This business is not BBB accredited.

Mag Instrument, Inc.

Additional Locations

Phone: (909) 947-1006 View Additional Phone Numbers 2001 S Hellman Ave, Ontario, CA 91761 http://www.maglite.com


BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.


BBB Accreditation

This business is not BBB accredited.

Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation.

To be accredited by BBB, a business must apply for accreditation and BBB must determine that the business meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses must pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.


Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that affect the rating for Mag Instrument, Inc. include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 4 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

4 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 2 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 1
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 3
Total Closed Complaints 4

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Mag Instrument, Inc.
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: Business started: 09/25/1974 Business started locally: 09/25/1974 Business incorporated 09/25/1974 in
Business Management
Mr. Anthony Maglica, Owner
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Anthony Maglica, Owner
Business Category

Contract Manufacturing Manufacturers & Producers


Additional Locations

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    2001 S Hellman Ave

    Ontario, CA 91761 (909) 947-1006 (800) 283-5562

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    PO Box 50600

    Ontario, CA 91761

X

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview


BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.
Details

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

2/5/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Maglite Mini not functioning as expected. I purchased my Maglite Mini from Farm & Fleet in Watertown, on December 28, 2015. I only had it for about 2 weeks before it began to malfunction. When i would twist the top to turn it on, it began to flicker and operate very dim, occasionally getting bright again. I then noticed after a few more uses, it did not work at all. The batteries I used are new, and were included with the light, in the manufacturer package. They did NOT leak and were NOT expired. I tried a new set of batteries, which did NOT solve the problem. I find it hard to believe that the LED could be burned out already, since it only has about an hour of use, and LED's are supposed to last years. I contacted Maglite's support team, only to be told to keep buying batteries until I find a set that works? It made no sense to me and I felt they didn't want to deal with my concern or process a warranty claim. I am disappointed with this product, and would expect more from Maglite, being such a reputable brand. Serial number is: TCXXXXXXXXX

Desired Settlement: I would like a refund of $23.20 or a replacement light, or both.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/01/25) */ Dear Ms. *******: This letter responds to the above-referenced complaint, received here on January 19 via an email from you. We are not in a position to comment specifically on what did or did not happen in this case, because, after double-checking both phone and email logs, we can find no record of a person of complainant's name contacting our Warranty Department, nor do our personnel recall interacting with a person by that name. We can, however, say this: If a person did contact our Warranty Department reporting exactly the facts described in the complaint, that person should not have been told and we would find it hard to believe that he was in fact told, on those described facts to just "keep buying batteries until (you) find a set that works." Sometimes, flashlight behavior such as the complaint describes can be due to low voltage caused by faulty batteries, but on the facts stated in the complaint, that cause seems highly improbable. The next likeliest cause of the described malfunction , and the next step ordinarily followed in trying to troubleshoot a problem by phone, is dirty contacts, and we would advise inspecting and cleaning them, as well as checking for correct positioning of the tailcap spring. If that still does not correct the problem, then the next likeliest cause is a faulty switch. Our Warranty Department does offer to provide switch kits to consumers in that situation, with which they can perform a simple retrofit at home. For a consumer who prefers not to deal with a switch ***, there is the option of sending the flashlight to our Warranty Department for diagnosis, repair, or replacement. However, given the stated fact that the flashlight in question was purchased on December 28, 2015 less than a month ago from a known and identified retailer, the complainant's easiest and quickest recourse probably would be to return it to that retailer for a refund or replacement. Most retailers have a refund-or-replace policy for a product that exhibits problems within 30 (sometimes 60) days after purchase. If the complainant wishes to pursue the return-to-retailer option, he should of course do so without further delay. If he wishes in stead to contact our Warranty Department (and, to say it again, we can find no record, and our personnel have no recollection, that he has ever done so yet) our staff is prepared to deal with the issue as outlined above.

