Judge tosses lawsuit over 'Error 53' triggered by Touch ID repairs

Posted:
in iPhone
A U.S. District Court judge in California has tossed one of two lawsuits against Apple over "Error 53" glitches, triggered when an iOS device's Touch ID technology is altered by an unofficial technician.




U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled on Monday that the plaintiffs in the case had no standing, according to Fortune. Claims regarding "lost data" weren't separate from claims over defective iPhones, the judge said, and Apple had already dealt with problems through software fixes and repair reimbursements.

Chhabria also rejected claims of false advertising, arguing that the plaintiffs hadn't produced evidence Apple knew about Error 53 while marketing iPhones.

"The mere fact that a company has designed a product doesn't mean it automatically knows about all of that product's potential design flaws," Chhabria commented in his written ruling.

The plaintiffs could potentially relaunch the case if they amend their complaint to demonstrate harm. In fact the judge pointed to one plaintiff who said he lost data by restoring to factory settings, noting that the original complaint didn't identify this is as a legal loss.

A separate Error 53 case is still ongoing in Seattle. Until Apple pushed out an iOS update, people affected by the issue would find their devices "bricked" in an attempt to deter the use of fraudulent Touch ID sensors.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,187member
    Well, chalk one up for common sense. And Apple should pursue the plaintiffs to recover Apple's lawyer's fees as a very costly deterrent.
    edited June 2016 lostkiwibaconstangtallest skilpscooter63magman1979badmonknetmage
  • Reply 2 of 33
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,680member
    Good! These lawsuits were retarded from the very beginning, and the people pushing them were morons, people with no standing, according to the judge.

    If somebody goes ahead and intentionally messes with and alters the security mechanisms of their phone, then they deserve to get their device bricked.

    That's no flaw. It sounds like good security measures that Apple has taken.

    You see, there is Apple level security, and then there's all the rest, like Android level security, which is about as secure as an open door, with a huge sign in front of it, begging thieves to enter.

    If certain people are uncomfortable with Apple's high level of security, then I would suggest that they migrate to other, less secure platforms, that would suit them better.
    edited June 2016 jbdragonlostkiwibaconstangmacxpresspscooter63fotoformatbadmonknetmage
  • Reply 3 of 33
    jony0jony0 Posts: 269member
    This can't be right. Apple won a frivolous case ? In the US ?
    This can't be over, there will be an appeal … on something … let's see … 
    In fact the judge pointed to one plaintiff who said he lost data by restoring to factory settings, noting that the original complaint didn't identify this is as a legal loss.
    Ah ! Could that be a hint for the appeal ?
    A separate Error 53 case is still ongoing in Seattle.
    Oh ! Well maybe they're just plotting for this one.
    Well, chalk one up for common sense. And Apple should pursue the plaintiffs to recover Apple's lawyer's fees as a very costly deterrent.
    All sarcasm aside, I certainly hope we can chalk one for common sense if this holds, although it may be short lived. I don't think the DOJ will want to set a bad example, unless they're just throwing the small fish back and baiting for the 400 million dollar whoppers.
    badmonk
  • Reply 4 of 33
    focherfocher Posts: 640member
    Exactly how was it frivolous? iPhones absolutely did experience the Error 53. That error prevented the use of the phone, access to the data on the phone, and for many weeks Apple actually said that it wasn't going to address the issue. 

    Change the whole story to a car. You have a car and have an aftermarket item installed and the car won't turn on due simply to a software check.

    I'm a shareholder, but people experienced damages due to encoding the Error 53 situation that left iPhones completely unusable. They have deserve to have resolution to that situation. And for those who think Apple's ultimate resolution negates the problem, put your phone in a drawer for two weeks and come back to let us know whether that caused a problem for you. I'm not suggesting this is a get rich quick opportunity, but restitution is deserved.
    jroysingularity
  • Reply 5 of 33
    This World is full of stupid people....... if you put an "after market" parts in any thing you buy you AUTOMATICALLY broke the sellers warrantee how the hell this case even made it pass the courts doors???
    lostkiwimwhitebaconstangRayz2016magman1979icoco3netmagejony0
  • Reply 6 of 33
    focher said:
    Exactly how was it frivolous? iPhones absolutely did experience the Error 53. That error prevented the use of the phone, access to the data on the phone, and for many weeks Apple actually said that it wasn't going to address the issue. 

    Change the whole story to a car. You have a car and have an aftermarket item installed and the car won't turn on due simply to a software check.

    I'm a shareholder, but people experienced damages due to encoding the Error 53 situation that left iPhones completely unusable. They have deserve to have resolution to that situation. And for those who think Apple's ultimate resolution negates the problem, put your phone in a drawer for two weeks and come back to let us know whether that caused a problem for you. I'm not suggesting this is a get rich quick opportunity, but restitution is deserved.
    Apparently the judge listen to all that nonsense and said "Get a life. Case dismissed."
    tommikelepacificfilmmagman1979netmagejony0
  • Reply 7 of 33
    This is almost as dumb as the e-books case.
    Almost.
    jony0
  • Reply 8 of 33
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,093moderator
    focher said:
    Exactly how was it frivolous? iPhones absolutely did experience the Error 53. That error prevented the use of the phone, access to the data on the phone, and for many weeks Apple actually said that it wasn't going to address the issue. 

