Now, national plaintiff firm Maurice Blackburn has also brought proceedings against the retail giant, alleging it sold extended warranties that had no real value to its customers.

The extended warranties, called “Product Care”, were sold by Harvey Norman and its related stores Domayne and Joyce Mayne, Maurice Blackburn detailed in a statement, “and are still being pushed onto consumers today” when they buy goods such as smartphones, computers, home appliances and home entertainment products, the firm said.

Consumers who bought Product Care during the same period as Echo Law’s coverage dates are eligible.

While Echo Law’s proceedings have been filed in Federal Court, Maurice Blackburn has lodged its class action with the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Speaking about the proceedings, Maurice Blackburn principal Jarrah Ekstein said: “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.

“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. We also allege that Product Care was sold illegally as Harvey Norman did not hold the required Australian Financial Services Licence to offer financial products.

VIEW ALL

“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,” Ekstein outlined.

Maurice Blackburn’s class action will allege, she continued, 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 [that] had no real value to them,” she said.

Lead plaintiff Peter Singh added that he was duped into buying Product Care to cover a smartphone and some security cameras he purchased from the retailer.

“Product Care was sold to me as adding extra protections. But it was just a waste of money,” he said.