Retailer denies memory replacement due to 4x increase in DDR5 pricing

2026-03-1312:352620www.tomshardware.com

The RAM crisis is unfair for everyone, but some situations absolutely beggar belief.

The ongoing RAM chip crisis is bulldozing everything in its path, and both retailers and memory kit manufacturers are feeling the sting whenever they need to replace a kit under warranty. But some stores can be particularly vicious about this, as Australian buyer Goran says they discovered when they returned a faulty Corsair 32 GB DDR5-5600 kit to Umart — one of the nation's largest specialist PC hardware retailers — for a warranty claim.

In a story covered closely by the Hardware Unboxed channel, the store took his faulty DIMMs (bought in 2024) and confirmed the failure with a PassMark test, but then told Goran that he would not be receiving a replacement kit. Instead, it offered a refund for the original price of 155 AUD — a mere pittance, considering comparable kits now command between 500 and 600 AUD, or a 3.5x to 4x increase.

Despite currently having many similar kits in stock, the store told Goran that a replacement would be an "upgrade." Had Goran taken the offer, he'd have had to dole out another 400 AUD or more for a similar set.

Naturally, he refused the offer and brought up Australian consumer law, which is quite similar to the European one for these matters. In a simplified form, retailers are responsible for warranty claims and must replace or refund the defective item; then they take the issue to the manufacturer. When confronted by Goran, Umart went to the trouble of quoting the Australian Consumer Law but made a seemingly byzantine and twisted interpretation of it, reiterating that a refund at the original price was the proper remedy.

Savvy PC builders are probably thinking right now that at this point Goran could just save himself the trouble and head straight to Corsair's RMA page, as his set carries the usual manufacturer's limited lifetime warranty. That's when this story gets really interesting, as Umart displayed some serious chutzpa by effectively taking the DIMMs hostage.

The store said it couldn't send the RAM back as it had been "forwarded to the authorized supplier," who "issued a credit in place of replacement stock." So, not only could Goran no longer ask Corsair for a direct RMA, but Umart may have gotten a refund at today's pricing and pocketed the difference. Even still, Goran soldiered on and sent all the information to Corsair support, which promptly went on radio silence for three weeks. That's when Hardware Unboxed stepped in to help clear up the situation, even offering to lend Goran one of their memory kits in the meantime.

Corsair did end up replying to the channel stating that it was handling Goran's case — though the host naturally raised the question of whether the company had done because of the well-known influencer privilege. For its part, Umart essentially reiterated its existing position with a noncommittal statement posted as a comment to the Hardware Unboxed video. That did not sit well with people, and the channel replied back saying it now has collected more similar stories with Umart's warranty services — it's safe to say this story is probably not over.

Google Preferred Source

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Article continues below

Read the original article

Comments

  • By Cpoll 2026-03-1315:261 reply

    > When confronted by Goran, Umart went to the trouble of quoting the Australian Consumer Law but made a seemingly byzantine and twisted interpretation of it, reiterating that a refund at the original price was the proper remedy.

    Have I been living in a country with weak consumer protection for too long? I can't see refunding the product as byzantine, and I've never heard of anyone getting a refund at the new price.

    • By hogwasher 2026-03-1318:53

      Some electronics insurance providers will do that in the U.S. I'd say that kind of refund isn't typical otherwise.

      But if the RAM was sold with Umart's promise to replace it (or the local laws' requirement that they replace it) if it prooved faulty within such and such a time period, then they owe the buyer a replacement.

      If they don't want to provide an actual replacement, anything less than giving the buyer a full present-day replacement's worth of money, or a genuinely equivalent or better product, is breaking their own guarantee and/or the local law (I don't know Australian law).

      They can't just say "actually it's more expensive now and we don't want to honor our replacement guarantee anymore, so we'll only give you a quarter of a replacement's worth of money instead". That's absurd.

      They just want to shove their own bad luck/the consequences of the RAM shortage off on their customers in any way they can, whenever they think they can get away with it.

  • By rahimnathwani 2026-03-1316:33

    It seems like Australian law gives the consumer the choice of refund or replacement, i.e. the store can't refuse to replace: https://www.accc.gov.au/business/problem-with-a-product-or-s...

  • By theowaway213456 2026-03-1314:099 reply

    Here's a (flawed) thought experiment: imagine that 100% of customers' RAM suddenly goes faulty at the same time, and RAM prices have suddenly skyrocketed to infinity at the same time.

    Which outcome is ideal? Which one is morally correct?

    (A) the retailer refunds every customer, loses all of their profits and probably goes bankrupt

    (B) the retailer is forced to go into massive debt in order to replace everyone's RAM, and may not recover from the debt, and may face legal consequences if they can't replace the RAM

    (C) in the first place, the retailer should have been required to have a backup RAM stick for everyone that purchases the RAM, so that they are able to issue replacements if necessary, plus extra in case the replacements themselves are faulty. As a result, RAM prices before this incident were well over 2X the real manufacturing cost, in order to cover this "backup" cost (manufacturing, storage, etc.)

