Crucial 128 GB RAM warranty claim ends with $260 refund offer instead of replacement

A Reddit user claims Crucial (Micron’s now-discontinued consumer memory and storage brand) offered to refund just $259.99 for a failed 128 GB DDR5 memory kit. Interestingly, Crucial has already approved a warranty replacement for the same kit, but got cold feet later. Unsurprisingly, the same Crucial Pro 128 GB (2x 64 GB) DDR5-5600 kit has recently been listed for around $1,800, making the proposed refund a fraction of the cost of buying an equivalent replacement today.

According to the customer, only one of the two 64 GB modules had actually failed. However, the entire kit had to be returned as part of the RMA process, effectively forcing the owner to surrender a fully functional 64 GB DIMM. The company instead offered to refund the original purchase price, which the customer understandably rejected, and then asked either for an equivalent replacement or compensation sufficient to purchase one at current prices. They also asked for the original kit back, although Crucial reportedly said it would first have to determine whether the memory had already been processed or disposed of, and if it is, the user is effectively stuck with no RAM and, at best, $260 in the bank.

It is not the first recent complaint concerning Crucial warranty claims following its parent company's exit from the consumer memory market. Earlier this month, another Reddit user reported sending in a faulty Crucial 48 GB DDR5 kit and initially being offered $241.86, based on its original purchase price. At the time, a similar 48 GB DDR5 kit cost around $650. Micron ultimately changed course and sent the person three 16 GB Crucial Pro DDR5-6400 modules instead.

The two cases arrive shortly after right-to-repair advocate Louis Rossmann publicly lambasted Samsung over a similar warranty dispute involving a failed 4 TB 990 Pro SSD. Rossmann had purchased the drive for around $300 before SSD prices surged, but said Samsung initially offered to refund roughly the amount he originally paid after claiming it could not provide a replacement.

Rossmann objected on the grounds that such a refund would no longer allow him to purchase an equivalent drive. He argued that if a manufacturer cannot replace a product that fails under warranty, the customer should instead receive enough compensation to buy an equivalent product at its current price. After he decided to take the matter to court, Samsung eventually refunded him $1,234.04, roughly matching the 990 Pro’s then-current replacement cost. Rossmann stressed in his subsequent video that he had not actually sued Samsung; the matter was resolved before the required waiting period elapsed.

The complaints are particularly egregious given Micron's own assurances when it announced the end of the Crucial consumer business in December 2025. At the time, the company said warranties on existing Crucial products would continue to be honoured even as retail RAM and SSD sales were wound down. Technically, that still leaves room for refunds when direct replacements are unavailable. In practice, however, the latest cases highlight the problem created when a refund is based on an old purchase price while the cost of equivalent memory has risen dramatically. For the owners, having a warranty honoured like that borders on scam territory.