Second class-action suit filed over alleged iPhone battery fraud

[AppleInsider]

A Bay Area resident is the next to join the ranks of those filing lawsuits against Apple and AT&T, arguing that both companies have tricked customers into paying for frequent battery replacements.

Sydney Leung's nine-page class-action complaint, filed in a Northern District of California court on Monday, accusing both Apple and AT&T of fraud in neglecting to inform potential iPhone buyers of the costs involved in maintaining a working battery for the iPhone over the course of the handset's lifespan.

In a virtual repeat of the argument made by Jose Trujillo in his Illinois lawsuit from July, Leung and his representing lawyers Arthur Lazear and Max Folkenflik claim that the battery in the iPhone will last only 300 complete charges before depleting entirely. And again like Trujillo, the new suit contends that the battery will need to be replaced every year by Apple alone due to the sealed rear compartment, which prevents third-party technicians and users from swapping batteries themselves without voiding the warranty.

The accumulated costs of ordering the replacement, shipping, and the loaner iPhone would amount to over $100 each year on top of the three-day replacement process, the lawsuit claims. But as neither Apple nor AT&T had provided warning about any of the costs involved in maintaining a useful battery until after the launch, customers who had bought iPhones during the June 29th introductory weekend -- including Leung -- were not informed of the time and money required until they were locked into a two-year AT&T service contract.

The scope of the complaint is believed to cover the "hundreds of thousands" of users who had bought iPhones before Apple and AT&T publicized the battery replacement details, and therefore demands a class-action suit on their behalf, Folkenflik and Lazear write. As a representative of the affected iPhone buyers, Leung's party demands a jury trial and hopes to recoup the cost of replacing batteries as well as punitive damages for misleading the first wave of customers.

For its part, Apple has not issued public statements about the suit and continues to contradict the claims of both Leung and Trujillo regarding the cellphone's battery life. The Cupertino, Calif.-based electronics firm officially states on its website that the lithium-ion pack maintains its full charging potential for between 300 and 400 cycles and should still hold the majority of its charge for some time afterwards.

Customers are also not required to spend more than $100 for each replacement, since purchasing the AppleCare plan for iPhones would cover any battery replacements needed during the two years of the AT&T agreement. Users have further reported that the iPhone's SIM card functions on a basic level in many other AT&T phones, allowing customers with existing handsets to waive the $29 fee for a temporary iPhone in the event of a battery swap.

[bauch]

Such bullshi*t. People need to do freaking research before buying anything. The iPod I'm sure the guy owns doesn't have a removable battery. It's been known since before the iPhone was released that it wasn't removable. Frickin' A!

[JimUrban]

Sydney Leung's a moron.

[k2director]

I would love it if Apple was able to countersue these idiots for making baseless claims.

[Wally]

I would love it if they would drag everyone who ever filed a frivolous claim into the center of town and cut their fu*king heads off.

[trevorlsciact]

That's fantastic news!

[trevorlsciact]

Originally Posted by Wally

I would love it if they would drag everyone who ever filed a frivolous claim into the center of town and cut their fu*king heads off.

[Matthew Yohe]

Oh jeez. Can someone get ahold of this lawsuit filing?

[k2director]

Originally Posted by Wally

I would love it if they would drag everyone who ever filed a frivolous claim into the center of town and cut their fu*king heads off.

Yea, you're right. Your way would be better.

[bdkennedy1]

They're not baseless. There was absolutely no information available for people to make a decision about how they would handle battery replacement before the launch because no one was able to look at the phone. If I were givien a used iPhone for 3 days for a battery replacement I would be damn pissed.

There's absolutely no fu**ing reason Apple couldn't have made the back cover user friendly to access the battery. They knew they were getting into a new area of income just like Home Depot wants you to pay for an extended warranty for a stupid $29 ceiling fan.

I've been buying Apple prolducts for over 10 years and I'm getting sick of their deceiving designs. "Well, we don't want any screws showing, so we'll just seal the whole thing for design sake and charge the customer extra in the future."

Originally Posted by k2director

I would love it if Apple was able to countersue these idiots for making baseless claims.

