Cautionary tale for DJI replacement service.

[GadgetGuy]

Nearly every company, venue, resort park, etc has liability protection in their terms. And yet many people injured by these same entities (not just physical injuries) litigate and win settlements against them. Are you suggesting DJI has a magical shield?

Against class action lawsuits, yes. It's not magical. It's contractual. Besides, what are you going to collect from? They no longer do business in the U.S., and have no assets here.

 

[anotherlab]

Nearly every company, venue, resort park, etc has liability protection in their terms. And yet many people injured by these same entities (not just physical injuries) litigate and win settlements against them. Are you suggesting DJI has a magical shield?

Not a "Magic Shield", but a legally enforceable contract. When you install the DJI Fly app, you'll agree to something that is either the following, or something close to it

These Terms provide that all disputes between you and DJI will be resolved by BINDING ARBITRATION. YOU AGREE TO GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO [GO] TO COURT to assert or defend your rights under these Terms, except for matters that may be taken to small claims court. Your rights will be determined by a NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR and NOT a judge or jury, and your claims cannot be brought as a class action.

and

In the interest of resolving disputes between you and DJI in the most expedient and cost effective manner, you and DJI agree that every dispute arising in connection with these terms will be resolved by binding arbitration. . . . This agreement to arbitrate disputes includes all claims arising out of or relating to any aspect of these Terms, whether based in contract, tort, statute, fraud, misrepresentation, or any other legal theory, and regardless of whether a claim arises during or after the termination of these Terms. YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT BY ENTERING INTO THESE TERMS, YOU AND DJI ARE EACH WAIVING THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY OR TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION.

There can be ways around it, such as the age of the drone owner and jurisdiction. In Texas, a minor was injured by his DJI drone and was blinded in one eye. His parents sued DJI, asserting various product liability and negligence causes of action against DJI. DJI filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the Terms of Use.

The court found that because the drone owner was a minor, his acceptance of the Terms of Use was not valid. He was not bound by the arbitration clauses of the Terms of Use, and DJI's motion to compel arbitration was denied by the court. You can read the full court order here: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/4:2024cv00268/228932/83/

But if you agreed to the Terms of Use and it's considered a valid agreement, then you're required to use binding arbitration to resolve any legal disputes.

 

[mavic3usa]

This should help with the arbitration discussion:

Arbitration Agreements: No Worse Than Other Contracts But No Better, Either​

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2022-july/arbitration-agreements/

 

[Wreckhunter]

I'm not planning on suing anyone, but DJI should be planning on getting sued by several thousand customers who got less than they paid for. (The warranty that DJI cannot deliver.)
Like I said, DJI could not have handled this bad situation any worse than they did.

In a matter of a few months DJI will be done for in the US ,not sure they really care anymore about being sued or warranty issues in the US.Such a shame

 

[anotherlab]

In a matter of a few months DJI will be done for in the US ,not sure they really care anymore about being sued or warranty issues in the US.Such a shame

Exiting the US would not protect a company from being sued. It's a lot harder to do, but the legal framework is in place.

Exiting the US market doesn't prevent DJI from re-entering at a later date, in a different political landscape. IKEA and Suzuki both exited the US market, only to return at a later date.

 

[moldorf]

Nearly every company, venue, resort park, etc has liability protection in their terms. And yet many people injured by these same entities (not just physical injuries) litigate and win settlements against them. Are you suggesting DJI has a magical shield?

the "magical shield" is probably being a Chinese company, headquartered in China, with minimal lien-able and exposed assets within the USA. American civil courts have no authority in China

besides that, what class action suit is viable? A few thousand DJI pilots with an average of 87 dollars left on their care refresh policies, who, by the way, still have functioning drones making them ineligible to join the suit?

 

[moldorf]

Exiting the US would not protect a company from being sued. It's a lot harder to do, but the legal framework is in place.

so you're a DJI drone owner. You've got 87 dollars worth of a care refresh policy left and your drone crashes in the ocean. The company you have the policy with can't get replacements through customs, and by the end of the year will likely be banned anyway. That company is in China and has almost no assets in the USA. And your recourse for that 87 dollar balance is small claims court which has no authority in China.

or, making it larger in civil court consider a class action suit. OK, a class of who exactly? Anybody who has Care Refresh time left but still has a functioning drone can't join the suit. It would only be those who are trying to get replacement drones/parts and can't get them. Not because DJI is refusing but because US Customs is essentially blocking imports of drones directly from DJI as the US government goes thru the process of very likely banning DJI drone imports before the end of the year

I's not sure what people expect DJI to do. It's the US government preventing DJI from honoring their warranties.


it's like trying to squeeze blood out of a rock