Hey everyone, just a massive warning if you are looking at secondhand Snapmaker gear.
I bought a Snapmaker U1 from someone working at local school on Marktplaats. The school got it as a donation and never used it, so it was basically brand new. It prints perfectly offline, but it absolutely refuses to connect to the Wi-Fi/cloud.
I messaged Snapmaker support, and they told me the original owner (the guy who donated it to the school) allegedly scammed them on a warranty claim a while ago. Snapmaker sent him a replacement machine, but he ghosted them and never sent the old one back (Allegedly, no proof was given).
To “punish” him, Snapmaker remotely blacklisted the serial number from their servers.
I argued with their management for days. The actual alleged fraudster already got away with it and has his free machine. The guy from the school did nothing wrong, and I did nothing wrong. By keeping the server ban active, Snapmaker isn’t hurting the alleged scammer, they are punishing an innocent buyer and forcing a fine working machine to become e-waste over a rigid corporate rule.
Their support supervisor completely ignored my point and basically told me “tough luck, our policy is final.”
The printer still works fine offline via LAN mode and USB, but the sheer arrogance of this company completely ruined the brand for me. If a previous owner screws them over, Snapmaker will gladly screw an innocent customer over just to get even. AVOID THEM !
Presuming this is true, your argument is with whoever sold you the U1 – not with Snapmaker. You can’t expect Snapmaker to remove sanctions from a printer which is fraudulently owned, no matter how you got it. You are not an innocent customer of Snapmaker, you are the victim of fraud. You have not paid any money to Snapmaker, and it is not Snapmaker’s responsibility.
We might consider the school to be an innocent party, but by selling you equipment that was fraudulently donated to them, however unknowingly, they are responsible to you for refunding your money.
Be grateful you can use it in LAN mode. Frankly, you should be sanctioned for your forum post because of your lack of understanding of ethics.
Get off your high horse before lecturing anyone about “ethics.”
Neither I nor the school had any clue about this history. I bought a machine in good faith, tested it locally, and paid for it. Questioning my integrity or demanding I get sanctioned for warning other community members about how Snapmaker handles secondhand hardware is completely out of line.
The school didn’t scam anyone, and I didn’t scam anyone. The actual scammer walked away with a free printer and faced zero consequences. Snapmaker’s policy doesn’t touch the fraudster; it only leaves innocent buyers with a crippled machine and a terrible brand experience.
That’s not an ethical failing on my part, it’s a warning to anyone buying used gear.
No, you are wrong. You might all be innocent victims of a fraudster, but that does not mean you have lawful ownership of the U1. The fraudster was obliged to return the unit, but did not. That is the fraud. Snapmaker are entitled to blacklist it.
Suppose this was a car, not a 3D printer. If you bought a stolen car, you could expect law enforcement to take it away from you with no compensation. The same with any stolen goods. This is a stolen U1. You have no argument against Snapmaker, end of.
Stop throwing around legal claims when you don’t even have the facts straight.
This printer was never stolen. It is a legitimate, original machine that Snapmaker willingly shipped to an original buyer. The dispute is an administrative warranty return issue over an old unit, not a criminal theft of this hardware. For all anyone knows, packages get lost or misregistered in warehouses every day, no court has ruled on fraud or theft here.
Lawful Ownership: In the Netherlands (and across the EU), an innocent buyer who purchases goods in good faith is explicitly protected and acquires lawful title. This isn’t a hot car stripped for parts; it’s a piece of hardware bought in good faith from a school.
You can keep defending corporate policies all day, but the reality doesn’t change: the person with the dispute walked away untouched, and Snapmaker is leaving legitimate community members holding the bag. I’m done going in circles with you.
In fact, the school and you may well be acting in good faith, and if that is the case, you have been swindled – but not by SnapMaker. This is not an unpleasant situation, and you should take action against the seller.
The title of the message (or its translation into my language) strikes me as misleading, as it seems to me that SnapMaker is in the right, and I realise it’s never pleasant when a good deal turns out to be a scam.
Keeping a defective item and giving it away after receiving a replacement can be considered theft, fraud, or conversion, depending on your local laws and the company’s terms of service.
When a company sends a replacement under a warranty that requires you to return the original item, you do not legally own the old item anymore. Giving it away is a civil or criminal violation because you are disposing of property that legally belongs to the company.
People seem to skip crucial info and keep getting stuck on the “stolen” part.
Legally, nothing was stolen (according to my lawyer). It is an administrative dispute until proven otherwise**.** This printer was never stolen. It is a legitimate, original machine that Snapmaker willingly shipped to an original buyer. The dispute is an administrative warranty return issue over an old unit, not a criminal theft of this hardware. For all anyone knows, packages get lost or misregistered in warehouses every day, no court has ruled on fraud or theft here. Lawful Ownership: In the Netherlands (and across the EU), an innocent buyer who purchases goods in good faith, is explicitly protected and acquires lawful title. This isn’t a hot car stripped for parts; it’s a piece of hardware bought in good faith from a school.
You do not have any contract or selling connection to snapmaker. You can just complain at your seller, the school. They can go to their sponsor or reduce the price.
You won’t find much support here for your stolen goods.
Title of this thread should be: Warning! Do not buy stolen snapmaker machines!
OK, I understand you are a victim here through no fault of your own, BUT so is Snapmaker - if they sent a replacement machine and never got one returned then they are victims too!
They are within their rights to blacklist both machines should they wish to until one or the other is returned or the second machine paid for. Hell in the UK you have to pay a FULL deposit for a replacement of anything to be sent which is then refunded on return of said faulty item.
The fact your law protects you against this fraud well lucky you, in the UK I would have to return it and seek the original owner for compensation
Now Snapmaker haven’t scammed you nor done anything wrong as far as I can see, they blacklisted a printer that was gained through fraud - I think you are venting at the wrong people? (not the school either as they accepted it as a donation in good faith)
I think you’ve gotten a bit emotional over this ewaste etc etc as you then state it still works, just won’t connect to Snapmakers servers? I’ve used mine in LAN mode sonce the day it arrived - hasn’t stopped me printing?
I understand your anger but unfortunately you got kind of scammed.
I understand snapmaker for blacklisting and from my point of view it’s ok (they can’t know if you are the fraudster again, isn’t it?).
The title of this topic is misleading and I will edit it.
The machine works even without WLAN connection neither in Lan mode, it’s only the missing cloud connection.
Simplest way to solve your misspick would be to buy the blocked module (unfortunately I don’t know which but I guess the touchscreen-processor-unit or the Mainboard would do the trick, I’m no U1 owner, please forgive me for inaccuracy).
I guess if you are gentle and polite, support would tell you and sell you the blocked module.
From:
Warning: Snapmaker is blocking cloud access on secondhand printers (Screenshots of the official support emails attached)
To:
Blocked cloud access on blacklisted stolen printers
