This note records an alleged mismatch between a letter received on 2026-10-02 and records already published on this archive. It does not claim that any reply email was sent. It is not a court judgment and not adjudicated fraud. Complainant on this page: T.C. Wu.
On 2026-10-02, 17:53 Asia/Shanghai, J. Winter, Director Global Corporate Communications, wrote from CorporateCommunications@leica-camera.com to legal@leica.gmbh. Subject, as alleged: Your Email vom 29 Sep. 2026. Names and that company address are not redacted.
Alleged quotes from that letter, not a finding:
“In your case, we have therefore conducted complimentary work on your Leica M (Type 240), Noctilux-M and Summilux-M lens.”
“That response represents Leica Camera AG’s final response on this matter.”
“We respectfully consider this matter closed.”
The letter, as alleged, treats the 2019-09-17 response as that final response. It also asked that employee names, company emails, signatures, and phone numbers on the website be redacted. This page does not redact the name or the company email the letter itself used. No signature image and no telephone number are printed here, because this note does not invent them.
Those complimentary / closed sentences do not match the invoices already published here. The letter, as alleged, does not mention the M9. What this archive already prints is Ursula Brand, 6 September 2019 (2019-09-06), a contribution in the €1303 + VAT class, service orders 1058152 / 1105973. €1303 + VAT is not complimentary. See the existing notes 2018 price hike — €1303 + VAT and €1303 + VAT (2019-09-18 note), and the homepage line at #contradiction. This page does not treat the Noctilux-M or Summilux-M as a separately verified paid invoice; the alleged quote names them, and the published paid figure used here is the M9 record above.
Complainant’s account, not Leica’s admission: the M (Typ 240) repair was also paid, and both the M9 and the M (Typ 240) failed again within half a year after repair. The 2026-10-02 letter, as alleged, does not mention that recurrence.
Already-public December 2014 wording on this site, quoted from the existing page and not from the 2026-10-02 letter: Leica Camera AG “told the world, in December 2014, that M9 / M9-P / M Monochrom / M-E cover-glass corrosion would be replaced regardless of the age of the camera … while a “permanent technical solution” was sought” (homepage #contradiction). The same archive’s 2014 goodwill note prints “regardless of age”. This note does not add any other promised-repair sentence.
Open line as of 2026-10-03: orders 1058152 / 1105973 stay on the payment-on-file record. Calling a published €1303 + VAT charge “complimentary”, and then “closed”, is the allegation on this page — their sentences against the published invoices. Not a court finding. Not adjudicated fraud.
€1303 + VAT note · Brand €1303 note · Homepage: 2014 wording · 2014 goodwill note · 2014 / 2017 / 2018 / 2020 side-by-side · 12 questions
中文
本页只记录一封据称已收到的来信，与站上已公布记录之间的落差。不声称已向对方发出回复邮件。不是法院判决，也不是已裁判的欺诈。投诉人只写 T.C. Wu。
2026-10-02 17:53（Asia/Shanghai），J. Winter（Director Global Corporate Communications）自 CorporateCommunications@leica-camera.com 写给 legal@leica.gmbh。据称主题：Your Email vom 29 Sep. 2026。姓名与该公务邮箱不涂黑。
据称原句（非法院认定）：
“In your case, we have therefore conducted complimentary work on your Leica M (Type 240), Noctilux-M and Summilux-M lens.”
“That response represents Leica Camera AG’s final response on this matter.”
“We respectfully consider this matter closed.”
据称该信把 2019-09-17 的答复当作最终答复。对方还要求网站涂黑员工姓名、公司邮箱、签名和电话号码。本页不涂黑这封信本身使用的姓名和公务邮箱。签名和电话号码本页不印，因为本页不编造它们。
这些 complimentary / closed 的句子，与本站已经公布的账单不符。据称该信没有提到 M9。站上已写的是：Ursula Brand，2019-09-06，€1303 + VAT，服务订单 1058152 / 1105973。€1303 + VAT 不是 complimentary。见 €1303 页与首页 #contradiction。本页不把 Noctilux-M / Summilux-M 写成另一张已核实的收费单；据称原句点了这两只镜头，本页用来对照的已公布收费是上面的 M9 记录。
投诉人陈述，不是徕卡自认：M（Typ 240）那次维修同样付过费；M9 与 M（Typ 240）都在维修后半年内再次故障。据称 2026-10-02 这封信没有写这次复发。
2014-12 的公开措辞只引用站上已有句子，并加上链接，不另造原句。首页 #contradiction 已写：2014 年 12 月，M9 / M9-P / M Monochrom / M-E 的盖板玻璃腐蚀更换 regardless of the age of the camera，并寻求 “permanent technical solution”。2014 goodwill 页写的是 “regardless of age”。本页不补任何别的“修好之后”承诺句。
截至 2026-10-03：订单 1058152 / 1105973 仍在已付款记录上。把已公布的 €1303 + VAT 说成 complimentary，再宣布 closed，是本页的指控：他们的句子对不上已公布的账单。不是法院认定。不是已裁判的欺诈。