When a Creator's Teardown or Modification Video Voids the Product's Warranty

Short answer: two separate protections, and only one of them can be lost

When a creator takes a product apart in a teardown video or modifies it for content, it's tempting to think of "the warranty" as one single thing that's now gone. It isn't. Danish consumer law runs on two separate protections: the mandatory statutory conformity right (reklamationsret) and the voluntary warranty (garanti). A teardown or modification video can really only cost the warranty — the statutory right can't be signed away by contract or warranty terms. But there's an important exception: the statutory right never covers damage the buyer caused themselves, and a teardown that goes wrong can fall exactly into that category.

Statutory conformity right vs. warranty: not the same thing, and only one can carry conditions

Per the Danish Consumer Agency's own consumer portal, forbrug.dk, the statutory conformity right is "the right Købeloven [the Danish Sale of Goods Act] gives you to complain about defects and deficiencies in the goods," while a warranty is "something the seller or manufacturer can choose to give you" on top of that mandatory right. The statutory right runs for 2 years from delivery and can't be contracted away — not even if the buyer agrees to it. A warranty, by contrast, is a voluntary offer where the seller or manufacturer decides its own scope, including which parts are covered and under what conditions. Forbrug.dk is explicit about how the two relate: "a warranty does not replace the statutory conformity right," and a warranty "must not affect the consumer's non-waivable rights under the law." In other words: a warranty can layer conditions on top of the statutory right, but it can never remove it.

Why a teardown or modification video typically costs the warranty

Because the warranty is voluntary, the seller or manufacturer can write its own conditions — and a very common condition worldwide is that the warranty is voided if the product's seal is broken, or the unit has been opened or modified. How widespread and contested that practice is shows most clearly in the US consumer regulator FTC's own enforcement: the FTC has sent warning letters to multiple manufacturers, including Sony and Microsoft, about exactly this kind of "warranty void if seal is broken" sticker, stating the practice may be illegal under US law (the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) because it conditions warranty coverage on the consumer not repairing or inspecting the product themselves. That's US enforcement and doesn't apply directly in Denmark — but it shows that the underlying commercial condition (warranty voided by opening) is a common, global practice that can also appear in the warranty terms for products sold in Denmark. Whether a specific manufacturer's warranty actually contains such a condition should always be checked against the current warranty terms for that specific product, not assumed.

Regardless of how the warranty and statutory-right question plays out, the video itself is still subject to the ordinary disclosure rules if there's a commercial connection between the creator and the brand — that's a completely separate legal question from the warranty. See influencer marketing disclosure rules in Denmark and the EU for the full walkthrough of when and how disclosure has to happen.

What ISN'T lost: the statutory conformity right — with one important exception

Even if a manufacturer's warranty excludes opened or modified units, that doesn't by itself remove the mandatory statutory conformity right on the product — as noted, it can't be waived. But there are two practical caveats worth keeping in mind:

• The statutory right presumes a consumer purchase. The right is tied to an actual sale between a business seller and a consumer. A review unit a creator receives for free for a video is typically not purchased by the creator — it's a gift or a loan, as described in gifting vs paid collaborations, and format-wise related to the curated PR package covered in event activations, press trips and unboxing. The creator therefore isn't necessarily in the same legal position as a paying customer with respect to that specific unit.
• The statutory right never covers self-inflicted damage. Per forbrug.dk's own guidance, the statutory conformity right doesn't cover "defects that arise through ordinary wear or incorrect use" of the product, and "if you're at fault for damage to the product yourself, you generally can no longer demand" a free repair. If a teardown goes wrong and the creator damages the unit in the process, that damage falls outside the statutory right's coverage — completely independent of whether a warranty exists.

The real risk for the brand: viewers copying the video

The most overlooked risk is rarely the review unit itself — it's already served its purpose, and the brand typically doesn't expect to get it back or make a warranty claim on it. The risk is that a popular teardown or modification video can inspire ordinary, paying customers to try the same thing on their own, purchased unit. If that goes wrong, exactly the same self-inflicted-damage exception applies to that customer as described above — but in practice, that means the brand's customer service can face a wave of confused contacts, where the customer believes the product is defective while the brand sees damage that occurred after the customer took the product apart themselves. That distinction isn't always obvious to a customer who's watched a convincing teardown video, and it's far easier to prevent with clear communication in the brief than to handle afterward in customer service.

