{"id":458628,"date":"2026-04-28T23:00:17","date_gmt":"2026-04-28T23:00:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/458628\/"},"modified":"2026-04-28T23:00:17","modified_gmt":"2026-04-28T23:00:17","slug":"pixel-9a-owner-claims-google-wanted-to-charge-them-nearly-300-for-non-existent-damage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/458628\/","title":{"rendered":"Pixel 9a owner claims Google wanted to charge them nearly $300 for non-existent damage"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img class=\"e_Kg\" decoding=\"async\" loading=\"eager\"  title=\"google pixel 9a back iris jan 2026 2\"  alt=\"Someone holding the Pixel 9a, showing the back of the phone.\" src=\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/google-pixel-9a-back-iris-jan-2026-2-scaled.jpg\"\/><\/p>\n<p>Joe Maring \/ Android Authority<\/p>\n<p>TL;DR<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>A Pixel 9a owner recently sent their phone in for a warranty-covered repair regarding eSIM connectivity issues.<\/li>\n<li>The owner claims the device was in mint condition, but Google wanted to charge the owner $287.44 for damage to the screen, frame, and cameras.<\/li>\n<li>The Pixel 9a was sent back to the customer with none of the external damage in Google\u2019s claims.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>It\u2019s not uncommon to hear about customer support horror stories. However, sometimes there are stories that really stand out from the rest. Like this one from a Pixel 9a owner who simply wanted to fix their eSIM connectivity issues.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Don\u2019t want to miss the best from Android Authority?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/andauth.co\/AAGooglePreferredSource\" class=\"e_hm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer nofollow noopener\"><img class=\"e_Kg\" decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\"  title=\"google preferred source badge light@2x\"  alt=\"google preferred source badge light@2x\" src=\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1776162012_219_google_preferred_source_badge_light@2x.png\"\/><img class=\"e_Kg\" decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\"  title=\"google preferred source badge dark@2x\"  alt=\"google preferred source badge dark@2x\" src=\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1776162013_419_google_preferred_source_badge_dark@2x.png\"\/><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/GooglePixel\/comments\/1su2ikc\/i_sent_in_my_mint_condition_pixel_9a_to_google_to\/?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web3x&amp;utm_name=web3xcss&amp;utm_term=1&amp;utm_content=share_button\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">According to the owner<\/a>, their Pixel 9a was in excellent condition, but they were having issues with downloading and setting up eSIMs. After sending the phone in for a warranty-covered repair, the owner says Google messaged them back, wanting to charge $287.44 for damage to the screen, frame, and cameras.\u00a0At the time, it was unclear if the handset had been damaged during transit.<\/p>\n<p>The owner claims that they reached out to the Google support team to dispute the bill. However, it\u2019s said that the support team stopped replying once the owner asked to escalate the issue. Refusing to pay the bill, the case timed out, and Google notified the owner that their device was being shipped back to them, presumably now with new damage and the eSIM bug unaddressed.<\/p>\n<p><img class=\"e_Kg\" decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\"  title=\"Pixel 9a returned 2\"  alt=\"Pixel 9a returned 2\" src=\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Pixel-9a-returned-2.jpeg\"\/><img class=\"e_Kg\" decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\"  title=\"Pixel 9a returned\"  alt=\"Pixel 9a returned\" src=\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Pixel-9a-returned.jpeg\"\/><\/p>\n<p>The phone has <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/GooglePixel\/comments\/1sxoeeb\/update_i_sent_in_my_mint_condition_pixel_9a_to\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">now returned<\/a> to the owner, completely devoid of the external damage the company claimed. After checking the IMEI, the owner was able to confirm it was the same device they originally sent out. Included in the packaging was a note from the tech giant stating, \u201cNo repairs were done on your device because you either denied or did not respond to the change order request that was sent to you via email.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The owner says that they are filing a formal complaint against Google. \u201cI\u2019ve filed a formal complaint to my state\u2019s Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and to the California BBB.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Thank you for being part of our community. Read our\u00a0<a class=\"c-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.androidauthority.com\/android-authority-comment-policy\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" data-stringify-link=\"https:\/\/www.androidauthority.com\/android-authority-comment-policy\/\" data-sk=\"tooltip_parent\">Comment Policy<\/a> before posting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Joe Maring \/ Android Authority TL;DR A Pixel 9a owner recently sent their phone in for a warranty-covered&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":342535,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[257],"tags":[18,823,16015,19,17,279,82],"class_list":["post-458628","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-mobile","tag-eire","tag-google","tag-google-pixel-9a","tag-ie","tag-ireland","tag-mobile","tag-technology"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@ie\/116484822478407685","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/458628","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=458628"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/458628\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/342535"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=458628"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=458628"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=458628"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}