[k2director]

You need to get your facts straight.

First of all, Apple was very clear about the battery not being replaceable, way before the iPhone shipped. I remember reading about the non-replaceable battery in many many early press reports after the January unveiling, so the information was out there well ahead of time.

Second of all, these early iPhone buyers could have simply asked a sales person if the battery was replaceable before buying. When they learned the answer, they didn't have to buy. By the way, a non-replaceable battery is not unusual in Apple devices...anybody ever hear of the iPod?

Thirdly, these jackasses are making claims about the battery that are based purely on conjecture and misinformation. They claim that the battery will be depleted after 300 or so charges, and need replacing. Where do they get that? I ask them to prove it! The fact is, Apple has said that the battery could be charged for that many cycles and THEN would begin to lose its charge, like all other batteries.

Is this what America has come to? Nobody forced these idiots to buy the iPhone. Nobody lied to them about the iPhone's capabilities. But somehow these leaches feel they've been wronged, and deserve vast compensation....for a product that works as advertised and has only been on the market for 2 months!

This is as frivolous as it gets.

P.S. I think I'll go out and buy a car right now, and then sue the manufacturer because my car doesn't fly.

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

They're not baseless. There was absolutely no information available for people to make a decision about how they would handle battery replacement before the launch because no one was able to look at the phone. If I were givien a used iPhone for 3 days for a battery replacement I would be damn pissed.

There's absolutely no fu**ing reason Apple couldn't have made the back cover user friendly to access the battery. They knew they were getting into a new area of income just like Home Depot wants you to pay for an extended warranty for a stupid $29 ceiling fan.

I've been buying Apple prolducts for over 10 years and I'm getting sick of their deceiving designs. "Well, we don't want any screws showing, so we'll just seal the whole thing for design sake and charge the customer extra in the future."

[unity]

You right, its ALL about design.

And according to you, batteries are free obviously since your saying Apple would charge extra and no one else would.

Do I care that I can not replace the battery? Yes Does it matter to me in actual use? No ,because my three year old Sony Ericson STILL has its original battery and I have only removed it to replace the SIM card.

And whats up with this "replace one a year" BS. This idiots sewing seem to keep assuming 300 or so charges - NOT full CYCLES as Apple states.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

They're not baseless. There was absolutely no information available for people to make a decision about how they would handle battery replacement before the launch because no one was able to look at the phone. If I were givien a used iPhone for 3 days for a battery replacement I would be damn pissed.

There's absolutely no fu**ing reason Apple couldn't have made the back cover user friendly to access the battery. They knew they were getting into a new area of income just like Home Depot wants you to pay for an extended warranty for a stupid $29 ceiling fan.

I've been buying Apple prolducts for over 10 years and I'm getting sick of their deceiving designs. "Well, we don't want any screws showing, so we'll just seal the whole thing for design sake and charge the customer extra in the future."

Before the "launch" of the iPhone their website clearly stated the battery was built-in and info on charge cycles for LI-Ion batteries are well known and universal among these type batteries. The battery will not magically be rendered useless once 300 cycles or 1 year hits so it's a baseless claim.

You've been buying Apple products for 10 years and feel deceived by their design? Go build a PC then. Apple can make it's products how ever they feel. You are not required to buy any Apple products and i suggest that it may be in your best interest to not by anything that has an all-in-one design... something Apple has been doing since the 1970s.

[addabox]

Apple could put this all to rest by either offering a free loaner during the battery replacement downtime, or training their geniuses to do battery replacements while you wait, at the Apple stores, or both.

I have no problem (well, not a severe problem) with the non user replaceable battery thing-- I understand the design tradeoffs and all-- but it is true that making you have to pay to have a phone to use while they take three days to put a new batt in is pretty much adding insult to injury.

So: either no cost for a loaner, or very little downtime, everybody's happy, except those who aren't, but they'll presumably have less company.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by k2director

I think I'll go out and buy a car right now, and then sue the manufacturer because my car doesn't fly.

Classic.