    (D) something else?

    (This is a much more extreme version of what actually happened, but maybe instructive to think about)

    • By addaon 2026-03-1315:25

      As discussed elsewhere, the law says (a) or (b). Both of which lead to a bankrupt company, and maximum possible recovery for customers. Which seems like the best possible outcome for dealing with a company that sells 100% faulty product, no?

    • By magicalhippo 2026-03-1314:49

      > (D) something else?

      In Norway, the seller could legally claim the repair would be unreasonably expensive[1], comparing the price of the thing when sold to the price of the repair or a new equivalent item. They would then only have to refund the price of the product as sold minus a reasonable amount for the time you had it while it worked.

      [1]: https://lovdata.no/lov/2002-06-21-34/§29

      [2]: https://www.forbrukerradet.no/cause-for-complaint/

    • By smnrchrds 2026-03-1314:183 reply

      According to the article, the law says B. If that makes for bad law, it's up to the legislature to change it, not up to the retailer to unilaterally decide to stop following the law.

      • By nerdsniper 2026-03-1314:231 reply

        Top poster is asking what we think the law should be, not what the law is.

        • By theowaway213456 2026-03-1314:26

          Yeah, that's the intent. It's why I listed several options

      • By wzdd 2026-03-1314:521 reply

        Actually, the article says the law says A or B. From the article:

        > In a simplified form, retailers are responsible for warranty claims and must replace or refund the defective item

        The choice is at the retailer’s discretion and the refund is obviously of the purchase price.

        This is a non story. The retailer is acting lawfully. The only curiosity is that normally it is in a retailer’s best interests to replace goods, but in these circumstances they are better off refunding them.

    • By hananova 2026-03-1314:451 reply

      The law is, and should be, B. Retailers that wish to avoid future hardship can prepare by pre-stocking some replacement parts like in C, but I don’t think laws should protect retailers from their poor financial choices. The law should strictly, and extremely, protect the consumer.

      • By john01dav 2026-03-1315:20

        There is a lot of merit to this view, but there is also a major problem: rules like this make it substantially harder to start a new business due to increasing overhead and complexity, which is bad for everyone long term. Such comparatively more complex and burdensome regulation is why so many (but not all) startups go to America or Israel instead of Europe.

        To address this I prefer ultra low friction and ultra low cost regulations over complex and performative schemes. For example, GDPR requires the appointment of a "data protection officer" in some cases, which is mostly just an extra fee for small companies. Instead, it should only regulate the rights (such as to be forgotton, etc.). Appointing such an officer is mostly performative.

    • By dmajor2 2026-03-1314:421 reply

      I don't see anywhere where the manufacturer or retailer/distributor is required to perform one of the actions based on what the customer wishes of returning or replacing the item.

      I also fail to see where anyone would expect the current purchase price to be refunded to them instead of the original paid purchase price.

      If the regulations require making the customer whole, then I could see an argument for current fair market value, or even just giving nominal interest on the purchase price.

      If in your thought experiment, the retailers had a potential risk (requiring fair market value returns/replacement), and they failed to insure themselves from that risk, then they indeed deserve to be forced out of business.

      • By nyeah 2026-03-1315:47

        So possibly the warranty may say "replace or refund at supplier's option." In that case, it's clear. But if we don't know what the "fine print" says, then I don't see how we can figure out who was wrong or right.

    • By lsaferite 2026-03-1314:46

      In this specific situation I would say that if the part is under manufacturer warranty, then the retailer should either offer a refund at the price paid or assistance for the customer in getting the manufacturer warranty replacement. Expecting the retailer to replace the faulty unit when the *wholesale* price has changed dramatically is.. unfair. I'm sure many people would scream "cost of business" and perhaps they are right. But, if the retailer is making a good faith effort to resolve the issue in a manner that keeps the customer "whole", that should be the metric for both "legal" and "moral".

    • By whatevaa 2026-03-1317:18

      In this case it would have been best to allow customer to get his product back not-replaced/not-repaired so he could seek other options, like repair. It is likely that only one of the sticks was bad, and a single good stick is worth 2x refund price. Buying a single not matching stick would have been better than this.

    • By hahn-kev 2026-03-1320:05

      D: give them money at the original price of the ram.

    • By Tadpole9181 2026-03-1319:04

      It's not a "flawed" thought experiment and it's certainly not "instructive", it's utter trite clearly framed to promote the idea that the retailer can do whatever they want to save money.

      This isn't what happened. It's nowhere near what happened. This will never happen. And our laws are written for the real world, not some hyperbole designed for corporate interests where any and all consumer protections are impossible because "what if the moon explodes".

HackerNews