Tight-wad Apple repair techs swapped our damaged iGear with used kit – lawsuit Apple has been presented with a class-action lawsuit filed by customers who say the expensive electronics giant replaced their damaged devices with used models. More specifically, the suit [PDF] filed to the Northern California District Court alleges the Cupertino behemoth has been replacing damaged or defective devices with …
The relevant portion of the AppleCare T&Cs, for those playing at home:
"Apple will either (a) repair the defect at no charge, using new or refurbished parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability, or (b) exchange the Covered Equipment with a replacement product that is new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability, and is at least functionally equivalent to the original product. "
http://www.apple.com/legal/sales-support/applecare/appmacnaen.html
Half the time refurbished gear tends to run a little better and longer, depending on where and who refurbished it, and what was wrong with it originally.
Zactly! Devices are new until you open them... no one gets anything "new." The devices are already used and burnt-in at the factories, if you want to get down to the nitty gritty. The only new device is the one you build yourself.
"as refurbished devices can never be the equivalent to new in performance and reliability"
HOGWASH!!1! Refurb devices are going to be tested with the same/more scrutiny as a new device, and since their burn in time is much greater, the device is going to be slightly more hearty than a new one. There are virtually no moving parts on an iPhone. The only thing that can go wrong is the user mistreating it. 100% of the time. People are just fucking morons. Try racing a brand new engine around and see how you fucking damage the shit out of it in the first 500 miles. They must be "broken in" to create a normal and very slight wearing of the internals. Phone and computers are not quite the same, but again burn in time is a very real and very necessary thing with electronics. Whenever I get a new TV I opt out of the extended warranty and just run the TV for 24 hours straight to do my own home burn-in. If it dies, it's still under store and other warranties and what not. These morons are going to make a bunch of lawyers some money, IF they're lucky enough to go to trial. And the "class" auctioneers will get $5 and the good feeling that they did nothing useful.
And in the end, these idiots will all go out and buy the next iPhone. Nothing has changed.
Also, don't fucking drop your shit, dummies! Who the fuck, other than stupid teens, is walking around with a fucking computer in their hand, other than the pokédopes? Again; people are fucking stupid.
Nice rant!
The cost of repairs at Apple approved specialists is quite prohibitive if the device is getting on a bit or not, but I don't see the qualm, they gave back a working device, be fooking grateful they Honoured their contractual obligations and didn't make up a stupid excuse not to.
What if your in a country where there is no approved repair facility locally, do you hop on a plane to "civilisation" to get it repaired?
How many of the jury use Apple devices I wonder?
If the device in question is no longer manufactured what other option is there?
They have so many broken devices repaired and around to replace customers broken shit, gives no faith at all!
So much tech goes straight into the garbage skip right off the production line, no tests, no f all, cheaper to just bin it and is part of the cost of the tech we buy today, think of the analogy of the car finished Friday afternoon or Monday morning!
It's manufactured cheap and nasty regardless of the complexity of the device and should be sold as such, a throw away world is what we live in now and as long as there's a recycling option mobile devices should be treated as such, but should be proportionately cheap because of this and not screwing us at every turn.
Deleted the rest of the rant.
I call b.s. on your comment.
Having worked at a major electronics firm's remanufacturing division, I can tell you that it's rare for a refurb to be fully tested as new units were. My old company performed the same testing on refurbs as new. Products with thermal issues were safer if purchased as refurbs, since they were typically units that were returned for that problem and we could screen for those known issues. The electronics, on the other hand, had an increased risk of static damage to due the extra handling and usually careless testing (or lack) of wrist/heel straps. Latent static damage is a huge pain when a company is spending the least amount that they can to refurb something. That includes buying bargain basement straps.
I'll give Apple kudos for decent solid state memory, but the customer can recieve memory with a lower life expectancy than what was in the original phone. Even the company I worked for would usually send new units out as replacements (in generic boxes for cost savings) because it was far simpler than the additional tech labor to recondition a used product in the first place. Only large, high dollar, items were touched by a human... everything else was torn down by temps and sorted for recycling.
"There are virtually no moving parts on an iPhone. The only thing that can go wrong is the user mistreating it. 100% of the time"
Jesus wept.