As for your question of where America is heading, the answer is down the crapper. This is a country not "by the people and for the people", but "by a select few and for a select fewer". The legal system in this country has been structured to ensure an endless amount of business for - you guessed it - lawyers.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by addabox

Apple could put this all to rest by either offering a free loaner during the battery replacement downtime, or training their geniuses to do battery replacements while you wait, at the Apple stores, or both.

I have no problem (well, not a severe problem) with the non user replaceable battery thing-- I understand the design tradeoffs and all-- but it is true that making you have to pay to have a phone to use while they take three days to put a new batt in is pretty much adding insult to injury.

So: either no cost for a loaner, or very little downtime, everybody's happy, except those who aren't, but they'll presumably have less company.

I think those are great ideas and the only case anyone has against Apple. Of course, these ideas would result in the lawyers making squat.

[alansky]

Morons! This world is full of morons with a grudge! Empty, baseless, ridiculous arguments.

[city]

Convenent local! Apple lawyers won't rack up much travel time on this one. I have the same replacement concerns with the brake pads on my car. I am just trying to find someone to take the case.

[Marc G]

There are already 3rd party companies offering battery replacement for the iPhone. I have replaced an iPod battery myself and it's really not that hard to do. Also, someone above said they would not have a problem if Apple offered a temporary replacement while their iPhone was out. If you get Apple Care, it includes the use of a loaner phone while yours is out.

[TenoBell]

It states clearly on the iPhone box that the battery has to be replaced Apple. This case should easily be dismissed once this is pointed out. You cannot sue simply because you don't read.

[badNameErr]

Originally Posted by Wally

I would love it if they would drag everyone who ever filed a frivolous claim into the center of town and cut their fu*king heads off.

WTF?

You need serious help, dude. Srsly.

[fraklinc]

alot of these mayor companies are scare of the jesus phone and will do anything to give it bad publicity, it says it real clear on the box that the battery has to be replace by apple, it does not say how long will it last because its really impossible to tell but even me if someone was to show up at my door step with a bag of cash i would not think twice on making a bullshiet claim about the poor jesus phone, although i love it

[hillstones]

Didn't these retards hold the phone in their hand before buying it? Didn't these retards see the presentation 6 months before the phone was released? Being ignorant is not an excuse. Being stupid is not an excuse.

All of the sue-happy idiots that bought an iPhone won't be using the same phone in 1 or 2 years anyway. Apple will release a new version and they will run out and buy the new one (mainly because they were dumb enough to buy the first one). The phone has been on the market for 6 weeks. They have no evidence to justify their claim that the battery will be dead in 1 year.

I have owned many iPods since the very first model and none of them had battery issues. After two years of use, my 2nd Gen iPod started to lose the full capacity. TWO YEARS! Is that the fault of Apple? Hell no! It is a battery! They don't last forever. I replaced it for $29 and it played for 20 hours instead of 10 hours.

Apple offers a battery replacement program. But these people are too dumb and too clueless to even know about it. Most things in life cannot be serviced by the consumer. Fu*king deal with it! You don't have the right to sue a company because you are too stupid to understand common sense!

[MacRR]

Funny-

Sydney went to law school!

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...iendID=8897154

Hastings is the top law school in SF. I guess his degree is going to good use- too bad he didn't learn to read.

[ksec]

After all these years i am not surprised at all.

It is US. You can sue anyone for anything.

[alienzed]

This is like someone buying a donut and then suing the store that sold it because after he ate it, it was gone!! And he couldn't eat it forever! Oh my god! There was nothing left, but he paid for that donut, and now he has nothing! There's no more donut and I'm beginning to wonder if there ever was a donut in the first place.

[akhomerun]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

They're not baseless. There was absolutely no information available for people to make a decision about how they would handle battery replacement before the launch because no one was able to look at the phone. If I were givien a used iPhone for 3 days for a battery replacement I would be damn pissed.

There's absolutely no fu**ing reason Apple couldn't have made the back cover user friendly to access the battery. They knew they were getting into a new area of income just like Home Depot wants you to pay for an extended warranty for a stupid $29 ceiling fan.

I've been buying Apple prolducts for over 10 years and I'm getting sick of their deceiving designs. "Well, we don't want any screws showing, so we'll just seal the whole thing for design sake and charge the customer extra in the future."

