Judge throws out lawsuit against iPhone's water resistance

Judge throws out lawsuit against iPhone’s water resistance


Plaintiffs failed to show any evidence of wrongdoing on Apple's part.
Photo: Apple

A federal judge this week dismissed a class-action lawsuit that accuses Apple of misleading iPhone customers about its water resistance.

Plaintiffs claimed that iPhone advertising that showed the device exposed to water was “false and misleading,” and allowed Apple to charge higher prices. However, they failed to prove their iPhones were actually damaged by water.

Apple won’t face lawsuit over ‘misleading’ iPhone claims

Apple introduced its first water-resistant smartphone, iPhone 7, in 2016. Since then, all of its handsets have been rated for liquid protection of some kind. iPhone 13 has been tested at a maximum depth of 6 meters up to 30 minutes

However, that rating isn’t a guarantee that an iPhone won’t fail when exposed to water — or any other liquid. As Apple notes on its website, water resistance isn’t permanent, and it can degrade as a result of normal wear and other factors.

According to some, Apple’s advertising of this feature is false and allows it to charge higher prices for iPhone than other devices. One class-action lawsuit accused the company of misleading consumers about water resistance.

The named plaintiffs, two from New York and one from South Carolina, filed a class-action lawsuit against Cupertino that called for damages due to them being misled. Fortunately for Apple, it won’t go anywhere.

Judge sides with Apple

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan, who on Wednesday dismissed the case, said the plaintiffs failed to show that their iPhones were damaged as a result of the “liquid contact” that Apple promised they could withstand.

They also failed to show any evidence of fraud on Apple’s part, with no proof that the company overstated its water resistance claims. And they failed to prove that they bought iPhones as a result of fraudulent marketing statements.

Lawyer Spencer Sheehan said his clients are disappointed with the decision, according to Reuters, but they have not decided whether they will appeal yet.