather than a loss).
Or am I misreading?
It’s an elephant.
Are there valid comparisons with mobile devices, tablets etc and whether the same behaviours would be
A) acceptable to consumers
and
B) not at risk of the EU or other governments seeking redress?
In the case of Mercedes, I think the answer is no, as I purchased a car with various functions; I didn’t purchase any software. Software is used in cars, and many other items we purchase; but we don’t purchase software per se. The engine, memory seats, radio, security system are all software driven.
In the items mentioned, mobile devices, tablets, etc., if they were never updated surely they wold continue to operate as purchased for ever? (Unless there were services behind them delivering information.)
The Browser may continue to function but without updates and secure Certificates it may become useless when seeking to use securely signed sites which many are today including this one. Mercedes probably decided it was the best choice to disable it in the integrated system where an unsecured app could create problems.
Thanks grahroll, I agree, however Mercedes chose not to remedy the issue. This is also not an app, but a function of their paid for, factory option, COMAND system.
If I end up going to NCAT this will be one of my arguments; the web browser hasn’t stopped working because the internet changed, but because Mercedes stopped it from working, and they could have fixed it.
Have you discussed the concerns/arguments with a legal service or lawyer familiar with consumer law to better clarify?
On being organised.
NCAT has an upper limit on the value they can adjudicate. $40,000 for a motor vehicle.
From that page link,
The maximum amount you can claim is $40,000 . If the dispute is about the purchase of a new vehicle, NCAT can makes orders for an unlimited sum.
My vehicle was new.
I’ve spoken with NSW Fair Trading, and have a case waiting to be processed by them, and the ACCC. Both believe there is a case to answer from Mercedes. I called a couple of lawyers, but they didn’t call me back …
Your list is good and I’ve considered those points, but not from a legal perspective. However, I’ve read through ACL, and have researched A LOT of case law. I should probably move this to a new thread, but briefly:
Thank you for your replies.
They may argue that it is an application included in the COMAND shell, COMAND including a number of apps/applications that may or may not work together. They may argue that it is unsafe to leave an insecure app running or available in that environment and so chose to render it non functioning.
By what has been discussed perhaps they tried to remedy the issue eg they contacted Microsoft to try to obtain the Certificates but weren’t successful, they offered a possible remedy in supplying a smart device, they have offered $500 refunds to some.
As I said previously this needs legal advice and legal testing, until the decision there is only supposition (whether it has strong case support or not). The ACCC and Fair Trading may end up accepting that some compensation is the outcome rather than complete refund. It will be interesting to see what arguments are presented by Mercedes and what outcome is achieved in the final decision.
Thanks grahroll, all good points.
It will be interesting to see what happens!!
Please understand I hope you have the best outcome that suits you, I was just noting what might happen in regards to Mercedes arguments and this adds a level of uncertainty to what might happen.