If there's no information about the battery, then why would you buy the product in the first place? All of these people knew that the batteries weren't replaceable by themselves. I knew about all this before launch. $80 battery replacement isn't so bad considering the cost of the phone. There will be battery replacement services done by third parties just like there are services for the current iPod models, for much less. Heck, some of them even bump the capacity up.

Have you seen how thin the iPhone is? Making a battery cover adds thickness. Look at phones like the NEC L1 that don't have a replaceable battery because they are paper thin.

Apple nerds are getting pissed because they bought a product the second it launched instead of waiting like a normal human? Maybe these people should make better buying decisions and not buy the iPhone ASAP just because it's an Apple product and they expect perfection. Don't buy stuff the second it comes out, idiots!

[Rot'nApple]

Originally Posted by k2director

P.S. I think I'll go out and buy a car right now, and then sue the manufacturer because my car doesn't fly.

Just make sure you don't go out and buy a Chitty Chitty Bang Bang! Otherwise your lawsuit would be baseless!

[akhomerun]

Originally Posted by wilco

While you're out, go buy yourself an analogy that isn't completely retarded.

There was a lady who was about to sue Lexus because she thought her car was maintenance free. She didn't change the oil in something like 60,000 miles and it still ran, too. Lexus ended up giving the dumb bitch free service for life.

So it's kind of like buying a car and expecting to be able to perform maintenance on it yourself. Sure, if you are skilled, you can perform maintenance on a car, but most people don't, just like skilled folks who replace their own iPod batteries. There's an analogy for you.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by badNameErr

WTF?

You need serious help, dude. Srsly.

Then I take it you must be one of those frivolous people?

[jlaselva]

Deleted.

[ksec]

... I think nearly everyone posting up to this point has missed the crucial point that customers were not informed that replacing the battery of the iPhone would cost $86. Let's take a step back from insulting the intelligence of anyone and everyone who questions Apple for being so quick to reap a profit and look at the facts...............

No - ALL PHONE WILL NEED BATTERY REPLACEMENT SOMEDAY.

It doesn't matter whether the battery is built in or not.
Now it just happen that Apple charges more for the battery. And Nokia charges less.

Did Nokia wrote how much will it cost for a 2nd Battery? Nope. Not in the many years i brought phones has any manufacture told me how much an additional battery will cost.

And No one said the battery will died after 400 charges... it will only have less capacity compare to a brand new one. Which; again is the same as all Mobile phone's batteries.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by jlaselva

This suit isn't claiming that Apple didn't tell us the battery wasn't user-replaceable. The suit says Apple didn't tell those original purchasers that there'd be a hefty fee to replace the battery. And they're right. The support document that describes the fee didn't go up until at least two days after the June 29 launch. And so the hundreds of thousands of people who snapped up an iPhone during that time were not informed of the substantial costs of maintaining their iPhone.

Let's stop the personal attacks and stop assuming that anyone that sues Apple is a stupid b***h who should be dragged into the town center and beheaded. Sometimes people that challenge Apple can be correct, and personally, I think this is one of those cases.

So Apple didn't specify the exact cost of the replacement battery until 2 days after the official launch... okay. But how much would you or anyone expect the battery replacement to cost? Also both of these lawsuits are claiming that the iPhone battery will deplete entirely after 300 charge cycles which according to Apple's documentation is wrong.

The anger pointed at individuals like these isn't because they're suing Apple - it's because a lot of people are tired of the get-rich-quick, sue-happy ass hats that want to sue simply because they weren't explicitly told something that is "common knowledge". Batteries will lose their charge eventually. A battery soldered into a product (like the iPhone and iPod) will need replacing eventually. McDonald's coffee is hot. Eating a ton of fast food will make you a fat ass. So, that being said - I stand by my beheading endorsement.

[acknight]

Originally Posted by jlaselva

... I think nearly everyone posting up to this point has missed the crucial point that customers were not informed that replacing the battery of the iPhone would cost $86. Let's take a step back from insulting the intelligence of anyone and everyone who questions Apple for being so quick to reap a profit and look at the facts.

