Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Affected owners and their advocates argue that responsibility here is unambiguous: the fault originated entirely from a BIOS update Lenovo itself created and distributed, not from any misuse, damage or normal wear by the customer, so whether a device happens to sit inside or outside its warranty window should be irrelevant to who pays for the fix. On this view, a manufacturer that pushes a defective update onto a device is obliged to make the owner whole, and hesitating to commit to free repairs shifts the cost of Lenovo's own quality-control failure onto blameless customers, risking lasting damage to trust in accepting future firmware updates at all.

The case against

Lenovo's more cautious position reflects understandable business and technical prudence: its own testing suggests the fault may be linked to specific mainboard components rather than affecting every Legion Go unit that installed the update, so committing to blanket free repairs before the investigation concludes risks over-promising or extending remedies to devices whose problems stem from something other than this BIOS release. Warranty terms exist precisely to give a company a predictable, bounded basis for handling costs, and it is reasonable to want to confirm root cause and scope, and to let existing consumer-protection frameworks in each market apply as intended, before making sweeping public commitments it may not be able to honour consistently.