What “advertising” means here. The archive holds no brochure or advertisement scan. The “written advertising” on this page means Leica’s public written statements and marketing positioning that are already quoted on this site (the December 2014 CCD statement as reprinted by third parties, and related statements noted in the promise vs delivery note). The brand line “Das Wesentliche” and the phrase “German quality” appear on this site as commentary, not as sourced advertisements, and are not relied on here.
Money caveat. The €1,303 + VAT figure is a cost contribution quoted in a company email; it is not proof of payment. Purchase receipts, estimates, invoices and remittances must be matched to the correct camera, order and work (orders 1058152 and 1105973 concern different products).
| What was said in writing (date · source) | What the file records (complainant’s account) |
|---|---|
| Dec 2014 · Leica Camera AG public statement (reprinted by Leica Rumors, Red Dot Forum, PetaPixel): “This goodwill arrangement applies regardless of the age of the camera and also covers sensors that have already been replaced in the past.” “Customers who have already been charged for the replacement of a sensor affected by this problem will receive a refund.” “We have now identified the problem and are currently concentrating our efforts on finding a permanent technical solution.” Source on this site: /promises/ · promise vs delivery note · saved Red Dot page |
Email from Ursula Brand to this customer (2019-09-06): “Leica has been replacing sensors free of charge for some years now and only charged part for the material cost since 01.09.2017 for affected cameras older than 5 years.” … “Starting on 01.12.2018 a contribution of €1303 + VAT applies.” The €1,303 + VAT figure is a cost contribution quoted in a company email; it is not proof of payment. Kirstin Masney (2022): “The production of the CCD was discontinued in October 2019, sensors are not available any longer, a repair is therefore not possible.” /promises/ · 2022 correspondence thread |
| Dec 2014 · same statement, as noted on this site: “technically faultless products” / rebuild trust (Stefan Daniel statement as widely reprinted). June 2015 · Red Dot Forum: redesigned corrosion-resistant cover glass as a long-term fix; goodwill “irrespective of the age of the camera.” footnotes 1–2 · EX03 Dark Room article |
The consumer’s sample photograph with visible spots (EX13; the photograph alone does not establish the technical cause). The consumer reports that the M9 and the M (Typ 240) both failed again within half a year after repair (consumer’s account — not an admission by Leica and not an independently established diagnosis). A May 2025 Red Dot Forum report records analog M models among paid upgrade options. EX13 · Winter letter note · 2025 upgrade report |
| The official 2014 CCD notice — the web address cited for Leica’s own statement (en.leica-camera.com … “Important-Information-Concerning-the-CCD-Sensors”). | The archived screenshots EX01 / EX02 show that address returning HTTP 403 Forbidden. This records a historical response; it is not a finding of deliberate deletion or the current server status. EX02 · EX01 |
| 2 October 2026 · company letter (J. Winter, CorporateCommunications) — acknowledged by the complainant. Reported wording: “In your case, we have therefore conducted complimentary work on your Leica M (Type 240), Noctilux-M and Summilux-M lens.” and “We respectfully consider this matter closed.” | The letter does not mention the M9. The complainant disputes that the matter is resolved and states that the M (Typ 240) repair was also paid for. As of 2026-10-18 no named point-by-point written answer to the numbered questions has been received (alleged / unanswered); the 2026-10-14 ticket SC00116909 was an automatic acknowledgement only. Winter letter note · Q1–Q12 |
Screenshots and saved pages already on this site
Third-party republications and archived screenshots keep their original context. Screenshots record what was shown at the time; they do not by themselves establish technical cause.
Where the answer stands
The complainant acknowledges the company letter dated 2 October 2026 (J. Winter, CorporateCommunications), which regards the matter as closed, and disputes that the underlying issues are resolved. As of 2026-10-18, the complainant has received no named point-by-point written answer to the numbered questions (alleged / unanswered); the last relevant inbound item, ticket SC00116909 (about 2026-10-14 19:25), was an automatic acknowledgement only.
What the complainant asks for: an itemised, point-by-point written answer explaining how the quoted statements relate to the outcome for orders 1058152 / 1105973, with the factual and contractual basis for any refusal of coverage. See Q1–Q12.
Trademark notice (2026-10-08, reference 202610081440795776792) → · Promises table · Homepage section