JB Hi-Fi Faces Class Action Over Extended Warranties
Eight million Australians may be eligible for compensation as a landmark trial begins over claims JB Hi-Fi sold extended warranties that offered little value beyond existing consumer law protections.
JB Hi-Fi is facing a landmark legal challenge in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with accusations that the electronics retailer misled customers into purchasing extended warranties that provided minimal benefits beyond those already guaranteed by Australian Consumer Law. The class action, brought forth by Maurice Blackburn, alleges that eight million Australians could be eligible for compensation.
The lawsuit centers on JB Hi-Fi's 'Extended Care' and 'Extra Care' branded warranties, which the company is accused of selling for products such as televisions, refrigerators, laptops, and mobile phones. According to the claim, these warranties offered little to no additional protection because consumers already possessed rights to repairs, replacements, or refunds for faulty goods under Australian Consumer Law without incurring extra costs.
JB Hi-Fi is actively defending the case, denying allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct and asserting that its extended warranties provide genuine value. The retailer maintains that these policies offer benefits beyond statutory rights.
The trial commenced on Monday in Victoria's Supreme Court and is being livestreamed. The initial phase of the trial will focus on the claims of lead plaintiff Jeremy Clarke, who purchased an LG fridge and an extended warranty in 2020. The court is expected to hear evidence over six weeks.
Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Miranda Nagy stated that the class action seeks refunds for consumers who purchased these extended warranties between January 1, 2011, and December 8, 2023. "These warranties are in most cases little more than a junk add-on to consumers' purchase of the household goods they actually want," Nagy said. "JB's extended warranties expire just 3-6 years after purchase, but they add substantially to the cost. Our case alleges they added nothing meaningful to the strong rights for repair, replacement or refund under the Australian Consumer Law rights that consumers already enjoy."