I was in an AutoZone in Long Beach, California in mid-November, and spoke to the guy helping me about it.
He didn’t really know details of why, but the change was driven by a directive from their “higher authority” within the AutoZone structure:[ul]
[li]The store no longer provides code readers as “loaner” tools;[/li][li]Code reader purchases are final - no refunds. Customers must sign a form acknowledging this when buying a reader.[/li][/ul]Most relevant to this thread, he didn’t know (and didn’t seem to care) whether this was simply an AutoZone policy change or a direct legal mandate.
I completely agree with GreasyJack on this - it’s strange.
He didn’t really know details of why, but the change was driven by a directive from their “higher authority” within the AutoZone structure:[ul]
[li]The store no longer provides code readers as “loaner” tools;[/li][li]Code reader purchases are final - no refunds. Customers must sign a form acknowledging this when buying a reader.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
I’d guess that the second item is just a reaction to the expected consequences of the first. If actual loaners are not available, customers will use the return policy to achieve the same thing (at the expense of AutoZone, since they now have an item they can’t sell as new).
Radio Shack had tube testers in their stores in the 50’s,60’s, and 70’s. There was never a problem. They didn’t get sued because the new tube didn’t fix the tv.
Auto repair facilities in California have to be licensed as such. Performing auto repair service – which can include testing, evaluation, and advice – as a business without said license is a good way to get your tit in a wringer. California’s BAR (Bureau of Automotive Repair) tends to be tough on shops to the point of being overzealous in protecting customers’ interests. It wouldn’t surprise me if parts stores got stung with hefty fines from BAR due to disgruntled customers and decided it wasn’t worth the hassle.
WAG but, an auto repair shop association may have threatened or won a case for infringement on there ability to sell the service.
There was a successful case brought against Detroit Edison a number of years ago where a group of retailers sued to stop DE from providing free light bulbs, as it infringed on there ability to profit from light bulb sales.