Apple sued by Australian regulator over 'Error 53' glitch, hardware repair practices
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on Thursday local time filed a federal lawsuit against Apple for allegedly disabling iPhone and iPad hardware repaired by unauthorized third parties.
Lodged with Australia's Federal Court, the ACCC's action takes aim at an Apple iOS software update that led to so-called "Error 53" messages on consumer iPhones and iPads.
The suit claims Apple rendered inoperable hundreds of smartphones and tablets with a software update last February. Though users presented with Error 53 messages were subsequently locked out of their device, Apple refused to service defective units as they had undergone screen or Touch ID module repairs by an unauthorized repair facility, the ACCC alleges.
Apple's actions fall afoul of Australian Consumer Law, under which consumers are entitled to certain free product guarantees.
"Consumer guarantee rights under the Australian Consumer Law exist independently of any manufacturers warranty and are not extinguished simply because a consumer has goods repaired by a third party," ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said. "Denying a consumer their consumer guarantee rights simply because they had chosen a third party repairer not only impacts those consumers but can dissuade other customers from making informed choices about their repair options including where they may be offered at lower cost than the manufacturer."
Error 53 codes began popping up on user iPhone 6 series units from at least early 2015, but the issue gained public notoriety when media outlets reported the supposed glitch in early 2016. The ACCC action pegs the effective Error 53 timeline as taking place between September 2014 and February 2016.
As previously reported, the error codes impacted iOS hardware that had undergone Touch ID module -- or in some cases screen, flex cable and water-damaged component -- replacement by a repair firm operating outside of Apple's Authorized Service Provider network. Screen repairs are at the heart of the Australian suit.
Apple later acknowledged the issue, saying the error message was tied to Touch ID security.
"We take customer security very seriously and Error 53 is the result of security checks designed to protect our customers," the company said at the time.
As explained by Apple, iOS performs routine Touch ID module checks to ensure that the hardware "matches" other components installed on an iPhone and iPad. To maintain a high level of security, and thwart fraudulent hardware, Touch ID sensors that fail these tests are automatically disabled.
In addition to being rendered inoperable, iPhones that showed Error 53 messages were no longer eligible for Apple warranty coverage as they were repaired by an unauthorized third party.
Apple was slapped with a class action lawsuit in the U.S. just days after news of the error message hit. The lawsuit, which similarly targeted Apple's hardware repair practices, was ultimately thrown out for lack of standing.
The ACCC is seeking penalties, injunctions, declarations, compliance program orders, corrective notices and costs in its action against Apple.
Lodged with Australia's Federal Court, the ACCC's action takes aim at an Apple iOS software update that led to so-called "Error 53" messages on consumer iPhones and iPads.
The suit claims Apple rendered inoperable hundreds of smartphones and tablets with a software update last February. Though users presented with Error 53 messages were subsequently locked out of their device, Apple refused to service defective units as they had undergone screen or Touch ID module repairs by an unauthorized repair facility, the ACCC alleges.
Apple's actions fall afoul of Australian Consumer Law, under which consumers are entitled to certain free product guarantees.
"Consumer guarantee rights under the Australian Consumer Law exist independently of any manufacturers warranty and are not extinguished simply because a consumer has goods repaired by a third party," ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said. "Denying a consumer their consumer guarantee rights simply because they had chosen a third party repairer not only impacts those consumers but can dissuade other customers from making informed choices about their repair options including where they may be offered at lower cost than the manufacturer."
Error 53 codes began popping up on user iPhone 6 series units from at least early 2015, but the issue gained public notoriety when media outlets reported the supposed glitch in early 2016. The ACCC action pegs the effective Error 53 timeline as taking place between September 2014 and February 2016.
As previously reported, the error codes impacted iOS hardware that had undergone Touch ID module -- or in some cases screen, flex cable and water-damaged component -- replacement by a repair firm operating outside of Apple's Authorized Service Provider network. Screen repairs are at the heart of the Australian suit.
Apple later acknowledged the issue, saying the error message was tied to Touch ID security.
"We take customer security very seriously and Error 53 is the result of security checks designed to protect our customers," the company said at the time.
As explained by Apple, iOS performs routine Touch ID module checks to ensure that the hardware "matches" other components installed on an iPhone and iPad. To maintain a high level of security, and thwart fraudulent hardware, Touch ID sensors that fail these tests are automatically disabled.
In addition to being rendered inoperable, iPhones that showed Error 53 messages were no longer eligible for Apple warranty coverage as they were repaired by an unauthorized third party.
Apple was slapped with a class action lawsuit in the U.S. just days after news of the error message hit. The lawsuit, which similarly targeted Apple's hardware repair practices, was ultimately thrown out for lack of standing.
The ACCC is seeking penalties, injunctions, declarations, compliance program orders, corrective notices and costs in its action against Apple.
