“Do you want anti-theft insurance? And an additional guarantee?” The questions are repeated when purchasing a phone, technology or appliances. They promise extra protection to the user and more care. Consumer associations do not see it as ideal and warn of its high cost. It’s time to weigh the pros and cons.
The trick is to take care of cases such as breakage due to a fall or theft, among others. They offer it from large chains to the manufacturers themselves (Apple, Samsung, Huawei…). The legal guarantee already covers three years – and another extra year if a repair is made and a problem reappears for the same reason – but it is for “original or unexpected failures that are not due to negligence or wear and tear,” recalls Àlex Cànovas, lawyer at the Consumers Union of Catalonia (UCC). “A fall, getting wet, installing malicious applications or other actions caused by the consumer” would not come into play, so the extra protections would make sense from the start.
But a first brake is the cost, with monthly or annual payments. “They usually have very high amounts. You pay an enormous amount given the very small percentage of probabilities that what covers us will happen. Whoever decides to hire them should consider whether it is worth it for the great price it has,” warns Rubén Sánchez, general secretary of Facua.
For example, if the purchase of a product is financed over several years, one may end up paying the same fee as insurance or extra guarantee. On a 600 euro mobile phone, the guarantee against damage, breakage and theft is 15 euros per month, 180 per year, according to current offers in one of the main chains. For a 550 euro laptop, between insurance and extra warranty you pay 230 euros in one go (for 3 years). Manufacturers offer their own programs that are not far from these costs. Thus, after a few years one pays so much that one could have bought a new product.
Hence, the useful life of the product must be assessed. It would be more worthwhile to extend the warranty “for devices that probably have a long useful life,” believes Cànovas. “We have to see if that product will have a useful life of more than three years (exceeding general coverage). It could be viable for a refrigerator or TV, but in principle not for a mobile phone. And regarding thefts and breakages, we must assess whether it is an object susceptible to them.”
Another factor to take into account is that in home insurance, if you have it, these assumptions are already covered, so “we would be paying for two insurance policies.” If in doubt, it is recommended to review the policy and contact the company. Then, compare coverage and see if you are interested in a new one or not. “It is advisable to study the market well and hire what best suits your needs, not just be guided by the price,” they advise from the Asufin association.
Nor should we get carried away and say a quick “yes” in the store if they ask us. It is better to review the conditions and hire later. “Doing it hot is usually a bad idea. If we feel that we have to sign at the moment, it is a bad sign that suggests that they do not want us to read the conditions,” says Cànovas.
Reading carefully can discover surprises that you don’t like. Like replacing a terminal with a reconditioned one, not a new one, in case of breakage. At Facua they denounce that “it is a sector where there is a high rate of non-compliance, irregularities and fraudulent practices when bidding.” Some highlight points such as “battery replacements”, something that would already fall under the three-year legal warranty if they have failed on their own. They must also guarantee spare parts for ten years. At the OCU they highlight that “any insurance offered by the seller must be to improve that legal guarantee.”
Not jumping in, comparing, avoiding duplicate payments and evaluating coverage and assumptions are essential, then, before saying “yes”.