Who told you that? Timmy?
And new devices are new regardless of in house testing. They are new because they have not been (or the components used therein) owned by other members of the public.
Regarding refurb units being more reliable than "new" products- can you explain why they often have shorter warranties? If they are more reliable then shouldn't they have equal or longer warranties?
From the court papers-
"---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. ----"
You quote the following from Apple's T&Cs
"a replacement product that is new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability, and is at least functionally equivalent to the original product."
I can see why that might be interpreted as either:
1. A new identical product.
2. A different model that is new but might be better than the model being replaced.
You can argue that people are dumb for not realising that but there was nothing stopping Apple from saying "we reserve the right to give you a brand new product or a refurbished product.
I just looked at Samsung's warranty T&Cs- they state
This post has been deleted by its author
I doubt they read the T&Cs but relied on a salesperson assuring them that they'd get a brand new replacement if anything went wrong. A few years ago I had the privilege of listening to one of PCWorld's finest trying to convice someone to buy an extended warranty with their killer sales line being "you're buying 2 years warranty and in 2 years time this PC will be out of date, so buy the warranty and just before the 2 years runs out have 'accidentally pour a cup of coffee into it' - then claim on the warranty and you;ll get a brand new PC and since they wont make the same model any more you'll get a 'free upgrade'.
We used to sub fieldwork for a now defunct large electrical retailer who also sold PCs. They had three levels of extended warranty they sold, the top one of which specified new replacements for broken PCs. But the T&C did NOT specify replacing the whole PC, just the faulty part. That wasn't a problem for all the customers I dealt with apart from one
This guy claimed that his almost 3 years old PC couldn't possibly have a "new" motherboard fitted because his "mate works for Computer Weekly and those motherboards ain't been made for at least two years". Me stands there with sealed retail boxed identical motherboard trying to explain that "new" means unused, not just off the production line yesterday, still with warm solder. He refused the fix and I left, only to return a week later to install the same board after "negotiations" happened higher up than my pay scale. He still wasn't happy. Not least because his own shenanigans resulted in an 8 day fix instead of a next day fix.
I doubt they read the T&Cs but relied on a salesperson assuring them that they'd get a brand new replacement if anything went wrong.
That probably also applies to the lawyers as well.... greedy bastards that they are. Or they're going to try to challenge the warranty. If so, they're still greedy bastards... just maybe not as much a bastard.
Not sure if this is still the case, but when my friend used to work in consumer electronics, the law was very clear about a device comes with either a reasonable lifetime warranty, or 2 years. Depending on your country, opinions of courts etc. Thus selling someone "insurance" was selling them something they had already got. My friend used to get a 1% commission on most goods (kit, but not consumables IIRC) but would get somewhere between 33% and 60% of the sales of "insurance". Which gives you an idea of just how lucrative it can be.
Donkeys years ago I bought a "boom box" with a CD player in it, for $65. Salesgoon tried to persuade me that dropping $40 on insurance was a good idea, which I found hilarious.
A while after the sales of the 4G capable iPad in the UK I watched a salesperson at an apple store talk to a customer about buying one and a data plan. The 4G side of things really interested the customer and they were told that they were future proofing themselves for when 4G was launched. I made an off the cuff remark about the customer needing to be in the USA for 4G to be of any benefit. Salesperson tells me that the thing has 4G capability and that I'm not helping anyone by making statements that aren't true.
I said that whilst it might have 4G capability the frequencies of the device were different from those we would be using in the UKhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/01/apple_ipad_4g_investigation/ they asked if I can back that up, which I did with that link. I pointed out that I was just trying to save them from being on the wrong end of trading standards. The response was "why are they advertising 4G then? Why haven't we been told about the different frequencies? I've sold them as being 4G ready etc."
The lawsuit centers on the question of "is a referb the equivalent to new"?
Almost any site you buy from offers referb items at a discount. This means that businesses either believe referbs are inferior or at least that customers perceive them that way and so must sell them at a discount. Apple even sells their referbs at a discount. If they are "good as new" why sell them at a discount? Why even tell people they are referb if they'll never be able to tell the difference? This is why the people suing have a case.