Comments
It seems reasonable to me that a free warranty wouldn't apply for two reasons: the screen repair isn't covered by a free warranty and repairing 3rd party works is also not covered under warranty. (Additionally repair of the device is problematic without the original TouchID sensor.)
Error 53 was the result of sub-par repairs, not a fault in apple's hardware or software.
-- To provide a little more context the devices were represented to Apple as 3rd party repaired devices and ACCC's complaint is that that Apple do not have the right to refuse warranty based *solely* on the device receiving 3rd party repairs. My point of view here is that these were not 3rd party "repairs", since the "repair" did not address the built-in security features of the device, thus Apple would actually have the right to refuse warranty. In short, just because these unfortunate people paid a technician to break their device doesn't mean that Apple should be obligated to a FOC repair.
It will be interesting to see where this goes. I'm on Apple's side here, for the most part, in that it might set a precedent for manufacturers to honour warranties on third party repairs.
I suppose one issue might be whether they were clear that this might happen if it were repaired by a third party prior to the update that caused the errors. Or even whether they could reasonably be expected to know this would happen.
This is completely separate from the other issues re: Apple Pay that the ACCC are looking in to, and should have no effect on any decision they make about that.
There's no free warranty being discussed here, it's a consumer guarantee - or rights that you have a consumer - that can't be taken away.
If Apple are refusing to service a iphone's headphone port because the screen has been replaced, then that is not allowed as they're unrelated things. If Apple refuse to service a faulty screen which was replaced by a third party, they should be well within their rights to refused to repair that component.
Strikes me the error 53 was due to faulty workmanship or not understanding how to repair the defect, so it's not really clear why Apple would be in trouble here.
on the other hand, our law is quite clear that you're not forced to go back to a seller for service or maintenance. You can have your car serviced with anyone as long as it's done to the standard prescribed in the service manual.
Which is called - authorized repair center, because in the case of cars, you can't just get that manual for free. You have to pay Toyota or whatever company you think about, to give you access to their system with blueprints, schematics and other stuff, in order to properly service a car. On top of that, you also need to have a bunch of special (and very pricy) tools. You can refuse to buy those tools and do everything with a screwdriver, but it would be very easy for that manufacture NOT to honor the warranty based on improperly serviced/damaged components.
"the standard described in the service manual"
Not true at all. Automotive manufacturers lay out specific requirements for repairs. Simple ones would be the type of oil your engine needs. More complex ones would be the proper torque sequence for cylinder head bolts. One is in your manual, the other isn't yet both are valid.
Manfacturers are allowed to set their own standards for repairs. Repairs not done to these standards can void your warranty (on the specific component, not the entire vehicle). You put the wrong oil in your engine and it seizes you're not getting it replaced under warranty. The rest of your vehicle is still covered.
The only thing I can see Apple having to do is provide a list of standards for repairs so third party shops know "the torque sequence for a cylinder head" or "screens replaced without transferring the Touch ID sensor over will render it inoperative".
As far as I understand it, you don't need to have the phone repaired by Apple, so it seems the law is really saying that anyone should be allowed to tamper with the phone whether they are qualified or not. Correct?
"Any suggestion by car manufacturers or dealers that motor vehicles need to be serviced at a licensed dealer to maintain the owner's consumer guarantee rights is not correct."
https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Motor vehicle sales & repairs - an industry guide to the Austalian Consumer Law.DOC
There is a separation here about the warranty that is offered by the seller of a product and the consumer guarantees which cannot be traded away. Your consumer guarantees clearly state you are not required to seek repair from the manufacturer of an item. Doing so may void your manufacturer warranty, but will not necessarily erode your consumer guarantee. It's as simple as that.
So if my car comes back from the dealer with a broken security system, then it should just allow any key fob to open the door and start the car?
iPhones were completely insecure until apple introduced TouchID with the 5S, right?
Come on man, use your head.
Because Apple is not dumb or arrogant enough to assume that they will always be able to prevent a compromised TouchID component from stopping their attempts to shut it down. They do not know all the possible exploits of their devices that are in existence now or will be in existence in the future. So they take the all or nothing approach: the phone is compromised or it is not.
Fortunately for their majority of their customers, they don't take your approach, which would be to decide the phone is 'is just a little bit compromised'.
Safety critical software works in much the same way; if three guidance computers come back with two different answers, then the plane lands, they don't take the two most popular answers as being correct.
The problem is that your idea of a working phone differs from Apple. You think a phone is working if you can do stuff while it is compromised; Apple sees things differently. A 'working' phone means that the screen works, the speakers work, and the security system will actually keep people out.
If you disagree, then Samsung is working on something that's right up your street:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/04/05/researcher-calls-samsungs-tizen-os-the-worst-code-ive-ever-seen