‘Waste of money’: Harvey Norman to face class action lawsuit over allegations it sold ‘junk’ extended warranties

Harvey Norman is being sued over allegations it engaged in “misleading and deceptive” conduct over the alleged selling of extended warranties which were a “waste of money”. Maurice Blackburn Lawyers lodged a class action against the retail giant in the Supreme Court of Victoria on Thursday, claiming extended warranties sold to customers had “no real value”. The warranties are still available for sale at Harvey Norman and related stores Domayne and Joyce Mayne under the name Product Care – often bought for products including smart phones, computers, home appliances and home entertainment products. Maurice Blackburn claims the warranties don’t offer consumers any form of protection they aren’t already entitled to under Australian Consumer Law. Lead plaintiff Peter Singh alleges the Product Care warranty is a “waste of money” after he purchased it for a smartphone and security cameras. “Product Care was sold to me as adding extra protections. But it was just a waste of money,” Mr Singh said. The class action is seeking compensation for consumers who bought Product Care from Harvey Norman, Domayne and Joyce Mayne between September 20, 2018 and September 19, 2024. Maurice Blackburn principal Jarrah Ekstein claimed Harvey Norman has engaged in “misleading and deceptive conduct” and “failed to give customers important information about their rights”. “Under the Australian Consumer Law, customers automatically have the right to a replacement or refund for faulty goods if the goods stop working within a reasonable time frame after purchase,” Ms Ekstein said. “Harvey Norman’s Product Care extended warranties added nothing substantial to those protections. “Harvey Norman engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by getting their customers to pay for protections which they already have for free under the Australian Consumer Law.” Maurice Blackburn Lawyers will also allege the extended warranties were sold illegally – claiming Harvey Norman didn’t hold the required Australian Financial Services License. “Harvey Norman, Domayne and Joyce Mayne failed to give customers important information about their rights under the Australian Consumer Law, which they needed to make a properly informed decision about whether to buy Product Care,” Ms Ekstein said. “The class action will allege that if Harvey Norman’s customers knew that Product Care was offering remedies that they already had for free under the Australian Consumer Law, they would not have bought it. “Those customers should be compensated for being misled into buying a warranty which had no real value to them.” Harvey Norman has been contacted for comment.