Is this a case of false advertisement?

[Tuck]

Hi, all. Just thought I needed to get opinions on this issue.
After reading through numerous reviews, it seems that Microsoft Complete has quite a good review in the USA. However I can't say the same after this incident in Singapore. In my case, I felt misinformed, and i'm not sure if I can consider it as false advertisement.
After purchasing the SP3, I saw that Microsoft complete was a good deal for such a machine, 229 SGD for the coverage and at that point of time it was shown in their webpage, advertising 49 dollars per deductible for Accidental Damage Protection.
Shown here -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3l6-2UpSioEVUJhcmphZ3doYWs/view?usp=sharing

However when my surface was bricked, I found out at the checkout page that it is actually a 100 dollar deductible for accidental coverage in Singapore. I had no choice but to go ahead with it as my surface is bricked. I then notified Microsoft of this issue and they said that it's a glitch and promised to correct it.

Now, 2 months after, Microsoft only changed the webpage detail a few days after I contacted them for a second time, I claimed that it was false advertisement on their part since the same exact webpage advertising Accidental Claims has been stating 49 dollars for two whole months even when they have been notified. Even so, they refused compensation, reason being : It was stated that it was 100SGD at checkout, hence you could've not claimed the accidental coverage after seeing the rise in price.

This is my side of the story and I tried to be as fair as possible writing this, just hoping to get some opinions on this matter as the reason Microsoft gave me left me disappointed. 50 dollars is not a lot of money but I felt cheated... Thank you.

 

[DeltaXray]

Disgusting. If it was advertised that it was a $49 deductible in the advertisement then they should honour it.

In the UK at least you could have them for it.

 

[GreyFox7]

IDK SG laws or what was stated or posted in stores. Playing devils advocate though... accidents such as dropping or similar is not the same as bricking depending on the circumstance. i.e. certain things you may attempt to do may result in bricking but that may not be considered normal use or an accident if you attempted to replace the OS for example or hacking the firmware etc. etc. Should they cover it if you threw it off a cliff off the top of a building? Certainly it wouldn't be an accident...

 

[Tuck]

I wished they'd get my point, but after close to 20 minutes I failed to get my point across. Sorry the better word that should've been used is breaking it. The incident was 100% accidental, dropped my bag with SP3 inside and screen came out cracked with a dent on the body itself...

 

[raqball]

I'd contact MS and include the screenshot that clearly shows a $49 deductible..

 

[uktivo]

good luck with it. my personal expereince when MS false advertised the surface pro 3 with a 2 year warrenty in the UK, then again, changed the web page after i had purchased one and asked them to honor it, was less than sucessful.
To be honest, i didn't get a lot of support from other forum members either which led me to the conclusion that perhaps i was being unreasonable. So i backed off and decided to concentrate on trying to enjoy ownership of the computer.
I find it terrible if any company, let alone someone the size of MS, clearly claims one thing to attract a purchase then once hooked, remove the said claim and basically say tough luck.

 

[Tuck]

good luck with it. my personal expereince when MS false advertised the surface pro 3 with a 2 year warrenty in the UK, then again, changed the web page after i had purchased one and asked them to honor it, was less than sucessful.
To be honest, i didn't get a lot of support from other forum members either which led me to the conclusion that perhaps i was being unreasonable. So i backed off and decided to concentrate on trying to enjoy ownership of the computer.
I find it terrible if any company, let alone someone the size of MS, clearly claims one thing to attract a purchase then once hooked, remove the said claim and basically say tough luck.

This is very similar to my case. Except 1 year warranty is most probably more worth than 49 dollars. I find it unfair too on what they are doing, simply changing a webpage and they can conveniently assume that no such event has every happened, even though the webpage has been up for 2 whole months!
I did contact support together with the screenshot, but it came back saying that I deserve no compensation of sorts. I'm quite sure other consumers would have seen the misinformation too, given that it was up for 2 months!

 

[Nuspieds]

Now, 2 months after, Microsoft only changed the webpage detail a few days after I contacted them for a second time, I claimed that it was false advertisement on their part since the same exact webpage advertising Accidental Claims has been stating 49 dollars for two whole months even when they have been notified. Even so, they refused compensation, reason being : It was stated that it was 100SGD at checkout, hence you could've not claimed the accidental coverage after seeing the rise in price.

Seems to me that is one that you would definitely have to check with your local consumer laws.

Although on an info page it was stated as $49, one can argue that since it was also stated as $100 on the payment page, then that--at minimum--should give the buyer reason to pause and check with the vendor before submitting payment. It can be further argued that information on the payment page trumps previous data shown on an info page.

But different jurisdictions may see this differently in that the vendor may be required to honor the lower of the price discrepancies; it all depends on your local consumer laws.

 

[spinachpie]

Although on an info page it was stated as $49, one can argue that since it was also stated as $100 on the payment page, then that--at minimum--should give the buyer reason to pause and check with the vendor before submitting payment. It can be further argued that information on the payment page trumps previous data shown on an info page.

What I understood from the OP's situation is that they paid the $229 for the basic cover and saw the $49 price for deductible.

Only when the OP went to make a claim for breaking his SP3 was the new charge of $100 shown at the checkout stage - so he had already paid for the cover of $229 previous to submitting an actual claim.

In either case OP, I know it is not how much you wanted to pay, but if you hadn't have been tempted by the $49 price point (even though MS was wrong), you might not have bought the cover and would have been a lot more than $50 out of pocket