11/3/2015 Billing/Collection Issues
10/6/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I returned a maglite for replacement. They wrote me and said that there was battery leakage and they would replace for free if rayovac batteries. I returned a maglite red 2 aaa battery for repair or replacement under warranty. They wrote back to me that they would only replace it free if I used rayovac batteries; otherwise I had to contact the other battery manufacturer. i use rayovac, duracell, cvs, and other batteries. I have no idea what batteries were in this maglite, because I own about half dozen. This is a scam! Shame on you Mag Instruments. Shame on you. There is no mention of Rayovac batteries on the warranty, and since the batteries wear out after as few weeks they have to be replaced. WHO IN THE WORLD KNOWS WHAT BATTERIES ARE IN THEIR MAGLITE? IN THEIR REMOTE CONTROL, WALKMAN, ETC. IF I WERE A LIAR, I WOULD TELL THEM THAT I USE ONLY RAYOVACK, BUT I'M NOT A LIAR. THEY REFUSED TO REPLACE IT FOR FREE. SHAME ON THEM. SHAME ON THEM. SHAME ON THEM.

Desired Settlement: REPLACE THE RED MAGLITE FREE OF CHARGE.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2014/09/23) */ The customer complains that Mag Instrument refused to replace her AAA-cell Mini Maglite(r) flashlight for free. Our inspection found (and we understand that the customer does not dispute this finding) that the damage to her flashlight was caused by a battery leak. The terms of our warranty (found not only in our product literature but also on our Website) make clear that our warranty does not cover damage to a flashlight due to battery leakage. Hence, this case does not involve a warranty-covered claim and free replacement is not available under warranty coverage. Mag Instrument is not unusual in excluding battery-leak damage from warranty coverage. In fact, we are not aware of any device manufacturer who promises a free replacement of the battery-powered device in the event of battery-leak damage from a battery made by a different manufacturer. (Mag Instrument does not manufacture batteries; all batteries available for our alkaline-battery-powered flashlights are made by other manufacturers.) That device manufacturers do not typically (or ever, as far as we know) warrant against device damage caused by alkaline-battery leakage is not surprising: Any manufacturer of an alkaline-battery-powered device knows that alkaline batteries can leak and damage the device, and that the fact that there has been a battery leak generally denotes that there was a defect in (or abuse of) the battery and does not denote a defect in the battery-powered device itself. Some risk of leakage is inherent in alkaline-battery technology. The battery-manufacturing process is not perfect, and it is well known that even the most reputable battery manufacturers encounter leak-damage episodes. Although Mag Instrument recommends that reputable brands of alkaline batteries be used, and although we recommend certain precautions (such as not mixing brands, not mixing old with new batteries, and not leaving the batteries in the light during long-term storage), neither we nor any other device manufacturer is in a position to warrant that a third-party-manufactured battery will not leak and damage the device. Battery manufacturers, themselves, seem to recognize that some risk of leakage is inherent in the technology, is unavoidable, and can damage the device in which the batteries are used. Most of the alkaline-battery manufacturers of whom we are aware have, on their own websites, language to the effect that they will repair or replace a battery-powered device that is damaged by leakage of their brand of batteries. From time to time, Mag Instrument has had programs in place with various battery manufacturers that enabled Mag Instrument - strictly as a courtesy to our customers to replace battery-damaged flashlights without charge to the customers when such flashlights were received in our Warranty Department, and submit the battery-damaged flashlights to the concerned manufacturers for credit. Currently, we have such a program in place with only one battery manufacturer, Ray-O-Vac. That is why we asked the customer what brand of battery leaked in her flashlight: If we had been in a position to show that the brand was Ray-O-Vac, we would have been in a position to replace the light free of charge to the customer and seek reimbursement directly from Ray-O-Vac, saving the customer the step of having to deal with Ray-O-Vac herself. But where, as here, the brand of battery that leaked is not known, that option is not available. It is important to emphasize that even if the leaking battery had been of the Ray-O-Vac brand, that would not have meant that the leak damage was covered by our warranty (which makes clear that battery-leak damage is never covered). Had we sent a free flashlight to the customer and submitted the damaged flashlight to Ray-O-Vac for credit, we would have done so only as a matter of courtesy to the customer, not as a matter of warranty obligation. But just as the customer felt obligated not to lie to us by stating falsely that she used "only Ray-O-Vac," we are under similar obligation not to report falsely to Ray-O-Vac that its brand of batteries damaged her flashlight, when we in fact were unable to learn what brand caused the damage. It is regrettable that the customer was unable to determine what brand of batteries damaged her flashlight (as our own warranty literature instructs customers to do in the event of battery-leak damage). If she can determine this, she is of course free, as she always has been, to submit a damage claim to the battery manufacturer concerned. Damage to a flashlight due to leaking alkaline batteries, however, is not covered by Mag Instrument's warranty, and never has been. Should you have further questions, do not hesitate to contact me by e-mail at *******@magmail.com Yours truly, ******************

