[TheBundo]

Originally Posted by ponicg

Can someone show me where in the warranty terms Sprint would be legitimate in denying warranty coverage to someone because they installed custom software that allowed them to access the superuser on the phone, and/or gave them access to a partition that was hidden/locked by default? I fail to see the legitimization in this, nor do I see anything a judge wouldn't say "Mag-Moss, prove it" to Sprint if brought to court?

We're literally letting Sprint dictate policies that go against US law, then saying "BUT IT IS THEIR POLICY OMG U RETARD WHATS WRONG WITH YOU" instead of going "Well, gee, wait, according to the law they have to take it... Why are we letting their policy trump law?"

Can anyone enlighten me?

Mag Moss just allows non OEM stuff, but doesn't negate the requirement that they meet OEM specs in order to maintain warranty.