Executive Summary
A customer's laptop was dropped off at Digitec Galaxus for repair with explicit written and verbal instructions to return the device in case of repair failure. After weeks without any feedback, the customer received a credit instead of the device – Digitec had disposed of it. The company justified the disposal as a "standardized process" and argued that organizational reasons prevent individual customer notifications. A case that raises questions about customer rights, communication, and internal company procedures.
People
- Jessica Kunz (affected customer)
Topics
- Customer Service & Repair Management
- Consumer Protection & Customer Rights
- Corporate Communication & Transparency
- Electronics Disposal & Sustainability
Clarus Lead
Jessica Kunz brought her defective laptop to Digitec Galaxus for repair in December 2025. She documented both in writing and verbally her wish: if repair were impossible, the device must be returned. The company confirmed this with the employee on site. Instead, the laptop was "very probably disposed of" shortly thereafter, as Digitec later admitted – without further notification or customer authorization.
Detailed Summary
The repair case reveals a significant communication and process problem: Digitec employees promised Kunz individually that disposal would not occur without her consent. The customer documented this commitment in writing on the repair ticket. After weeks of silence, she unexpectedly received a credit, not the device or an explanation.
The company later employed a legal defense strategy: it was a "standardized process" in which individual customer notifications were not possible for organizational reasons. This statement stands in direct contradiction to the assurances given to Kunz and raises questions about the binding nature of employee statements. For the customer, the impression arises that a standard process overrides customer specifications – particularly since no prior notification was provided.
Core Statements
- Documented instruction ignored: Customer requested device return in writing and verbally in case of failure; Digitec employee confirmed this
- Missing communication: No notification before disposal, only retroactive credit instead of return
- Contradictory statements: Verbal assurance contradicted by later invocation of a "standardized process"
- Process opacity: Customer learns of disposal only upon inquiry; no proactive feedback
Critical Questions
Source Validity: How does Digitec document customer instructions on repair tickets, and what control mechanisms ensure that these are followed?
Conflicts of Interest: Does Digitec benefit financially or operationally from disposing of devices instead of returning them – for example, by avoiding shipping costs or storage?
Causality/Alternatives: Would a standardized email or SMS notification process before disposal have caused the same organizational burden as claimed, or are other channels more cost-effective?
Feasibility: What technical or procedural obstacles prevent Digitec from recording and enforcing customer specifications (e.g., return requests) in the internal system?
Causality/Counter-Hypotheses: Is it more likely that an employee forgot to enter the instruction into the system, or that the standard process intentionally ignores customer notes?
Side Effects: How frequently does this problem occur, and what reputational damage does Digitec suffer from individual incidents of this kind?
Evidence: Can Digitec prove when and how the disposal occurred, and on what basis it is described as "very probable" rather than "definitive"?
Source Directory
Primary Source: Digitec throws away customer's laptop – beobachter.ch https://www.beobachter.ch/konsum/konsumentenschutz/digitec-wirft-laptop-einer-kundin-weg-912914
Verification Status: ✓ December 2025
This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial Responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-Check: December 2025