Bambu Lab uses 'not-for-sale' label to avoid warranty responsibility

Other topics Off-topic
1

Hi everyone,

I want to share an ongoing support case that I think many of you should be aware of, especially EU customers.

Background
One of my AMS2 Pro units suddenly started behaving strangely – slots 1 and 2 stopped reading RFID tags and were malfunctioning during filament feeding. Multiple spools were tested, the issue persisted. Bambu Lab diagnosed it as a damaged RFID board and shipped a replacement part (AMS 2 Pro Main Frame). After replacement, the exact same problem remained.

The timeline
After the repair failed, I requested a fully functional replacement unit (the complete AMS 2 Pro), citing Swedish consumer sales law (Konsumentköplagen) and EU consumer rights directives – which entitle consumers to a functioning product within a reasonable timeframe, free of charge, and without significant inconvenience.

Bambu Lab’s response: they could not offer a full replacement unit and instead referred me to additional spare parts (mainboard, power board) with wiki self-repair instructions. This despite the first repair already having failed.

I declined, pointing out that repeated failure of remedies under applicable law entitles the consumer to rescind the contract or receive a fully functional replacement product.

The “not-for-sale” argument
Here’s where it gets interesting. At some point during the case, Bambu Lab discovered that the AMS2 Pro had been acquired through a special arrangement rather than a standard purchase. From that moment, the tone shifted completely. After previously acknowledging that the product carried warranty coverage (“we will do our utmost to assist you within the product’s warranty period”), they suddenly claimed it was a “not-for-sale product” and therefore excluded from return and replacement rights.

This legal argument is highly questionable. A restriction on voluntary returns and exchanges under a company’s own commercial policies is NOT equivalent to excluding warranty liability, product defect responsibility, or mandatory consumer rights. A product delivered through any arrangement that involves the company supplying it is still a delivered good with full warranty status. Bambu Lab’s own written statement confirming they would assist within the warranty period confirms this.

To then retroactively reclassify the product as “not-for-sale” to avoid responsibility feels like a textbook example of finding loopholes rather than standing by their commitments.

What this is really about
This isn’t about demanding anything extraordinary. It’s about a company delivering a product having an obligation to deliver a functioning product during the warranty period. When the first repair fails, and a second round of spare parts is proposed despite the problem persisting, the company is effectively shifting the repair burden onto the consumer rather than solving the problem properly.

During the process, they also requested the serial number, claimed it didn’t match the order, and only after pushback did they acknowledge the product’s origin – which they then used as the basis for denying full responsibility.

Conclusion
Bambu Lab has consistently:

  • Offered spare parts and self-repair instead of a functioning replacement unit
  • Used time windows (30-day exchange) as an argument despite legislation granting broader rights
  • Attempted to reclassify a delivered product as “not-for-sale” to circumvent warranty obligations
  • Created a process where the consumer is forced to drive the case themselves using legal arguments

I’m still waiting for a response, but this feels like a systematic pattern rather than an isolated support failure. Has anyone else experienced something similar? Have others encountered Bambu Lab using “not-for-sale” arguments to deny warranty responsibility?

2 Likes
2

That’s really hilarious. Have you seen this topic by krellboy: Is the Bambu Lab warranty "parts only" now?

To me it clearly seems like they systematically avoid repairs / replacement at all costs, completely ignoring actual laws in many countries.

3

How did you obtain the AMS2 Pro if it was “not-for-sale”?

4

What was the “special arrangement” under which the units were obtained? If they weren’t purchased through an official distributor I don’t see why Bambu Labs should be obligated to replace them. I’m not a lawyer, but a warranty is generally an implied part of a purchase agreement. I give the company money and they give me a product that may include a warranty.

In some cases, a properly purchased item is replaced under warranty and if the company doesn’t want the original item returned, the original purchaser sells the damaged item “AS-IS.” Should the purchaser of this item expect it to be replaced under warranty?

My experience with Bambu Support has been positive. It sometimes takes several days of exchanging emails due to the time difference between China and the US.

5

It was too difficult to find, but the Bambu warranty policy states several times that you must have the original purchase receipt from Bambu or an authorized distributor.

Please note that only purchase receipts issued by Bambu Lab or distributors authorized by Bambu Lab are valid for warranty .

Did your “special arrangement” include the receipt?

6

It was supplied directly by Bambu Lab through a separate resolution process outside the normal retail sales flow, which is why they internally classify it as “not-for-sale” :slightly_smiling_face:

Let’s just say it was probably considered a better business decision to settle the matter than to continue down the alternative route :sweat_smile:

Ironically, they also explicitly confirmed that it still has a warranty period and that they will support defects arising during that period, so even Bambu Lab seems to agree it is not just some random freebie pulled out of thin air.

7

It was part of a direct settlement/resolution process with Bambu Lab, not something bought second-hand or from some mysterious guy in a parking lot wearing a trench coat full of AMS units :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

I understand your point regarding normal purchase agreements, and under ordinary circumstances I would generally agree with you. The reason this situation is a bit different is that Bambu Lab themselves explicitly confirmed that the unit has a warranty period and that they would support defects arising during that period. They also already handled it as an active support/warranty case for months, sent replacement parts, performed troubleshooting, etc.

So the current disagreement is not really about whether the unit exists legitimately or whether Bambu recognizes it. They obviously do. The disagreement is more about what remedies apply when repeated repair attempts fail on a unit supplied as part of a settlement arrangement instead of a standard webshop checkout.

And to be fair, my overall support experience has been mixed rather than universally bad. Some support staff have genuinely tried to help. The frustration mainly comes from the endless loop of “replace another internal board and hope for the best” :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
8

Yes, I have the full documentation trail :slightly_smiling_face:

Let’s just say this was not some casual “here, have a free AMS” situation. The entire arrangement is documented, including Bambu Lab formally agreeing to provide the units as part of a settlement/resolution process intended to avoid a much larger legal and regulatory escalation.

To put it humorously: the alternative route would likely have cost them a lot more than shipping me 100 AMS 2 Pro units :sweat_smile:

That’s also why I find the current position a bit strange. If Bambu Lab now wants to argue that the agreement and the supplied products carried no meaningful obligations, then they are also undermining the very settlement that resolved the original matter in the first place.

I do not want to harm Bambu Lab or escalate things unnecessarily. I would strongly prefer a practical and amicable solution. But if they ultimately choose to walk away from the agreement they themselves proposed, then naturally the underlying legal/regulatory matter can also become active again.