The iPhone retail box reads: "Battery has limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by Apple service provider." OK, that sounds legit. Apple gave us warning right on the box that we'd have to pay to get a new battery when the original is depleted, right?

Well, no. Not exactly.

Apple says first that it may need to be replaced. There's no mention here of any cost to the user. OK, you tell me, it's stupid to expect Apple to give us something for free. And I agree with you. Apple has traditionally been very eager to get us for every penny we have.

But consider this: $86 is as much as 17% of the total purchase price of an iPhone. Not to mention that the iPhone loaner during the service period costs $29 (or you can buy AppleCare for $69). Lots of people depend on their phone for work, family, personal business. It's a lifeline for people. To be without it for three days to pop a case open and pop in a battery is inexcusable.

So now we're looking at 23% of the value of an iPhone, just to have it maintained in operable condition. A quarter of the purchase price just to have one little component inside replaced. It's a bit absurd if you think about it.

This suit isn't claiming that Apple didn't tell us the battery wasn't user-replaceable. The suit says Apple didn't tell those original purchasers that there'd be a hefty fee to replace the battery. And they're right. The support document that describes the fee didn't go up until at least two days after the June 29 launch. And so the hundreds of thousands of people who snapped up an iPhone during that time were not informed of the substantial costs of maintaining their iPhone.

Let's stop the personal attacks and stop assuming that anyone that sues Apple is a stupid b***h who should be dragged into the town center and beheaded. Sometimes people that challenge Apple can be correct, and personally, I think this is one of those cases.

Here's to my first post in four years of reading AI...

Well, let's start with your assertion that it's out of the ordinary for retail/OEM battery replacement to cost 17% of the original purchase price.

In 2004, I purchased a Sprint Sanyo RL-7300 phone, which was $100 after rebates. At the time, the replacement battery from Sprint was over $20. (>20% of purchase price; I believe it was closer to $30 or more).

Now, even better: the Motorola v3m Razr on Sprint _currently_ is free after rebates ($250 before). The replacement battery option from Sprint, albeit an extended life battery (the only option Sprint currently offers) costs $50 - 20% of the pre-rebate price, or $50 more than the net consumer cost of the phone itself.

There is nothing unusual in the slightest about the battery replacements costing from the carrier and/or manufacturer in the vicinity of 20% of retail cost - and 3rd parties have and continue to do the same for lesser amounts.

The only difference here is that the phone is more expensive - so 20% of retail cost is a larger figure.

Never mind that the average user won't need to replace the battery within the claimed timeframe; most are on 2 year contracts, and typical cell phone batteries tend to still work just fine after two years of use.

[Walter Slocombe]

Originally Posted by alienzed

This is like someone buying a donut and then suing the store that sold it because after he ate it, it was gone!! And he couldn't eat it forever! Oh my god! There was nothing left, but he paid for that donut, and now he has nothing! There's no more donut and I'm beginning to wonder if there ever was a donut in the first place.

Buying a donut and complaining that the hole is missing is the more popular version of that analogy I believe

[Walter Slocombe]

Originally Posted by jlaselva

... I think nearly everyone posting up to this point has missed the crucial point that customers were not informed that replacing the battery of the iPhone would cost $86. Let's take a step back from insulting the intelligence of anyone and everyone who questions Apple for being so quick to reap a profit and look at the facts.

The iPhone retail box reads: "Battery has limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by Apple service provider." OK, that sounds legit. Apple gave us warning right on the box that we'd have to pay to get a new battery when the original is depleted, right?

Well, no. Not exactly.

Apple says first that it may need to be replaced. There's no mention here of any cost to the user. OK, you tell me, it's stupid to expect Apple to give us something for free. And I agree with you. Apple has traditionally been very eager to get us for every penny we have.

But consider this: $86 is as much as 17% of the total purchase price of an iPhone. Not to mention that the iPhone loaner during the service period costs $29 (or you can buy AppleCare for $69). Lots of people depend on their phone for work, family, personal business. It's a lifeline for people. To be without it for three days to pop a case open and pop in a battery is inexcusable.

