On 15.09.2025, I sent my Acer Nitro 16 AN16-42 model laptop, which is under warranty, to the Acer Technical Service Center (SMS İnfocomm) due to a "not charging and no power" issue. The product arrived at the service center on 17.09.2025. On the same day, I was called from a personal number by an individual claiming to be a shipping representative from Acer Technical Service, who informed me that there was a break on the top-right hinge cover of the product. I was asked if I was aware of this damage. I stated that this damage was not caused by me and that I was unaware of it. I was told that an official report (tutanak) could be filed due to this damage, and I requested that such a report be filed. Acer Technical Service filed the report one day after receiving the product and after this conversation took place (18.09.2025); therefore, the report was not filed on the same day.
On 17.09.2025, I called the Acer Technical Service Center (SMS İnfocomm - 0850 522 2787) to inquire about the process. When I was connected to customer service, I summarized the situation and, despite my insistence that the damage was not caused by me, I was told there were only two options. First, if I accepted the damage, a service ticket would be opened, the damage would be registered as user-induced, and the repair would be subject to a fee. The second option was that the product would be returned to me, and after its return, I would have to file a new report and send it back to the service center. They stated that once the product arrived back at the service center with reports filed by both parties, the service center would then initiate a compensation (indemnity) process with their contracted courier, UPS. It was said that I would be notified of the positive or negative outcome of this compensation process between the service center and the courier, and only then would a return or repair be processed. I replied that if my product was damaged in transit, and since I had already informed the service representative who called me that the damage was not my fault, they should take this as my official statement and initiate the compensation process directly, without sending the product back to me. The authorized service center insisted this was the procedure. I stated that I needed time to get more information about the process and ended the call. About half an hour later, I spoke with another customer relations consultant. This person said, "There is nothing for you to do right now. We will discuss compensation with the courier company and get back to you within three days." As this process differed from what I was told in the previous call and seemed more logical, I agreed to wait. At the same time, although I requested that a photographed copy of the filed report be emailed to me, the copy was not sent.
One day later, on 18.09.2025, I learned from an SMS message from the UPS courier company that the product was being returned to me. I called the technical service center again to understand this situation, which contradicted the process the service center had described to me the previous day, and to find out why an action regarding my product was initiated without my knowledge. During the call, they stated that the process explained to me initially was the correct one—that the compensation process would only begin after both parties filed reports, and that this was the actual procedure. I stated that I did not accept this, arguing that the already damaged package could sustain further damage in transit, and I would not accept responsibility for any new damage that might occur, noting that the responsibility lay directly with the user or the courier. They told me that since the product had already been shipped, the service center could no longer take any action, and the call ended.
On 22.09.2025, the product arrived at the Batman UPS courier branch. At the same time, the copy of the report was finally forwarded to me via email. When I read the report, it stated that there was no damage to the outer packaging, but that there was damage to the inner packaging due to a "lack of filling material," and that it was not a handling error. (I am certain that I packaged the product securely, and when I first sent the product from the branch to the service center on 15.09.2025, the branch personnel confirmed the package was intact and accepted my product.) When I arrived at the branch, I saw that my product had been packaged in a different box. This contradicted the statements in the official report. The fact that it was sent in different packaging—if the original outer packaging was undamaged—and the fact that the technical service did not provide me with photographic or video evidence despite my requests, made me suspect foul play. Nevertheless, following the instructions given to me by the service center, I wanted to file a report summarizing the situation without accepting delivery of the product. However, the UPS branch personnel stated that a report had already been filed by the recipient (the service center) and that I did not have the right to file another one. They also added that since the new (replaced) box was undamaged, a report could not be filed. After a long struggle and a discussion with the branch manager, I was finally able to file a report with statements summarizing the situation (the statement included in the report filed by myself and the branch: "When it was dispatched by us, there was no damage to the box or packaging. Upon its return to us, the outer packaging was replaced; the barcode section of the old packaging was cut out with scissors, affixed to the new packaging, and dispatched.") and I sent the product back to the Acer authorized service center without accepting delivery. It is clear that the Acer authorized service center, despite telling me to file a report, knowingly aggrieved the customer by leveraging their knowledge of the contracted branch's procedures to prevent me from filing a report (e.g., adding new packaging, and the rule that a sender cannot file a report after the recipient already has). The process for me to be able to file a report without accepting the return took approximately 2-3 weeks. Ultimately, my product arrived back at the Acer Technical Service center on 13.10.2025.
On Thursday, 16.10.2025, I was again called from a personal number by a service representative and was told that the sender (meaning me) had to initiate the compensation claim. I asked why I was being told to do this now, as this was not what I had been told before. I was told I had been misinformed previously and that this was the actual process. They also stated they could send me the video of the product arriving at the service center. I have still not received this footage.
Consequently, the Acer technical service has misled me multiple times, both from personal numbers and the corporate number, creating customer grievance through misinformation.
I emailed the UPS courier company the same day to file a compensation claim, and I received an email the next day confirming the process had been initiated.
On 20.10.2025, when I called Acer Technical Service to check on my product's status, they stated that the product was now out of warranty due to physical damage and that the mainboard was also damaged. Although I suggested the mainboard damage could be related to the original issue I had before sending it in, they insisted that the mainboard damage was also a result of the physical (hinge) damage, and declared the product entirely out of warranty. The total repair cost quoted was $\TL$67,500.00. When I asked if this (mainboard) damage was caused by my original problem or by the physical damage that occurred in transit or at the service center, I was told that because it arrived with a broken hinge, the entire damage, including the mainboard, was deemed user-induced without further inspection. In other words, they ignored the problem I had before sending the product, and instead attributed all damage to the top-right hinge cover damage that occurred in transit or at the service center. Based on this reasoning, my product, which was under warranty, was declared completely out of warranty.
Physical damage that occurred during shipping should not void the product's entire warranty. Acer representatives are causing customer grievance by citing the physical damage as the reason to declare the mainboard damage as user-induced. Furthermore, a consumer grievance has arisen because they refuse to answer whether the (mainboard) damage is physical or related to the initial problem. In either case, the damage in question is not user-induced, but rather caused by the courier or the technical service. This is especially evident given the service center's behavior: the delayed delivery of the report copy, the misleading information given to the user (from both personal and corporate numbers), the failure to send the video of the product's arrival, the suspicious replacement of the outer packaging (despite the report claiming the original was intact), and, due to all these factors, the developments have all been processed against the user's interests. They have left the user completely aggrieved by shifting all responsibility onto the user and demanding payment for the resulting repair costs.
My product's warranty is still active. The source of all issues during this process, including the potential mainboard problem and the broken hinge cover, is not related to me. Due to the potential for new problems even if the product is repaired, I demand the replacement of my current product with a laptop of the same model, or, if the same model is not available, with a superior model. I also demand that the upgrades I made to my product be returned to me; if they are not, I demand that they be provided to me or that my financial loss be compensated.
