Status Update on Overbridge [posted February 2018]

Yes, this is another version of what I’ve been saying.

Also - Overbridge is a different product (in a way which would be much more clear cut if they had retained their plan to charge for it).

Pretty sure Elektron promised customers OB was going to be released before the end of last year.
I’ll have that toblerone now thanks :joy:

2 Likes

The last time I tried sending a Toblerone in the post it mysteriously disappeared in transit, perhaps during a customs check.

Okay. And now find me evidence that:

  1. Elektron were lying about the release date
    or
  2. A release date promoted in good faith and missed for legitimate product development reasons meets your country’s legal definition of ‘false advertising’

And claim your prize!

1 Like

Mate just give me the bloody chocolate

9 Likes

I should be clear here: this is a wager, not a prize. A commitment needs to be made up front, if the user doesn’t then successfully find rules or caselaw that prove their point they owe me a Toblerone.

1 Like

Elektron should buy everyone who bought an “Overbridge Enabled” device minus said Overbridge a King Size Toblerone… :sunglasses:

1 Like

on reflection, forget about Overbridge - I think it’s disgusting that Elektron haven’t sent me a toblerone yet.

2 Likes

Here you go restlessboy…

https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/misleading-advertising.html

Note the language. They aren’t talking about “lying”, which is a binary concept, or good faith, which is not strongly established in UK law from what I can tell courtesy of Google. A lot of what they say is about ensuring marketeers consider the impact of their statements on customers and if not done with care and diligence they could be found in breach of the code.

In my email to the Swedish body I never used the terms “Lying” or “False Advertising” only the statement that customers feel they have been misled. My interpretation of the ASA’s standards would be that Elektron absolutely have a case to answer in the UK.

1 Like

Okay, so first thing to note from that page (my emphasis):

Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.

So those aren’t rules, and there are only a few bits of caselaw in there.

But in the spirit of wholesome discussion, which of those seven pieces of advice are you saying Elektron have not followed?

Could all please stop this extremely unmotivating thread, start making music with u r digitakt in stead, and keep ur law knowledge, for things that actually have an impact on the world.GIve Elektropn the time they need, it ll come

1 Like

I’d say 1, 2 and maybe 5.

  1. “Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so". It’s a coin toss as to whether “Overbridge enabled” is materially misleading (I think we all know your position on that), but given my own experience and that of others I would say it was likely to mislead. In fact I would say it was guaranteed to mislead.

  2. “Don’t omit material information”. I would suggest that the marketing materials omitted any clear statement on the fact that OB was still in development. If they had done, potential buyers may not have proceeded with the purchase.

  3. “Don’t exaggerate”. I wonder if the claim “Overbridge enabled” could be considered an exaggeration given that nobody can actually use it. Probably not, but others can give their views on that.

2 Likes

I’d suggest all three are applicable.

  1. Misleading claim
  2. Information was omitted
  3. The integration was ‘hyped’ which in my view at least is exaggeration by another name
1 Like

Is that because they’re from Sweden rather than Switzerland?

please be specific, do you mean one of those great big toblerones that you get at the airport,
usually on a three for two deal?

Yes, it will be a large airport style Toblerone.


:joy:

1 Like

Hey why do you think there is judge, judgement and justice?? Because nothing is black or white, and such case are studied and judged by allowed and competent people in court. We are not in court, your not judge…

We have a number of legal concepts and routes to recourse that protect consumers here in UK. Notwithstanding the points made on advertising codes, consumer redress on products sold at retail is usually in the first instance against the retailer and depends on the claims made by the retailer at the time of sale. See https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act .

Most retailers I saw here copied and pasted info from Elektron that talked up the integration capabilities, leaving them (as retailers) in the uncomfortable position of potentially having made false claims about a product at the time of sale.

Good luck proving that though - they have probably updated their info since we bought!

Quite apart from any attempt to claim against my retailer, the loss to elektron going forward is that I won’t be buying anything from them that increases my exposure to their OS bugs and software delivery timescales.

I gotta say I like the Digitakt but I do feel a little burned at this point in time. I won’t be returning it (I still have uses for it), but the functionality that led me to choose it is still missing. Lesson learned.

1 Like

I honestly think this hinges on the fact that Overbridge is the product in question, and that isn’t what the retailers are selling. It is a separate product. You may have bought a DT in anticipation of OB, but OB isn’t what you bought. It may be pedantic but when it gets into legal land, pedantry is what wins.

So all other considerations about fairness and good practice aside, the retailers are covered.

Interestingly though, Elektron are still advertising OB as available in February on their site which is probably an unwise oversight.