Norton's Antivirus Rip Off

So....you are saying that even though I paid for 1 year they only have to provide 61 days of service just because of their return policy?

So....they steal money from me without fulfilling their end of the deal?

No. I don't like it when companies hide behind fine print delibrately. We all understand the agreements but it is wrong to take money from people agreeing to provide a certain service and then not doing it. It is fraud.

This is ALWAYS the out for fraudulent companies. It is ALWAYS the out for the computer related industry in general.

If it was a lemon automobile and they promised a 1 year warranty and gave 61 days heads would roll. But, it's only my $27.00 so who cares? But the money is no longer an issue. Bringing attention to the problem is now the issue.

What I'm saying is their warranty policy is clearly spelled out; if it wasn't you'd have a reason to gripe. I don't deny there's a problem, but I gotta say its not the vendor's problem.

Why is this NOT the vendor's problem? Please explain.

Even THEY admitted it was their problem.

Now, don't get me wrong here, I sympathyze with you, but seems to me Norton/Symantec has held up their end to within, mebbe even a littkle beyond, their contractual obligation with you. Lemme ask you this; why did it take you 61 days to determine the app was not performing to your satisfaction?

Another point here - I have and use Norton/Symantec products myself, and many of my clients do too. Something that occurs to me is that Norton/Symantec is pretty good about announcing the need to upgrade products as they approach the end of their active support life. You may have missed it, but I'm sure you received an email, and perhaps even a notice during an update cycle, that to ensure continued support, you should upgrade your product to a newer version - at a discount. I just went back through my email archives, and I find Norton/Symantec product upgrade advisories going all the way back to '98.

OK. I am pretty anal about running LiveUpdate almost every time on on the computer in addition to the normal automatic update it performs. The day I ran LiveUpdate and it said my antivirus was expired was the 61st day. I did not receive any notifications regarding it's expiration. I know this is weird. I usually have received some kind of notice that says the subscription will expire in so many days. This is why I am thinking it is intentional. I received nothing until the 61st day. I know this is a problem on their end, they know it too. They just can't fix it.

I do not believe they held up their end at all. How can you say that when I paid for one year and received 61? I just don't understand that.

I understand what you're saying, and I don't argue there's at least a conceptual ethical obligation on the part of Symantec/Norton that may be left wanting, but on the other hand, I have an email from early 2005 telling me my NAV 2003 was approaching the end of its active support life, and suggesting I upgrade - at a discount - to the then-current NAV 2005 - which I did.


Looking back through my Norton/Symantec stuff, a 2-year active support life seems typical of their product, BTW.

I disagree with Timber, and believe cleaburn has a valid complaint, unrelated to the warranty provided in the EULA. As I understand it, the complaint is he/she paid for 12 months and only got 2 months worth of service. That is not covered by the 60 day limited warranty, which warrants the media will operate as intended. Cleaburn's complaint is not a breach of warranty, but a breach of the contract entered he entered into with Symantec when they accepted his money. It's not an ethical obligation, its a contactual obligation.

If cleaburn paid for 12 months, he is entitled to 12 months service. Symantec ought to be able to rectify the problem.

Tico beat me to it. I agree. Cleaburn should have the proof of purchase and Symantec should have the proof of activation from the registration. Should not be a big problem.

You know, I didn't come here to get support or anything. I just wanted to find out if someone knew how to fix it or if it was a common occurence.

I really appreciate the opinions. I really appreciate the assistance, help and advice I get here. Timber has personally helped me several times with some pretty difficult problems to great satisfaction I might add.

That's good, because we don't offer support.

Only Symantec can provide that.

May come as a surprise, Tico, but I do agree with your point. I'm pretty sure, however, Norton/Symantec has legaleesed themselves clenly into a loophole - I can't imagine this would be a unique incident, and I can't imagine Norton/Symantec doesn't have all their "t"s crossed and "i"s dotted - thats what fine print is all about, and without fine print, a lotta lawyers would hafta find honest work :wink:

No surprise at all, timber. You are a reasonable fellow, after all.

I understand what you're saying about "legalese" and fine print, and all, but it would be unconscionable to allow Symantec to sell 12 months of service, but only offer 2, EVEN IF the fine print purported to allow them to do it. Thus, it's extremely unlikely they would get away with it, if push came to shove.

If it's by design (which I doubt), and the result is a bunch of ripped off customers, might make for a nice class action lawsuit. Hmm.

But more than likely, it's a technical error, and customer service is just befuddled. Have you tried going higher up the food chain with Symantec, cleaburn? (And I take it that rebooting trick didn't work?)

cleaburn, I hadda thought, and gave something a shot. Unfortunately, the news still is bad. I did a full clean install-from-media of a Norton Antivirus 2003 I had laying about, putting it on a machine that had never had a Norton/Symantec product on it. After inputting the original product activation key, the app reported a 12-mo subscription in effect. All went fine - 'til I ran Live update. I was informed to the effect that the product was outdated, and advised to upgrade to a newer version.