Harvey Norman sued for selling ‘junk’ warranties that were a ‘waste of money’

Harvey Norman is being sued over allegations that it engaged in “deceptive and misleading” conduct in the purported sale of extended warranties that were a “waste of money.”

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers filed a class action lawsuit against the retail giant in the Supreme Court of Victoria on Thursday, alleging that the extended warranties sold to customers had “no real value”.

Warranties are still available for sale at Harvey Norman and related stores Domayne and Joyce Mayne under the name Product Care; they are often purchased for products including smartphones, computers, appliances and home entertainment products.

Maurice Blackburn says warranties do not offer consumers any protection that they are not entitled to under Australian Consumer Law.

Lead plaintiff Peter Singh alleges the Product Care warranty is a “waste of money” after purchasing it for a smartphone and security cameras.

“I was sold Product Care as an option that added extra protection, but it was an unnecessary waste of money,” Singh said.

The class action lawsuit seeks compensation for consumers who purchased Product Care from Harvey Norman, Domayne and Joyce Mayne between September 20, 2018 and September 19, 2024.

Jarrah Ekstein, director at Maurice Blackburn, said Harvey Norman had engaged in “misleading and deceptive conduct” and “failed to provide customers with important information about their rights”.

“Under Australian Consumer Law, customers are automatically entitled to a replacement or refund for faulty products if the products stop working within a reasonable period of time after purchase,” Ekstein said.

‘Harvey Norman’s extended product care warranties added nothing substantial to those protections.

‘Harvey Norman engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by forcing its customers to pay for protections they already had for free under the Australian Consumer Law.’

Lawyers for Maurice Blackburn will also allege that the extended warranties were sold illegally, claiming Harvey Norman did not have the required Australian Financial Services Licence.

Lead plaintiff Peter Singh claimed that “Product Care” warranties are “a waste of money”

“Harvey Norman, Domayne and Joyce Mayne failed to provide customers with important information about their rights under Australian Consumer Law, which they needed to make a properly informed decision about whether or not to purchase Product Care,” Ekstein said.

‘The class action will allege that if Harvey Norman customers knew that Product Care was offering solutions they already had for free under Australian Consumer Law, they would not have purchased it.

‘These customers should be compensated for having been misled and having purchased a warranty that had no real value to them.’

Harvey Norman has been contacted for comment.