Upcoming EU rules: the Right to Repair Directive doesn't cover content teardowns

It's worth keeping this article's topic separate from another, related development: the EU's Right to Repair Directive, Directive (EU) 2024/1799, which Member States must have transposed by 31 July 2026. The directive amends Directive (EU) 2019/771 on the sale of goods and gives consumers an extra year of statutory conformity right when they choose repair over replacement as the remedy for a defect. It also bars manufacturers from using hardware or software techniques to stop independent repairers from using spare parts from third-party manufacturers. But the directive is about repairing a defect — not a creator's voluntary disassembly or modification of a working product for content — and it only applies to a limited list of product categories (including washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators and mobile phones), not electronics generally. It shouldn't be confused with, or used as an argument that, a teardown video made for content enjoys any special legal protection.

Decision framework for brands sending review units

Worked example (hypothetical)

The figures below are invented and for illustration only — not a real Make Influence customer case or a documented incident.

Imagine a brand launches a DKK 3,000 gadget with a voluntary 3-year warranty that explicitly excludes units that have been opened, disassembled or modified. The brand sends a review unit to a tech channel that makes a teardown video with 200,000 views. If (purely hypothetically) 0.5% of viewers who own the product attempt the same disassembly, and 1 in 5 of those damage their unit in the process, that's 200,000 × 0.5% × 20% = 200 damaged units. None of them are covered by the voluntary warranty (it excludes opened/modified units), and most also fall outside the statutory conformity right, because the damage is self-inflicted rather than a defect present at delivery. The brand should still expect a wave of confused-customer contacts — not because the law requires compensation, but because the distinction between "defect" and "self-inflicted damage after a teardown video" isn't obvious to the individual customer.

Common mistakes

• Assuming a voided warranty on the review unit says anything about ordinary customers' own units. It doesn't — every unit's warranty and conformity status is determined on its own, based on its own history.
• Assuming the creator holds the same statutory conformity right over the review unit as a paying customer. A free, non-purchased unit isn't necessarily in the same legal position — see gifting vs paid collaborations for why.
• Not warning the creator in advance that opening voids the warranty on that specific unit. A surprised creator discovering it on camera is an unnecessarily bad starting point for the collaboration.
• Letting a teardown video implicitly signal that ordinary customers' own units can safely be opened. Without a clear warning, the video can unintentionally encourage viewers to do something that costs them both the warranty and part of the statutory conformity right.
• Confusing the EU's upcoming Right to Repair Directive with protection for content teardowns. The directive is about repairing a defect within a limited list of product categories — not about voluntarily disassembling a working product for video.

Make Influence's operational perspective

In Make Influence's experience, teardown and modification content is one of the categories where a brand's legal and commercial interests point the same way as good practice: the clearer the brief is about what happens to the warranty on the specific unit, the smaller the risk of an awkward surprise mid-shoot — and of the video unintentionally giving viewers the wrong impression of their own rights. Our recommendation is to treat a teardown unit as a deliberate, one-way gift separate from the ordinary review unit, and to write the warranty status directly into the brief, rather than letting it become a surprise for the creator along the way.

FAQ

Does it void the warranty if a creator takes a product apart for a review?

Often yes, if the manufacturer's warranty terms exclude opened or modified units, which is a common condition. This should always be checked against the specific product's actual warranty terms, not assumed.

Does the creator lose their statutory conformity right by doing a teardown?

Partly the wrong question — the statutory conformity right typically presumes a consumer purchase, and a free review unit is usually not purchased by the creator. Either way, the statutory right never covers damage the creator caused themselves through the disassembly.

Can a viewer who copies the video and damages their own product still use the statutory conformity right?

Not for that specific damage — per forbrug.dk's own guidance, the statutory conformity right doesn't cover defects the consumer caused themselves. Other, genuine defects in the product remain covered as normal.

Does the EU's new Right to Repair Directive protect a teardown video?

No. Directive (EU) 2024/1799 is about a consumer's right to have a defect repaired within a limited list of product categories — not about a creator's voluntary disassembly of a working product for content.

Should the brand tell the creator the warranty is voided before shipping the product?

It's not a legal requirement, but it's Make Influence's clear recommendation — it prevents an awkward surprise on camera and makes the brief clearer for both sides.

Is there a difference between a teardown and a modification?

Yes. A teardown is a disassembly to show or inspect a product's internals, often without permanently changing its function. A modification changes the product itself — physically or in software — which typically triggers the warranty exclusion even more directly, because the product is no longer genuinely in the condition the manufacturer originally sold it in.

Does the same conformity-right vs. warranty split apply if a creator buys and returns their own product rather than reviewing a gifted one?

No — that's a different situation and a different right entirely. Buying, using and returning your own purchased product is "wardrobing," governed by the right of withdrawal (fortrydelsesret), not the statutory conformity right, because there's no defect involved at all. See wardrobing: when a creator buys, films and returns a product for content.