In the world of graphics cards, warranty processes can sometimes cause tensions between users and manufacturers. Finally, a user stated that his warranty request for the RTX 4090 graphics card was rejected by GIGABYTE on the grounds of user-induced damage.

The person who posted on the Reddit platform under the username u/Realcraser1 stated that his card, which was under warranty until 2027, stopped working after moving his computer. The user claims that the card seems physically durable and has not received any blows.

Rejection Decision Despite No Visible Damage

After technical inspection, GIGABYTE sent the card back to the user and noted “user-induced damage” and “PCB broken”. However, the user emphasized that he was not sent any evidence of damage or a clear photo showing the break on the PCB.

There are only labels on the card with two red arrows near the gold-tipped contact points. The user states that these marks are placed to indicate damage, but neither he nor others can see any cracks or scratches on the PCB. Although there is a possibility that there may have been damage to the inner layers, the manufacturer’s failure to provide concrete evidence causes repercussions.

User Applies to Alternative Ways for Solution

After GIGABYTE rejects the request for replacement or repair, the user plans to send the card to independent repair centers. In this process, the names of platforms such as Gamers Nexus or Northwest Repair stand out. In the world of hardwareRejection of products under warranty continues to cause concern among users, especially for high-end cards.

The opinion that manufacturers should be more transparent in detecting physical damage is frequently voiced in technology communities. The inadequacy of the evidence provided by GIGABYTE in this incident is recorded as an example that shakes users’ trust in warranty processes.

Users who encounter a similar situation question whether having their works examined by independent experts is the only way to analyze them.

Do you think manufacturers should be required to provide more detailed evidence in their warranty denial decisions?