The NCAT outcome challenging blanket “water damage voids warranty” disclaimers
The refurbished electronics market has operated for years on an assumption that most consumers never question:
“Water damage voids warranty.”
On the surface, that sounds reasonable. Electronics and water do not mix.
But what happens when a seller markets or represents a premium device as refurbished and functional, while quietly relying on warranty exclusions that effectively remove one of the product’s core advertised capabilities?
That question was tested in NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal proceedings:
Nathan Organ v Mobile Experts Pty Limited trading as Mobile Experts
NCAT Case No. 2025/00154224
And the outcome matters far beyond one phone.
The Background
In December 2024, I purchased a refurbished Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra from a retailer in NSW.
The device was sold as:
- refurbished,
- functional,
- premium,
- and without any disclosed loss of water resistance.
The Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra is marketed by Samsung with an IP68 rating, which Samsung describes as:
“complete dust protection and temporary immersion in up to 1.5m of freshwater for up to 30 minutes.”
Not long after purchase, the device failed following extremely limited freshwater exposure consistent with ordinary use of an IP68-rated phone.
The retailer denied responsibility and relied on wording printed at the bottom of the receipt:
“Devices that have been repaired can no longer be considered water resistant or waterproof. Water damage will void warranty.”
The problem was simple:
The phone had been sold as refurbished, not explicitly as repaired and no longer water resistant.
That distinction became central.
What NCAT Found
The Tribunal found in my favour and ordered:
- return of the phone and accessory,
- and repayment of $1008.85.
More importantly, the reasoning behind the decision carries broader implications for the refurbishment and repair industry.
The Key Findings
1. “Refurbished” does not automatically mean degraded
One of the most important observations in the decision was the distinction between repaired and refurbished.
The Tribunal stated:
“A phone that has been repaired is a phone that has suffered damage, whereas a refurbished phone does not imply damage…”
That is significant.
Many businesses use the word “refurbished” to retain the marketing strength of the original product while simultaneously relying on warranty language that assumes degraded functionality.
NCAT effectively recognised that consumers do not automatically interpret “refurbished” as:
- structurally compromised,
- environmentally degraded,
- or stripped of major advertised capabilities.
2. Blanket water damage exclusions do not override Australian Consumer Law
This was the strongest statement in the decision:
“The consumer guarantees in the ACL cannot be excluded or modified by a term of a contract such as a warranty which excludes water damage.”
That cuts directly against a common industry practice:
- advertise the original device specifications,
- but later rely on broad exclusions to deny responsibility.
Under Australian Consumer Law, statutory consumer guarantees still apply regardless of what a store warranty says.
3. IP ratings create reasonable consumer expectations
The Tribunal also found:
“A reasonable consumer would expect such a phone, when sold as ‘refurbished’, to have retained its waterproof feature.”
That statement matters.
An IP rating is not decorative marketing language.
It communicates expected functionality.
If a seller materially compromises that functionality through repair or refurbishment, consumers may need to be explicitly informed before purchase.
Not after failure.
Not hidden in warranty fine print.
Why This Matters
This is not just about phones.
The same logic potentially extends to:
- smartwatches,
- rugged laptops,
- tablets,
- drones,
- industrial devices,
- and any refurbished electronics marketed using original manufacturer capabilities.
The core principle emerging is straightforward:
If refurbishment materially changes a product’s expected capabilities, that limitation likely needs to be clearly disclosed.
Businesses cannot reasonably:
- inherit the marketing advantages of premium product specifications,
while simultaneously - disclaiming responsibility for those same specifications after sale.
This Is Not Anti-Repair
Repair matters.
Refurbishment matters.
Right-to-repair matters.
As someone deeply involved in electronics diagnostics and board-level repair myself, I strongly support extending device lifespans and reducing unnecessary e-waste.
But trust matters too.
Consumers deserve clarity about:
- what has been repaired,
- what functionality may have changed,
- and whether core protections like water resistance still apply.
That is not anti-business.
That is informed consent.
The Broader Signal
This NCAT outcome is not a binding superior court precedent.
But it does demonstrate how Australian Consumer Law principles are being interpreted in practice.
And it sends a very clear signal to the refurbishment industry:
You cannot quietly downgrade a product while continuing to market it as functionally equivalent to the original device.
If a device no longer retains a major advertised capability:
- disclose it clearly,
- price it accordingly,
- and let consumers make informed decisions.
That is the standard consumers increasingly expect.
And increasingly, it appears to be the standard the law expects too.
At Norgan Technology, we won’t mislead you. We will tell you straight up what the chances are of a repair being successful and any issues that may present as a result of the repair. Message me now via the Whatsapp button below, call 02 78138999, or email sales@norgan.net
Head to the NSW Government website for more information on consumer protections https://www.nsw.gov.au/legal-and-justice/consumer-rights-and-protection/repairs-replacements-and-refunds
Samsungs Warranty page https://www.samsung.com/au/support/warranty/?srsltid=AfmBOoq9FzLgHjRZa3lLYvghh9UCQLYihRm40uGXhTuYarh4N8u1QaA7
Apples Warrnaty page https://support.apple.com/en-au/109350