Man sues Apple, wins case over Apple Watch Sport impact resistance
A Welsh man on Tuesday won a small-claims case against Apple, one which accused the company of violating the region's Sale of Goods Act in refusing to honor his Apple Watch warranty.
The company has been ordered to refund the cost of Gareth Cross' Apple Watch Sport -- ?339 (about $489) -- and pay an additional ?429 ($618) in expenses, according to BBC News. More significantly the company is altering its marketing for the product to no longer claim it's impact-resistant.
Cross bought the Watch in July, and said he noticed a crack in the cover glass 10 days later. When he tried to get it repaired under warranty he was denied.
"I hadn't even been doing anything strenuous, just sitting around watching TV," he told the BBC. "When I got to work the hairline crack had got bigger and bigger so I called Apple up to get it repaired."
Cross commented that despite the case becoming "stressful," given the prospect of facing one of the world's biggest corporations in court, he will eventually buy another Watch. "But I may wait until the next model is out," he said.
In spite of its name the Sport is actually less rugged that the regular Watch. While the latter features a sapphire screen and a steel body, the Sport uses Apple's "Ion-X" glass and aluminum. It is substantially cheaper however, in the U.S. costing at least $200 less.
The company has been ordered to refund the cost of Gareth Cross' Apple Watch Sport -- ?339 (about $489) -- and pay an additional ?429 ($618) in expenses, according to BBC News. More significantly the company is altering its marketing for the product to no longer claim it's impact-resistant.
Cross bought the Watch in July, and said he noticed a crack in the cover glass 10 days later. When he tried to get it repaired under warranty he was denied.
"I hadn't even been doing anything strenuous, just sitting around watching TV," he told the BBC. "When I got to work the hairline crack had got bigger and bigger so I called Apple up to get it repaired."
Cross commented that despite the case becoming "stressful," given the prospect of facing one of the world's biggest corporations in court, he will eventually buy another Watch. "But I may wait until the next model is out," he said.
In spite of its name the Sport is actually less rugged that the regular Watch. While the latter features a sapphire screen and a steel body, the Sport uses Apple's "Ion-X" glass and aluminum. It is substantially cheaper however, in the U.S. costing at least $200 less.
Comments
Sorry
Apple's warranty doesn't cover accidents. But what the he11 does "Sport" even mean - the only sport it seems designed for is golf! And, get this: a new screen is $200! (When Apple Watch went on sale around x-mas, a new one cost just another $50!) Screw this, I thought - I'll wait until the new version comes out! I glued a screen protector on top of the crumbling glass to keep from getting cut. Other than being hard to read now, it still works.
(Btw what was to dislike about the quoted comment - who ever did that is just being contrary)
I doubt it. A crack like that would have no impact point and Apple would likely have covered it just like they do with iPads and iPhones that have a single hairline crack with no impact point.
And if you look at the actual quoted article they keep mixing up impact and scratch. that's two different things. And no cosmetic damage caused from use is not covered. So the claim is questionable. A scratch as visible as the photo given wouldn't just magically pop up. one would have to have dropped it on the floor or banged it against something which isn't a defect at all. Apple has never claimed any of their products are impact or scratch proof. The judge seems to have a bug up his butt over this big company 'doing wrong'. But given that Apple will make the money back in less than an hour they weren't going to risk negative PR by pushing it. Sometimes it's just better to roll with the 'defeat'
The guy won because Apple said it was "resistant to scratches and impact"
"A judge at Aberystwyth County Court ruled that the company breached the contract of sale by refusing to repair or replace the watch as it had been falsely advertised.
As a result have changed their description and removed their claim that the watch is resistant to impact."