Err0xx
 lvl.2
United States
Offline
|
No grounds? OSMO is exclusively for x3, period?
The Osmo features page seems to disagree with you. If this isn't a blatant example of false advertising, I don't know what is. Check the bottom of Osmo "features" page for yourself- it clearly specifies the x5 as being compatible. Doesn't say "will be compatible" or "might be compatible", it says it "IS compatible", and it's not.
Go here: http://store.dji.com/product/osmo and look between the "remote control" and "accessorize" heading when you scroll down. The heading "perfect vision" specifically calls out the x5 as compatible. I think grounds for a "purchase induced by false or misleading claims" case is clearly established. I've seen false advertising suits won with less.
All you have to do is show that 1) the Osmo was bought for use with the x5, which was believed by the consumer to be compatible with the Osmo at the time of purchase, 2) the x5 is critical to the use of the Osmo for the intended purpose of buying the Osmo, 3) the fact that the x5 isn't compatible frustrates the use of the Osmo for the buyer, 4) were it known that the x5 wouldn't work with the Osmo then the Osmo wouldn't have been purchased, and 5) any good faith attempts to return purchased gear that had its usability frustrated by false claims have been ignored or denied by the selling company, DJI.
Individually, court costs and time would likely be much more than the value of the equipment you're seeking a refund for (court costs often granted to winner but that's a big gamble on actually winning), however, a class action with many users could rectify this. The problem is is that court proceedings move VERY slowly (multiple years for a case like this) and if an adapter was released to allow x5 functionality while the case was pending, you'd likely face dismissal unless you could prove a substantial loss/no longer a need for the hardware due specifically to the delay.
So in summary I think there's a case here against DJI; however, I don't think you'd start and conclude a case before an adapter is released that allows compatibility and you'd have a hard time getting to punitive damages against DJI for a false advertising claim on a camera. Further, court is both prohibitive in time and costs to a consumer, given the small amount the consumer stands to gain by being successful. DJI knows this, they have legal teams, and as such there's nothing you can really threaten them with to make them work with you. Technically there is a claim here (on multiple levels, I just briefly touched the one in question) but the gain from such claims is very small compared the difficulty, costs, and time associated with this kind of litigation. So I'd just sit tight and hope it comes eventually.
|
|
Second Officer
lvl.1
DJI team
lvl.3
lvl.4