    Change the whole story to a car. You have a car and have an aftermarket item installed and the car won't turn on due simply to a software check.

    I'm a shareholder, but people experienced damages due to encoding the Error 53 situation that left iPhones completely unusable. They have deserve to have resolution to that situation. And for those who think Apple's ultimate resolution negates the problem, put your phone in a drawer for two weeks and come back to let us know whether that caused a problem for you. I'm not suggesting this is a get rich quick opportunity, but restitution is deserved.

    ---

    Excuse me?  If you take your car to an independent garage, and the staff there KNOWS their business is not authorized to change out a part of the COMPUTER THAT RUNS THE ENTIRE ENGINE SEQUENCING, but they go ahead and do so anyway with some aftermarket components, you're telling me that you're going to blame the auto manufacturer and not the service center you brought your car to?
    edited June 2016 ericthehalfbeetommikelepacificfilmtomkarlmac_dogjfc1138pscooter63fotoformatmagman1979badmonk
  • Reply 9 of 33
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,155member
    focher said:
    I'm not suggesting this is a get rich quick opportunity, but restitution is deserved.
    The judge disagrees with your position. Deal with it.
    pacificfilmmagman1979jony0
  • Reply 10 of 33
    tommikeletommikele Posts: 263member
    focher said:
    Exactly how was it frivolous? iPhones absolutely did experience the Error 53. That error prevented the use of the phone, access to the data on the phone, and for many weeks Apple actually said that it wasn't going to address the issue. 

    Change the whole story to a car. You have a car and have an aftermarket item installed and the car won't turn on due simply to a software check.

    I'm a shareholder, but people experienced damages due to encoding the Error 53 situation that left iPhones completely unusable. They have deserve to have resolution to that situation. And for those who think Apple's ultimate resolution negates the problem, put your phone in a drawer for two weeks and come back to let us know whether that caused a problem for you. I'm not suggesting this is a get rich quick opportunity, but restitution is deserved.
    Sure you are a shareholder, sure. Change it to a car? It's not a car and no matter how you try to pose your incredibly weak POV, it's still not a car and your comparison is absurd. Inconvenience and actual damages are not the same thing. Perhaps you could quantify the damages you speak of? More likely, you don't own an iPhone, are not a shareholder and are a garden variety anti-Apple troll.
    pacificfilmtomkarlmagman1979VisualSeednetmagejony0
  • Reply 11 of 33
    Well, chalk one up for common sense. And Apple should pursue the plaintiffs to recover Apple's lawyer's fees as a very costly deterrent.
    Most cases are dismissed for a waiver of costs on both sides because the plaintiffs have no money and the defense does not have the time, energy, or money to pursue money from an individual, or group of individuals that have nothing.  Not much was spent on this case because it never went to trial.  It was still in the discovery phase and the judge ruled the complaint had no basis.  As noted, they can amend their complaint, if they come up with anything valid.
  • Reply 12 of 33
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,336member
    focher said:
    Exactly how was it frivolous? iPhones absolutely did experience the Error 53. That error prevented the use of the phone, access to the data on the phone, and for many weeks Apple actually said that it wasn't going to address the issue. 

    Change the whole story to a car. You have a car and have an aftermarket item installed and the car won't turn on due simply to a software check.

    I'm a shareholder, but people experienced damages due to encoding the Error 53 situation that left iPhones completely unusable. They have deserve to have resolution to that situation. And for those who think Apple's ultimate resolution negates the problem, put your phone in a drawer for two weeks and come back to let us know whether that caused a problem for you. I'm not suggesting this is a get rich quick opportunity, but restitution is deserved.
    The end user had someone replace a TouchID sensor that was not an authorized part or technician. A proper, secure system should detect modification of the system and prevent access. Apple designed this correctly to make it truly secure. Tampering with the system caused the issue, not Apple.

    If you take a car to get fixed, and the mechanic is not authorized and doesn't use authentic parts and  screws up, you don't blame the manufacturer.

    davenSpamSandwichRayz2016ericthehalfbeemagman1979VisualSeednetmagejony0
  • Reply 13 of 33
    "I'm a shareholder, but..."
    sounds like
    "I'm an Apple fan, but..."
    edited June 2016 jfc1138tallest skilmagman1979jony0nolamacguy
  • Reply 14 of 33
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,631member
    focher said:
    Exactly how was it frivolous? iPhones absolutely did experience the Error 53. That error prevented the use of the phone, access to the data on the phone, and for many weeks Apple actually said that it wasn't going to address the issue. 

    Change the whole story to a car. You have a car and have an aftermarket item installed and the car won't turn on due simply to a software check.

