When you purchased your watch, along with the warranty was there a disclosure?
A disclosure telling you that periodic service or any repair needed for the proper working of your watch can only be performed by that brand Service Center(s).
That Service Center(s) reserve the right to decide for you what your watch needs and how much that Service/Repair will be. An estimate will be given to you with your choice to pay or pick-up your watch as is? No, no such disclosure was given to you; however you will be subjected to the described policies.
Companies by restricting the sale of the necessary replacement parts needed for the proper service/repair of your watch successfully monopolized the Service/Repair of their watches. Depending of the brand you purchased, you may not really own your watch. You are now at the mercy of that company and they didn’t even have the courtesy to let you know that!!
I attempted to have this monopolistic practice and abuses of the consumers ruled illegal in the Supreme Court of San Francisco to no avail. See Fleury V. Cartier case.
Don’t be a victim, fight back here’s how:
However the Federal Trade Commission heard my plea and wants to hear from you to correct this unlawful practice.
Let them know this is unacceptable: when you purchase a watch, as of any other product, you only should decide for its needs and who should take care of the servicing/repair.
Send your complaint to:
Federal Trade Commission
Consumer Response Center
600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20580.
Ref. No. 27462283
More information about our government enforcing our laws:
At Andre Fleury we believe in what’s right and keep fighting to protect the consumers and the watchmaker’s interest. Visit this site: www.andre-fleury.com
AWCI aka American Watchmakers Clockmakers Institute friend or foe?
Watchmakers regardless of their education as watchmaker can’t work without the parts necessary for the proper servicing/repair of watches. In the case Fleury V. Cartier, a case to enforce the anti-competitive laws and parts availability to independent watchmakers, AWCI intervene in the case falsely claiming to represent 3,000 members and settled the case in favor of defendant Cartier anti-competitive actions and parts restriction. This has increased the number of watch companies indulging in parts restriction from approximately 13 to over 50 today. Even though the Sherman Act prohibit any company to become the sole provider of a service, AWCI is greatly helping the industry to achieve that goal with complete disregards for the wellfare of their members or the independent watchmakers at large.
AWCI betrayed their members and the independent watchmakers at large.