Now that is a literal read of the T&C. The spirit of what the T&C meant obviously is that you can receive a referb. Of course, it is hard to feel sorry for businesses who will take a contract literally when it is in their best interest.
That is exactly what I was thinking, this is just a speculative lawsuit to make the lawyers some money. Right up until I considered the flash memory.
To be equivalent to new Apple would have to replace the flash, since modern high capacity flash has rewrite cycles in the low thousands, or even high hundreds. If Apple aren't replacing the flash the plaintiffs deserve to win. If they do, Apple are in the clear.
I had an iPhone 4 replaced twice in two weeks. the first one the cellular data just died entirely after a couple of days.
The second one they refused to replace, I believe had a 3rd party screen replacement in it (when I received it from apple). the screen wasn't as clear as itshould have been - I cant really explain it, but it seemed like it was displaying the image from an interleaved signal. eg you would look really closely and every second line would have this faint flicker to it. so annoying!
Let's say you buy near the end of the model year, your device IS brand new and breaks down. You send it in, and they send you back a model that was used for almost a year. Shut it works, but the battery is half used already. That's not the equivalent of new, or even close to what they just bought. At that point, I want one, fresh of the assembly line. Now that's only one issue. The female end of the mini USB is worn because the idiot who owned before was extremely careless when plugging in, or the cord got jerked out sideways several times. How about the power button, home button, earphones Jack, etc. Getting the picture now. The lawyers would not take a contingency based case if it was a nothing sandwich. So now some of you are better informed.
I'm an Android user, but these policies are an industry standard. OEMs and Carriers all want to save money, and don't give Breitbart shots about you getting a lesser device on return.
They are refurb units and at the very least the battery is replaced as part of the refurb.
The sockets, buttons and stuff are all tested.
But lightning connectors are poor an unreliable anyway.
So are micro usb, especially when they are just surface mounted on the main PCB and presented through a hole in the side of the case like many cheap Android phones. Better devices put those on a mini swappable PCB assembly that costs pennies and can be switched out during a refurb.
Having worked on the helldesk for AppleCare for a few months, when a user gets a refurbished phone, they get a phone that has a new battery and screen but the gubbins of everything else is from a device that has been returned, typically to Ireland.
I sent a 5th gen iPod back to them after a friend stood on it and broke the scroll wheel (didn't tell them how it happened) and got back one that has 'Debbie Rocks' inscribed on the back. I complained at them resulting in it being picked up, and then the same one mailed back to me.
A second pissy complaint eventually saw one without the opinion of Debbie sent over.
"I sent a 5th gen iPod back to them after a friend stood on it and broke the scroll wheel (didn't tell them how it happened)"
As if Apple couldn't guess. I'm glad my friends aren't like yours. Mine are the type that would apologise and offer to pay for it. I wouldn't expect Apple to pay. You cheat Apple and here you complain about them. Sad.
English is a very flexible language - the users speak and understand everyday English, but the contract is written by lawyers in Contract English. Apple are now being sued by other lawyers who understand both forms of English and see the opportunity to make some money by exploiting the differences in understanding.
Don't forget just how screwed up American Courts are. This is the country where a group of people sued Red Bull because it didn't literally "give you wings".
And what's really fucked up is that they won the case and were awarded $13million in damages.
http://www.energydrinksettlement.com/
Anon because I work for Apple (as a subcontractor).
The term used inside the "Appleverse" is "As New" - these phones are refurbished but they all get a new screen, and new battery. In addition, they are completely tested before they are made available for release to customers. Given that Apple tests (IIRC) 1 in 100 at the production plant, an "As New" device is actually much more likely to be fully functional from day one of ownership; indeed, that's part of the reason for providing those devices to customers who return a device they claim is defective - we have a detailed record of the testing, so we can start to position that it might be the customer doing something wrong, not the device being faulty.
The language in AC+ (AppleCare Plus) is actually quite plain - you will get a working device, in at least as good a condition, and at least as functional, as the one being replaced. It might be brand new, it might be a returned device which has been repaired with new parts and tested. In either case, it is at Apple's discretion - there's no contractual obligation for Apple to provide a brand new device. In practice, if the customer continues to have a problem with a replaced device, it's routine to have a "sealed from production line" unit sent as the replacement. If they still have issues with that one, we'll pretty much tell them "It's not us, it's you".