    I'm a shareholder, but people experienced damages due to encoding the Error 53 situation that left iPhones completely unusable. They have deserve to have resolution to that situation. And for those who think Apple's ultimate resolution negates the problem, put your phone in a drawer for two weeks and come back to let us know whether that caused a problem for you. I'm not suggesting this is a get rich quick opportunity, but restitution is deserved.
    The software check is designed to ensure that a lost phone cannot be cracked by replacing the fingerprint sensor. In this case I think security is more important than people being stupid and a little bit cheap. And it's nice to finally find a US judge who understands technology. 

    Not that UK judges are better. In this country, judges find against Apple and then take jobs with Samsung a week later 
    pscooter63netmagejony0ronn
  • Reply 15 of 33
    croprcropr Posts: 944member
    This World is full of stupid people....... if you put an "after market" parts in any thing you buy you AUTOMATICALLY broke the sellers warrantee how the hell this case even made it pass the courts doors???
    Breaking the warranty and disabling the device are 2 fundamentally different things.  The former is normal business practice, the latter is in the EU (to give an example) an illegal business practice
  • Reply 16 of 33
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    cropr said:
    Breaking the warranty and disabling the device are 2 fundamentally different things.  The former is normal business practice, the latter is in the EU (to give an example) an illegal business practice
    Fortunately the EU won’t be around much longer.
    icoco3
  • Reply 17 of 33
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,680member
    cropr said:
    Breaking the warranty and disabling the device are 2 fundamentally different things.  The former is normal business practice, the latter is in the EU (to give an example) an illegal business practice
    Fortunately the EU won’t be around much longer.
    It's going to be so great to see the UK giving the finger to EU soon!


    icoco3tallest skil
  • Reply 18 of 33
    focher said:
    Exactly how was it frivolous? iPhones absolutely did experience the Error 53. That error prevented the use of the phone, access to the data on the phone, and for many weeks Apple actually said that it wasn't going to address the issue. 

    Change the whole story to a car. You have a car and have an aftermarket item installed and the car won't turn on due simply to a software check.

    I'm a shareholder, but people experienced damages due to encoding the Error 53 situation that left iPhones completely unusable. They have deserve to have resolution to that situation. And for those who think Apple's ultimate resolution negates the problem, put your phone in a drawer for two weeks and come back to let us know whether that caused a problem for you. I'm not suggesting this is a get rich quick opportunity, but restitution is deserved.


    It's frivolous because they are blaming the manufacturer of the device for a fault introduced by someone not associated with said manufacturer.

    Using your comparison, why would you blame the auto manufacturer when an after market radio installation done by Best Buy drains your battery?  You wouldn't, you'd take it back to Best Buy for them to make right.  Not that anybody with any brains would have Best Buy install anything more complicated than a floor mat, but it illustrates the point.

    You wouldn't blame Kohler when the plumber installs the toilet wrong, nor the cattle rancher when the restaurant burns your steak.  Why would you blame Apple when the mall guy replaces your touch ID wrong?

    pscooter63netmage
  • Reply 19 of 33
    croprcropr Posts: 944member
    focher said:
    Exactly how was it frivolous? iPhones absolutely did experience the Error 53. That error prevented the use of the phone, access to the data on the phone, and for many weeks Apple actually said that it wasn't going to address the issue. 

    Change the whole story to a car. You have a car and have an aftermarket item installed and the car won't turn on due simply to a software check.

    I'm a shareholder, but people experienced damages due to encoding the Error 53 situation that left iPhones completely unusable. They have deserve to have resolution to that situation. And for those who think Apple's ultimate resolution negates the problem, put your phone in a drawer for two weeks and come back to let us know whether that caused a problem for you. I'm not suggesting this is a get rich quick opportunity, but restitution is deserved.

    Using your comparison, why would you blame the auto manufacturer when an after market radio installation done by Best Buy drains your battery?  You wouldn't, you'd take it back to Best Buy for them to make right.  Not that anybody with any brains would have Best Buy install anything more complicated than a floor mat, but it illustrates the point.


    But I would blame the auto manufacturer if the software of the car, after detecting a non standard radio, refuses to start the car, displaying the error 53 on the dashboard
    singularity
  • Reply 20 of 33
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,459member
    focher said:
    Exactly how was it frivolous? iPhones absolutely did experience the Error 53. That error prevented the use of the phone, access to the data on the phone, and for many weeks Apple actually said that it wasn't going to address the issue. 

    Change the whole story to a car. You have a car and have an aftermarket item installed and the car won't turn on due simply to a software check.

    I'm a shareholder, but people experienced damages due to encoding the Error 53 situation that left iPhones completely unusable. They have deserve to have resolution to that situation. And for those who think Apple's ultimate resolution negates the problem, put your phone in a drawer for two weeks and come back to let us know whether that caused a problem for you. I'm not suggesting this is a get rich quick opportunity, but restitution is deserved.
    By bringing shareholder status into the argument it automatically classifies you as a troll. Besides, your whole premise is flawed.
    netmage
Sign In or Register to comment.