Listen, I'm just talking from experience because from the years I've worked in that line of business managing lines of products such as displays, it was an important part of my job to make sure that sort of thing was clear for everyone involved, us as retailers, our distribution channels, our aftersales, the manufacturer's, the suppliers when involved, etc.
I'm just telling you Nintendo's statement right now is not satisfying in two ways, it's banging the door at the customer's face being borderline dishonest indeed (because dead/stuck pixels ARE a defect) and taking him/her for an idiot by stating it's normal closing all discussion, when it should in place admit the defective nature of dead/stuck pixels and immediately proceed to explain what and to what extent is acceptable within the law/warranty limits.
This is why I took the amazon bleeding backlight statement as an example earlier; it's a similar level of abuse because it is a one-sided position over a false statement, there's a difference between saying "it's normal deal with it" and "it happens and we can refund/replace under the following conditions".
That's all I'm saying.
I'm not trying to hurt Nintendo in any way here, quite the opposite I wish they'll make a smart and honest move on that matter soon.
Rather what's your problem with that ? You're raising a shield up in defense of Nintendo too fast regarding this matter.
They really are at fault, and it's not much work to devise a new page/paragraph honestly.
But as mentioned, Dell too says a few dead/stuck pixels* is normal in a display and telling their customers to deal with it.
Nintendo is saying that dead/stuck pixels* in a display is normal and to deal with if it is only a few pixels.
Besides not mentioning the amount of pixels that constitutes a problem, which I've already said is a pretty huge flaw, though not worthy of outrage, I'm really not seeing the huge distinction between those statements. They're both definitely saying to a point that it's normal and to deal with it. Nintendo hasn't specified that point (but I've already said that's not good).
* One of the semantics I think you're arguing is saying they should say the pixels themselves are defect, but this is pretty irrelevant. What matters is if they say the display itself is defect. No one's going to return one pixel to Nintendo and claim it's defect, they're going to take the entire display.