Mikey Campbell
A California judge on Tuesday certified a class of consumers accusing Apple of furnishing refurbished replacement products to AppleCare and AppleCare+ customers, a strategy that allegedly contradicts the company's advertised policies.
U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick issued the order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denying Apple's motion for summary judgment. The case dates back to a 2016 complaint that takes issue with Apple's device replacement procedures.
Complainants, including class representative Vicky Maldonado, accuse Apple of breaching false advertising and unfair competition laws by replacing products covered by AppleCare and AppleCare+ warranties with refurbished equipment. According to plaintiffs, the practice conflicts with Apple's own documentation, which promises replacements that are "equivalent to new in performance and reliability."
Attorneys representing the claimants say Apple's strategy violates not only its own contracts, but consumer laws. Further, the company illegally profits from the scheme by charging customers premium prices for aftermarket services and not delivering on those promises.
"Judge Orrick has given a thorough and thoughtful review of our claims, and we are grateful to the court for allowing this consumer case against Apple to continue," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney leading the suit. "We look forward to proving our claims that Apple has been breaking its own established contracts with its AppleCare and AppleCare+ customers."
Hagens Berman in a press release said it seeks to determine the difference in value between devices that work like new and "inferior devices" Apple provided as replacements.
The lawsuit seeks damages for consumers and potentially other remedies including an option to reclaim the full purchase price for a broken device instead of sending it in for repair, and a change to the AppleCare+ service plan terms and conditions. As specified by Orrick, individuals included in the class are customers who purchased AppleCare or AppleCare+, either directly or through the iPhone Upgrade Program, on or after July 20, 2012, and received a "remanufactured" replacement device.
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
AppleInsider Staff
Chip Loder
Malcolm Owen
34 Comments
Those products aren’t inferior. This has come up time and time again and it’s just a money grab.
Good luck finding that difference.
OK now. How do the lawyers prove that the replacement devices are not "equivalent to new in performance and reliability." And then how do they assess what is owed? Do they use retail or the wholesale prices in the used iPhone market or some other valuation?
If a refurbed iPhone has a new battery and a clean screen, there is minimal difference in performance or reliability. Actually, a two year old refurbed iPhone is likely better than the iPhone that was replaced just by having a new battery.
If all things are equal and resale value isn’t affected then it’s hard to see plaintiffs prove their claim.
"According to plaintiffs, the practice conflicts with Apple's own documentation, which promises replacements that are "equivalent to new in performance and reliability."
This, right here, is plain English as far as I can make out...
Now, here is what Wikipedia says about refurbished electronics...
"The main difference between "refurbished" and "used" products is that refurbished products have been tested and verified to function properly, and are thus free of defects, while "used" products may or may not be defective. Refurbished products may be unused customer returns that are essentially "new" items, or they may be defective products that were returned under warranty, and resold by the manufacturer after repairing the defects and ensuring proper function."
Thus, there is ZERO false marketing by Apple to customers, as their statement of "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" EXACTLY describes what a refurbished item is!
Another fucking pointless lawsuit by scumbag lawyers! When are these a-hats going to face prison time??? Oh, and throw in the idiots who bring forward these types of claims because they're too stupid to read ENGLISH and just want a quick buck!