Bottomline: case is without merit; Apple will prevail, if it even goes that far. Lawyers will laugh all the way to the bank, and the idiots who funded it deserve the costs.
The real issue isn't whether or not the equipment is refurbished, but how long the refurbished kit is warrantied for. Some of the kit I've returned to other manufacturers six months (say) into a one year warranty has been explicitly warrantied for only 90 days, cheating me of three months warranty on an already-proved-to-be-dodgy device.
As I said to one California-based video processing outfit some years ago when I suggested that I pay them the difference and they send me the new upgraded version of the unit I had returned for service to replace a never-did-what-it-said-on-the-box first edition: how is it that I have more faith in your equipment than you do?
Any company that will not warranty their stuff for a full year does not deserve your money.
I've always found factory refurbished products to be as good as if not better than new out of the box products. Refurbished products are normally fully tested prior to being put back into the marketplace; whereas, new products are quite often only spot checked.
From the court papers:
--Maldonado purchases an ipad, she breaks the screen 7 months later. A "genius" convinces her to buy a replacement ipad and to pay for AppleCare+ to cover it (total cost $376.71). No one tells her that it is a recon unit- even the receipt refers to it as NEW. --
She paid $249.00 for the iPad and $99 for AppleCare+. Had she known that the unit was a recon, she might not have paid $99 for AppleCare+.
AppleCare+ is an insurance policy. Many customers might be better off with a 3rd party policy, particularly one which offers new for old.
Apple could be upfront about the use of recon units but they ain't...
But as others have said, this is common in the industry and honestly, just fair. The failed device is not "new"...if it was "new" it would still be in the sealed factory packaging. If a device fails right out of the box, it would and should be replaced with another new unit, but as soon as the end user starts using the device, it is "Used".
Warranty or insurance replacement is for a replacement device, not for a "new" device. The item being replaced was not "new" so a replacement does not have to be either. This practice is not at all exclusive to Apple...Dell works exactly the same way, has for years, and it's not generating any headlines or lawsuits. The insurance policy is to make the insured "whole"...they used to have a used device that functioned properly, and after the insurance does its work, they will again have a used (refurbed) device that works properly.
The only problem that crops up in my experience is when the customer care rep authorizes the replacement and says something like "We're going to send you a new one" instead of the correct "We are going to send a replacement".
That poor turn of phrase can turn into support escalations as the end user has had their expectations set inaccurately. Resetting those expectations so that they align with reality can be touchy, but the policy is neither ambiguous nor inequitable.
(Ex Dell escalation technician...and no, you cannot get a *new* laptop to replace your two year old one, no matter what you think the customer care rep said).
Over the years, I have dealt with Apple Care several times and was always satisfied.
Almost all insurance is the same. If a car is wrecked the person doesn't get a new car. In fact, the person may not even get enough from the insurance company to get the car fixed. If "bluebook" is $8,000 and it would cost $12,000 to fix, you'll get $8,000 (and they *may* let you keep the remains of the car).
A fellow ran into the back of my car not too many years back. His fault. His insurance adjuster came and did his estimate. It was based upon used parts. He made it clear to me that my car was "used" so they would replace with used parts. I did threaten them with "diminuation of value" which rarely holds up in court and we compromised so as to not go to court. Parts such as the exhaust system (anything that can ware out) were replaced with new parts. Parts such as the bumper (essentially plastic) were replaced with used parts from a junk yard.
This has always been the case, monitors in particular, which is why you just hope to hell your monitor dies within the 30 day DOA period so you can RMA it, otherwise it's Russian roulette as to what you get.
I've had plenty of customers over the years p1ssed because the monitor they looked after and had not a blemish on it, was replaced with one that had a scratch somewhere obvious as a refurbished/repaired model or even funnier, when they have dual screens and they get a different model as a replacement.
Oh boy do the OCD ones get wound up easily.
I don't see them winning this case, I suspect more than anything it's their lawyer trying to make a quick buck and being in a win-win position, if they win, he gets a good payday, if they lose, he still gets his bill paid.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
