Microsoft is charging Surface Pro 3 customers to fix defective Simplo batteries

[Karlston]

If you have a Simplo (not LGC) battery, you may be asked to spend $500 or more to fix Microsoft's problem

An ongoing problem with a specific kind of Surface Pro 3 battery has customers up in arms. So far, Microsoft hasn't even acknowledged the problem. But what appears to be a defective battery -- the Simplo battery, as opposed to the LGC battery -- has driven some folks to spend $500 or more to fix something that isn't their fault.

 

On May 11, Kridsada Thanabulpong posted a detailed complaint on the Microsoft Answers forum:

I've been using Microsoft Surface Pro 3 for a year, and shortly after the warranty expired I noticed my Surface Pro 3 can only last about 1-2 hours after a full charge… Talk with Microsoft via chat support and they insist this was a software problem and reinstalled the driver and asked me to wait few days to see if things improve. Not only it didn't improved, but now my Surface can only last 30 minutes.

Microsoft's response was less than helpful. Kridsada finally concluded:

Thank you for your suggestion to talk to Assisted Support. Unfortunately, their suggestion even after all this is to do the out of warranty exchange ($560 in my local currency) which is just sad. I loved the machine the moment I tried it in the store, and paperweight-when-not-plugged-in definitely wasn't what I expected it to be in a year after purchase.

Now he has to plug in his Surface Pro 3 or it won't even start. Nudge the power cord, and the tablet shuts down.

 

There are many additional complaints on that Answers thread: this one, this, this, this, and several others. Microsoft MVP Ian Dixon has picked up the problem on his TheDigitalLifestyle blog.

 

Microsoft's response is effectively: "Tough luck, you're out of warranty and it's going to cost you $500 to replace the battery."

 

This isn't the same battery life complaint many people had with the Surface Pro 3, and it isn't linked to faulty sleep states. It appears to be specific to the Simplo brand battery that shipped with some Surface Pro 3s. The LGC battery in other Surface Pro 3s does not exhibit the same problem.

 

It's time for Microsoft to own up to its problems -- admit that it shipped faulty batteries and offer to fix the problem free -- before a consumer-friendly Attorney General steps in. Those who were coerced into paying $500 or $600 to fix the battery should see what recourse they have in the courts.

 

Source: Microsoft is charging Surface Pro 3 customers to fix defective Simplo batteries (InfoWorld - Woody Leonhard)

 

InfoWorld - Woody on Windows

 

AskWoody.com - Woody Leonhard's no-bull news, tips and help for Windows and Office

[SnakeMasteR]

Now you know why Windows Phones are still on the market.

[Karlston]

An update from Woody...

If you have a Surface Pro 3 with a defective battery and are tired of Microsoft's dithering, there's an additional option

On July 18, I wrote about problems Microsoft has faced with bad Simplo batteries in Surface Pro 3 PCs. Based on a post in the Microsoft Answers forum by Charles McKay on March 16, 2016, and another post in the Microsoft Answers forum by Kridsada Thanabulpong, dated May 11, it was clear that that many Surface Pro 3 PCs had Simplo batteries that were failing.

 

Worse, Microsoft was doing nothing to ameliorate the problem, telling customers who were just a few months out of warranty that they would have to spend $500 or more to get their PCs fixed.

 

Since that time, the technical press picked up the story, and Microsoft went through a couple of denials/clarifications. On July 26, I was told through official channels:

We are aware of some customers reporting a scenario with their Surface Pro 3 batteries in which the system is reporting lower battery capacity than expected. This is a top priority for our team, and we are working quickly to understand the root cause. If you are experiencing this scenario, please contact Microsoft customer support.

After which I received several additional reports that customers who contacted MS customer support were getting charged $99 for the support call. Apparently the tech support team hadn't gotten the memo. I protested, again through official channels, and received this reply on July 27:

We've isolated this to a limited number of customers experiencing this issue. We believe this is something that can be addressed via software and are working through the details of how we deliver that.... Customer support now has the guidance to waive the fee so any customers calling in should specifically reference batteries in which the system is reporting lower battery capacity than expected. Hope that clears up the issue with support. We've recently had this issue presented to us so we are responding as soon as we can.

I'll ignore for the moment that this issue was presented to Microsoft on March 16, in the Answers forum, and it took four and a half months to get any sort of response. I'll also step lightly over the assertion that this only happens to a limited number of customers -- from what I've seen, just about anybody with a well-used Surface Pro 3 that contains a Simplo battery will see it die before its time.

 

What concerns me most, technically, is the assertion that the battery drainage is caused by a bad driver. While that's theoretically possible, of course, it doesn't quite match up with the reports I've seen. The last firmware/driver update was on July 21, and the release notes don't talk about the dock. There was an earlier firmware update on April 19, but the notes only talk about the dock, not the battery. Prior to that, the last firmware update was on January 19, 2016. I've seen exactly zero improvement in failure rate. Quite the contrary. If the problem's in the driver, Microsoft's had four months to fix it, and we've received exactly diddly.

 

Even if it is a software problem, well, it's Microsoft's software, eh?

 

Now I note that a law firm called Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, based in Washington DC, has picked up the problem. As they see it:

Almost every state (and the District of Columbia) has a consumer protection statute that broadly prohibits unfair and deceptive trade practices. If the reports about the Surface Pro 3 batteries prove true, our law firm believes that the sale of the laptops with the defect may have constituted an unfair and deceptive trade practice that may entitle a purchaser to relief.

M&R says it has experience with similar class actions:

The attorneys at Migliaccio & Rathod LLP have successfully prosecuted several consumer protection class action cases, including a case against Lenovo involving defective laptops, which resulted in a classwide settlement.

Agam Shah, writing in ComputerWorld, describes the settlement:

Lenovo will refund $100 or issue a $250 voucher to owners of the IdeaPad U310 and U410 laptops to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging design defects in the computers.

The settlement report (PDF) for the class action does not include reference to M&R, or its partners.

 

If you have a problematic Simplo-powered Surface Pro 3 and you're interested in pursuing your options, you are invited to contact [email protected] or [email protected] for a free consultation.

 

UPDATE: Nick Migliaccio of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP advises that he and his partner both worked on the Lenovo case. He's listed as Class Counsel in the formal Settlement Agreement (PDF).

 

Source: Microsoft Surface Pro 3's defective Simplo batteries trigger a class action probe (InfoWorld - Woody Leonhard)

 

InfoWorld - Woody on Windows

 

AskWoody.com - Woody Leonhard's no-bull news, tips and help for Windows and Office