Apple was hit with a new class action lawsuit today in California by customers who have purchased the company’s AppleCare and AppleCare+ plans to cover damages on iPhones and iPads.
At the heart of the lawsuit is Apple’s long-held policy to replace broken devices with units that the company claims are good as new in performance and reliability, even though they’re second-hand refurbished models.
The lawsuit was filed today in the Northern California District Court by Vicky Maldonado and Joanne McRight who are bringing the action on behalf of all persons who purchased an AppleCare and AppleCare+ plan for an iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch after July 11, 2011.
The two defendants both purchased iOS devices and AppleCare+ and argue that they were negatively impacted economically when Apple swapped their devices for refurbished units that they claim cannot be considered new.
“‘New’ means a Device that has never been utilized or previously sold and consists of all new parts,” the defendant’s lawyers claim in court documents obtained by Cult of Mac. “The word ‘refurbished’ appears only once in the AppleCare+ terms and conditions even though the printed booklet is 33 pages long. The word is not even used to reference a device, but a part.”
Apple is being sued for breach of warranty, fraud and violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The group says that AppleCare+ is false advertisement as well because Apple charges customers $79.99 to replace devices that suffer accidental damage, but the replacements are not “equivalent to new” as promised, because “refurbished devices can never be the equivalent to new in performance and reliability.”
If Apple loses it could face a multi-billion-dollar fine to compensate customers who purchased AppleCare+ on their iOS devices, based on the damages claimed by the lawsuit.
You can read the full filing below:
MALDONADO vs APPLE by Buster Heine on Scribd
Buster Hein is a freelance writer who lives in Phoenix, Arizona. Twitter: @bst3r.
14 responses to “Apple faces class action lawsuit over AppleCare+ refurbs”
LMAO fat chance on this one. Also, if the replacement devices work, how are they possibly negatively impacted? We have to end this frivolous lawsuit crap.
I give them MY iPhone and I want it back fixed or new.
If you act stupidly and break your phone, why do you deserve a brand-spanking new phone for $180… Entitled much? I had mine replaced with a refurb, no issues, in fact seems better than the original!
Its only $129 for a screen replacement at the Apple Store. 6 s plus is 149. If people knew how cheap apple charges for screen replacements all the third party repair places would go out of business. Beause they all charge more. If the phone needs to be replaced then its 269 to 329 and not 180
I am getting paid around $6000-$8000 a month with my online job. Those who are looking to work easy freelance jobs for several hours /day from your home and make valuable payment in the same time… This is perfect for you… SELF92.COM
gfhfghgfh
Be nice to them and sometimes the will pull more strings to make things even cheaper! I ended up almost having to pay the $330 but I was nice to the dude and he dropped it to $80. Kindness goes a long way!
I’m no talking about mechanical damage idiot
You give them a used phone, you get a used phone back. Deal wtith it.
Maybe the refurbished has a unique serial number or imei scheme that people will know when shopping
„If Apple loses it could face a multi-billion dollar fine to compensate anyone who purchased AppleCare+ on their iOS devices.“
LOL, dream on, Buster-Shmuster.
This makes no sense. Everyone replaces stuff with refurbished. How come no one sued dell for replacing two of my laptops with refurbished ones?
Karma comes back Apple, gota laugh at You, Greedy Greedy company.
Wow, this is just silly. Apple’s refurbished products (which I normally buy for the cost savings) are tested and any defective parts replaced so that they are essentially “new” devices. They look new and act like new, so what’s the big deal about receiving a refurbished device? This lawsuit is predicated on the false concept that “refurbished” devices are somehow defective or damaged from the start. They’re not. Place a brand new iPhone next to one of Apple’s refurbished iPhones, then try to tell the difference by observation and functionality. You can’t, because Apple’s meticulous refurbishment policies mean that any damaged or unworking part has been replaced so that it looks and operates like new. I’ve been buying refurbished Apple devices for over 15 years and have NEVER had a single problem with them.
This is not a simple issue: when a customer purchases a $700+ product AND a $99 extended warranty, it is highly probable they may have expectations on how said warranty is going to work.
First there is the $79 “dissuasion”: to put a threshold to unmotivated replacement requests, Apple requires a monetary commitment.
At this point our fictional user has purchased a new phone, an insurance plan and is required to fork out more money for a new device (or a “refurbished” one). In theory (Apple’s theory, that is), refurbished devices are functionally equivalent to a new one, and Apple walks the extra mile by assuring that if the same model is not available, a newer model, equivalent or better, will be provided. That is seldom the case, but it happened nevertheless (ask those lucky bastards who got an iPhone 4 instead of their faulty iPhone 3GS).
But a user who paid around $1K may not be entirely satisfied by a refurbished device. Not because it is inferior to a new one (which is debatable), but because if they wanted a refurbished item, they would have bought one in the first place.
Granted, I got my share of refurbished devices, and they usually LOOK exactly like brand new models. Also, they did not show a higher failure rate compared to new devices.
In one sentence: they look new, work as they were new (and if they don’t, you get a replacement), but they are NOT new: they are made with some new parts and some salvaged from previously returned (defective or broken) devices.
Back to our fictional user, he or she may not be entirely comfortable thinking: “I paid dearly for a new device which was defective, and now I have been given another device which they say is fine, but is actually a hodgepodge of new and old, and potentially faulty parts”.
To sum everything up: users expect Apple to exchange defective phones with brand new units, and that is especially true for devices covered by an AppleCare+ plan (aren’t we paying insurance AND an extra?). But that would create the problem of disposing of (or repurposing) MILLIONS of refurbished devices (and the cute dismantling robots that go with them) or shipping them to some third-world country that could scavenge some for materials, burn some, thus contributing to global pollution, and sell the rest as new on Craigslist.
So we probably should man up (or woman up, delete where applicable) and accept a “fully working refurbished unit”, or take better care of our new phones, without relying on shady insurance policies…