So now we're looking at 23% of the value of an iPhone, just to have it maintained in operable condition. A quarter of the purchase price just to have one little component inside replaced. It's a bit absurd if you think about it.

This suit isn't claiming that Apple didn't tell us the battery wasn't user-replaceable. The suit says Apple didn't tell those original purchasers that there'd be a hefty fee to replace the battery. And they're right. The support document that describes the fee didn't go up until at least two days after the June 29 launch. And so the hundreds of thousands of people who snapped up an iPhone during that time were not informed of the substantial costs of maintaining their iPhone.

Let's stop the personal attacks and stop assuming that anyone that sues Apple is a stupid b***h who should be dragged into the town center and beheaded. Sometimes people that challenge Apple can be correct, and personally, I think this is one of those cases.

Here's to my first post in four years of reading AI...

The Battery is NOT "one little component inside" the iPhone it's one of the biggest after the actual screen itself

Apple says first that it may need to be replaced.

Also equally possible is that it WON'T need replaced. Part of the reason the mobile market is so huge is that people replace thir phones when the "latest model" comes out so even if the battery is dead after 300 cycles as these idiots are claiming, a LARGE number of consumers will have moved on to a "new" model before reaching this magical 300 number.

I would be all for their beheading, it would only enhance the gene pool for the rest of us.

Welcome to the board, hope you keep posting

[icibaqu]

can anyone tell us what the battery in the iphone would cost wholesale and what it would cost retail? i think that makes a difference in this bizzare argument we're having because that represents the actual inconvenience cost added on by the apple replacement policy.

[Lafe]

Every time I've bought a wristwatch in the past three decades, I've done so with the
common-sense realization that eventually its battery will run out. I don't agonise
over when this will happen. It's usually a few years.

When it does, I can either buy a new watch, or pay someone to replace the battery.
I cannot replace it myself, but that doesn't really bother me or surprise me.

So some companies charge you for a battery that you can replace, and some
charge you for a battery that they replace. Big deal.

Only an idiot would sue a manufacturer over something as nonsensical as this.
To add to the insanity, no damage has actually happened to anyone yet.
If this was three years down the road, and there was a huge class of people
that had been harmed by Apple's "deception", then they might be able to show
that. Since when are people allowed to sue someone for something that they
think might happen a long time from now?

[Scott Finlayson]

Wow!

I have to sway toward the side of getting tired of "People Making Idiotic Lawsuits".

Here's the deal:

As others have said, It has been known for QUITE SOME TIME before the iPhone ever hit the streets that the battery was not user-replaceable. I remember seeing people discuss it on one of those cable-news networks one morning - a bunch of analysts hemming & hawing. This was NOT A SECRET.

Second - Until you need to replace a battery - it's a NON ISSUE...! If I go and mess-around with the inner-workings of my +$40k car, you're damn STRAIGHT they're gonna void my warranty.

Now - I know that up until now - you could go buy a shit-load of extra batteries for your phones and swap 'em whenever you wanted. BUT - I have been using my iPhone AGGRESSIVELY since I purchased it and have gone up to 4-days without charging the phone under HEAVY usage. I do not see a need for a "backup" battery.

For those that are thinking that 300 cycles means 300 days of plugging it in every night to charge it - you're WAY OFF course. Under NORMAL usage of the iPhone, it may take up to 3-years to even show signs of battery degradation (according to online info I've read - I am NOT a battery expert).

The idea that people are going to need to shell-out $100 per year is ridiculous. Probably closer to $85 every 3 years - and let's be honest - within 3-years, there's gonna be at least 2-3 newer models that will make me decide to upgrade the PHONE before I replace a battery.

It's just a waste of time.

[roehlstation]

Did you know AppleCare covers battery replacement? It is the same rules that apply to iPods, currently, Apple offers the only warranty out there that covers batteries at all.

Treos also don't have a user replaceable battery, along with every rechargeable Palm device out there, and many Pocket PCs.

If Apple had made a user replaceable battery in the iPhone, everyone would be complaining about how big it is. Internal batteries are almost always smaller. There are a lot of phones out there that have user replaceable batteries that you can't even get replacements for.