10/2/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The Maglite "free" warranty charges the consumer more to repair the light than it is to buy it new from an authorized reseller. Biz. refuses to repair In December 2013 I purchased a Mini Maglite and a CD Maglite from an authorized reseller of Maglite’s (Optics Planet Reference #XXXXXXX). Both units were immediately defective. I began dialogue with customer care in March 2014 (Control Number F-XXXXXX) and they informed me that I would be responsible for shipping the items to them (a cost of $15) AND I would also have to pay them an additional $7.00 to repair the Mini-Maglite and $15.00 to repair the CD Maglite. They required me to pay $37 to repair their defective product which they claimed had a full warranty against manufacturing defects. They purposely created a “Warranty System” which is effectively void and null as a consumer can purchase the product brand new from an authorized dealer cheaper than it costs for them to repair it under warranty. In doing so they misrepresented a warranty to not only me but any consumer that purchases there products. In an effort to resolve I sent a letter with the two lights to their VP Mr. *** ********** requesting resolution. The items and letter were received by Mr. ********** on June 25 (USPS Tracking: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX). After Mr. ********** ignored my request I began contacting their customer service numerous times starting on July 9th. They too have ignored my follow-up emails. In consequence Maglite has not only failed to meet its warranty terms but has now taken possession of my lights and is refusing to repair/replace them or communicate with me.

