When Systems Authenticate — But Service Centres Deny
In May 2025, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda delivered a significant ruling concerning warranty enforcement, authenticity disputes, and burden of proof in consumer law.
The dispute arose after a consumer:
Purchased Apple AirPods Pro 2
Successfully paired them with an iPhone
Obtained AppleCare+ extended coverage for the specific serial number
When a defect emerged, the authorized service centre refused repair, labeling the product as “non-genuine.”
This contradiction formed the core legal issue.
The Legal Question
If a company’s ecosystem validates a serial number and issues extended warranty coverage for that product:
Can the same company later deny authenticity without producing technical proof?
The Commission answered this by focusing on evidentiary responsibility.
What the Commission Observed
The key findings were:
AppleCare+ coverage was issued for the referenced serial number.
The service centre alleged the product was “in-genuine.”
No investigation report or VMI technical documentation was produced before the Commission.
Denial of service without substantiation amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The Commission directed repair under warranty and imposed compensation.
Why This Case Is Structurally Important
This is not merely a product dispute. It raises systemic issues in technology commerce:
Verification Responsibility – What internal validation occurs before warranty is sold?
Burden of Proof – Once coverage is issued, who must prove authenticity?
Consumer Trust vs Operational Accountability – Can automation replace due diligence?
In consumer jurisprudence, once consideration is accepted and coverage is granted, legal obligation crystallizes.
Warranty cannot become discretionary post-payment.
Lexi’s Legal Insight: The Burden Shift Doctrine in Warranty Disputes
At Lexi, we analyze consumer-tech disputes through evidentiary structures.
This case reflects an important doctrine:
When a company issues contractual coverage for a specific product identifier, the evidentiary burden shifts to the company if it later alleges non-genuineness.
In digital ecosystems, companies rely on:
Automated serial number validation
Device registration systems
Integrated warranty databases
If these systems approve coverage, denial later must be backed by documented forensic or technical proof.
Otherwise, refusal can qualify as:
Deficiency in service
Unfair trade practice
Contractual breach
This ruling reinforces that technological sophistication does not dilute legal accountability.
Corporate Governance Implications
For technology companies operating in India:
Warranty issuance must align with internal authenticity protocols.
Service centres must document technical grounds before denial.
Investigation reports must exist and be producible before consumer forums.
Extended coverage monetization cannot be detached from backend verification systems.
Companies must audit the interface between:
Digital authentication → Warranty issuance → Service centre action → Legal defensibility
Failure in this chain creates legal exposure.
A Broader Consumer Protection Signal
Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 empowers consumers to challenge service denial where contractual coverage exists.
This case reinforces a foundational principle:
If you accept payment for protection, you must honour that protection — unless you can prove otherwise.
Automation does not eliminate accountability.
Corporate systems cannot contradict corporate obligations.
How Lexi Supports Consumers and Businesses
At Lexi, we build AI-driven legal systems that:
Analyze consumer disputes structurally
Identify burden-shifting vulnerabilities
Draft enforceable legal notices
Assess litigation probability
Map corporate liability exposure
Technology must simplify justice — not complicate it.