Desired Settlement: Both lights replaced with verified non defective working units and a refund for the cost it took to ship the lights to them costs: ~$15.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2014/09/23) */ We would respectfully point out that the actual facts of the dispute differ significantly from the version offered by the customer, and his descriptions of our warranty policies include both legal and factual inaccuracies. When the customer first contacted our Warranty Department in March 2014 he was advised, in accordance with our standard warranty terms, that we do not ordinarily reimburse customers for shipping lights to us for repair. We believe this to be the usual practice among sellers of relatively-modestly-priced consumer goods who offer warranties. Although there is such a thing as a "full" warranty under the definition of the Magnuson-Moss Act (whereby the "full" warrantor must pay or reimburse shipping both ways when a product is sent in for warranty service), such "full" warranties are rare in our experience, and most warrantors (including Mag Instrument) offer what the Magnuson-Moss Act defines as a "limited" warranty, under which definition the warrantor is entitled to impose certain charges and is not obligated to reimburse for inbound shipping. We, like many other warrantors, have concluded that offering a "full" (per the Magnuson-Moss Act definition) warranty would be cost-prohibitive and difficult to administer. For example, what if the product, upon arrival, is found to be functioning as designed and is not defective (as was the case with one of the two flashlights at issue here)? Or what if it is found to have been damaged by a cause specifically excluded from the warranty (such as an exhausted battery or damage caused by battery leakage, as was found to be the case with the other flashlight at issue here)? If it were a warrantor's policy to reimburse or pay shipping in such instances, the warrantor would at times - and not rarely - find itself in the position of having to pay to ship products back and forth that were in no way defective or in need of repair. The warrantor would need to absorb the cost of this somehow, and the only practical way to do that would be to raise the product's price to all consumers. In a highly competitive market for relatively modestly priced goods (such as many consumer markets, including the portable lighting market, are), this would be economically unsustainable, especially when the warrantor cannot control shipping costs and the price of the product needs, for competitive reasons, to be kept relatively modest or else it will not sell. The customer's statement that he was required to "pay ... $7.00 to repair the Mini Maglite and $15.00 to repair the CD Magite" is inaccurate. These charges are handling charges, which are reasonably commensurate with the costs of return shipping but are not tied, at all, with the value of parts and labor expended in a particular instance. And it is important to understand that the handling charge is imposed in every case, even if the flashlight is found not to be defective and not to need any repairs. If it is found to need repairs, and if the damage is of a kind not excluded from the warranty, then the repairs (both parts and labor) are performed free of charge to the customer. Mag Instrument has never charged for the parts and labor used in making warranty repairs; we do impose a standard handling charge, which, like shipping cost, varies with the size and weight of the flashlight in question. We strongly take issue with the customer's suggestions that Mag Instrument's warranty policies have been "misrepresented." Both our product literature and our Website plainly disclose that the warranty is a "limited" warranty; that certain kinds of damage (including battery leakage) are excluded; that the customer is responsible for any costs of shipping the product to our warranty service center; that it is recommended that the customer purchase insurance on the inbound shipment; and that a handling fee is charged. And the customer apparently concedes that our warranty personnel advised him of the inbound-shipping responsibility and the handling charge when he spoke to our Warranty Department by phone. We also dispute the customer's characterization that Mag Instrument is "refusing to repair/replace" his lights. We are frank to acknowledge that there was some delay in responding to the customer after his initial discussions with our Warranty Department. That seems to have been occasioned by the fact that he did not immediately send us the lights and, when he eventually did send them, he chose not to send them to our Warranty Department but instead to the personal attention of Mr. Tom **********. Mr. **********'s responsibilities include international sales and he is not a person who regularly and ordinarily deals with warranty/repair issues. Mr. ********** travels frequently, often outside the country, and was thereby delayed in addressing this issue, which would have been handled more promptly if it had been otherwise directed. Mr. ********** did respond to Mr. ******** by letter on August 18, 2014. He apologized for the delay and explained that he had been on two long overseas trips since the June 22 date of Mr. ********'s letter. Mr. ********** reported that the larger flashlight was found not to be defective and was being returned in perfect working order, and that the smaller light was determined to have been damaged by battery leakage - a kind of damage not covered by Mag Instrument's warranty. Nevertheless, as a courtesy, Mr. ********** sent him a new Mini Maglite(r) flashlight free of charge. UPS records show that Mr. **********'s letter, and the flashlights, were delivered on August 25, 2014. A copy of Mr. **********'s letter, and of the UPS Proof of Delivery, are attached. Should you have further questions, do not hesitate to contact me by e-mail at *******@magmail.com Yours truly, ********** ****** Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2014/10/01) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Had Maglite put in half the energy as ******* did in response to my BBB complaint we would have solved this problem far quicker. While I disagree with much of what ******* has outlined, further dispute is simply not worth my time and energy. I do agree that Mr. ********** did contact me but only after the BBB complaint was lodged. It is shameful that it took a BBB case to be lodged to receive a reply from Maglite. While I wasn't refunded my expense to ship the items to Maglite and the big flashlight is still having problems I can no longer commit any time to this matter. To this end as a consumer the extent of my recourse is to never buy from them again and notify friends and family of my horrible experience. Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 13, 2014/10/02) */


Customer Review(s)

The customer review(s) below are un-filtered. These positive and negative reviews are not used in the calculation of the BBB Rating. If you wish to file a complaint and request a resolution to your issue please click here. This customer review section is not BBBs complaint resolution system. Customer Reviews are the subjective opinion of the individual who posted the review and not of Better Business Bureau. A customer review is not posted on a business if a BBB complaint on the same issue(s) is also filed. BBB cannot guarantee the accuracy of any customer review and is not responsible for the content of any customer review. Public comments are not customer reviews.

Customer Reviews Summary

0 Customer Reviews on Mag Instrument, Inc.
Positive Experience (0 reviews)
Neutral Experience (0 reviews)
Negative Experience (0 reviews)