Judge dismisses class action suit over 'stage light' MacBook Pro display issue
Apple was handed a temporary reprieve this week when a federal judge dismissed a class action lawsuit targeting reported MacBook Pro display issues dating back to 2018.
U.S. District Judge Edward Davila on Monday handed down a ruling that tossed plaintiffs' claims alleging Apple was aware of a supposed defect in its MacBook Pro line dubbed by media outlets as "stage light" or "flexgate."
In his ruling, Judge Davila concluded that the class failed to argue that the alleged fault posed a safety hazard, reports Law360. The class also did not successfully push claims that Apple knew of and concealed the alleged part failure from customers.
Users first spotted the problem in 2018, when a number of MacBook Pro models manufactured between 2016 and 2017 began to exhibit dark patches across the bottom border of their screens. The effect, which is reminiscent of theater stage lighting, was subsequently dubbed "stage light."
While Apple has not publicly commented on the issue, independent repair firm iFixit in its own investigation said a thin flex cable was to blame for the problem. According to iFixit, the cables that Apple used to connect the display to MacBook Pro's display controller were defective and would deteriorate with regular use. Constant opening and closing of the laptop's display would cause the flex cables to break down, resulting in "stage light" and, in some cases, permanent damage.
The issue impacted 2016 and 2017 MacBook Pro models. Apple introduced a MacBook Pro with a longer display flex cable in 2018, an apparent attempt to fix the problem.
Apple launched a repair program that covered display concerns on 2016 13-inch MacBook Pro models, but similar programs for 15-inch MacBook Pros and models produced after 2016 were not introduced. Part of the class' demands was an extension of the repair initiative.
Plaintiffs allege Apple knew of the fault long before launching the repair programs, potentially costing consumers hundreds of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Judge Davila, however, found Apple was not culpable for those fees, as the defect presented after the company's standard warranty period.
The class action was dismissed without prejudice, meaning plaintiffs can amend the complaint to remedy shortcomings specified by Judge Davila.
Keep up with everything Apple in the weekly AppleInsider Podcast -- and get a fast news update from AppleInsider Daily. Just say, "Hey, Siri," to your HomePod mini and ask for these podcasts, and our latest HomeKit Insider episode too.If you want an ad-free main AppleInsider Podcast experience, you can support the AppleInsider podcast by subscribing for $5 per month through Apple's Podcasts app, or via Patreon if you prefer any other podcast player.
Read on AppleInsider
U.S. District Judge Edward Davila on Monday handed down a ruling that tossed plaintiffs' claims alleging Apple was aware of a supposed defect in its MacBook Pro line dubbed by media outlets as "stage light" or "flexgate."
In his ruling, Judge Davila concluded that the class failed to argue that the alleged fault posed a safety hazard, reports Law360. The class also did not successfully push claims that Apple knew of and concealed the alleged part failure from customers.
Users first spotted the problem in 2018, when a number of MacBook Pro models manufactured between 2016 and 2017 began to exhibit dark patches across the bottom border of their screens. The effect, which is reminiscent of theater stage lighting, was subsequently dubbed "stage light."
While Apple has not publicly commented on the issue, independent repair firm iFixit in its own investigation said a thin flex cable was to blame for the problem. According to iFixit, the cables that Apple used to connect the display to MacBook Pro's display controller were defective and would deteriorate with regular use. Constant opening and closing of the laptop's display would cause the flex cables to break down, resulting in "stage light" and, in some cases, permanent damage.
The issue impacted 2016 and 2017 MacBook Pro models. Apple introduced a MacBook Pro with a longer display flex cable in 2018, an apparent attempt to fix the problem.
Apple launched a repair program that covered display concerns on 2016 13-inch MacBook Pro models, but similar programs for 15-inch MacBook Pros and models produced after 2016 were not introduced. Part of the class' demands was an extension of the repair initiative.
Plaintiffs allege Apple knew of the fault long before launching the repair programs, potentially costing consumers hundreds of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Judge Davila, however, found Apple was not culpable for those fees, as the defect presented after the company's standard warranty period.
The class action was dismissed without prejudice, meaning plaintiffs can amend the complaint to remedy shortcomings specified by Judge Davila.
Keep up with everything Apple in the weekly AppleInsider Podcast -- and get a fast news update from AppleInsider Daily. Just say, "Hey, Siri," to your HomePod mini and ask for these podcasts, and our latest HomeKit Insider episode too.If you want an ad-free main AppleInsider Podcast experience, you can support the AppleInsider podcast by subscribing for $5 per month through Apple's Podcasts app, or via Patreon if you prefer any other podcast player.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
That's how it works. A claim with excessive or specious demands can then be modified & resubmitted. Versus "with prejudice," which translates roughly as "Stick a fork in it."
If you do not like the terms of the warranty Apple offers, buy something else. There is no concealment of the terms or restrictions. Love people who whine after the fact and feel they are entitled. I’m sure I will take heat for it, but these kinds of comments seem to come from those living in the EU more so than any other region. The democratic socialism tends to lead to this. Whine it isn’t fair and demand the government take charge and get you what you want. Government has a role in protecting us from criminal behavior by corporations. This is not that.
The plaintiffs and their vulture lawyers (the only ones who will get money) will revile and try again, but will end up with the same result. So far they are unable to prove their claims.
The odds are the entire thing was dreamed up by a group of class action lawyers who then advertised to get plaintiffs so they could file. These lawyers are no different than patent trolls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty
If you had read the article, the suit claimed ........ "In his ruling, Judge Davila concluded that the class failed to argue that the alleged fault posed a safety hazard, reports Law360. The class also did not successfully push claims that Apple knew of and concealed the alleged part failure from customers."
That is a far cry from what you stated.
Apple did not know about the defect or defective part, until the cable failed in great numbers and with most of failures being reported after over a year and half of use. And then Apple offer to repair the defect for free, beyond the warranty period. And I would assume, like other times Apple had done this sort of out of warranty repair, they offer to pay the cost for anyone that repaired the defect, before Apple offer to repair it for free.
In order to prove what you are claiming, the lawyers would need to have something like an email or statement from a tech to a manager, informing the manager that the flex cable was only going to last about 16 months under normal use and the manager replied to the effect ..... "use it anyway. 16 months is out of warranty and that's longer than we need it to last. Plus this will teach customers to pay the extra cost for Apple Care." You actually think Apple would do something like that, for a cable that probably didn't cost them more than $2?
That is not even close to what the judge said. What the Judge rule was that Apple was not to blame for the potential high cost to repair the defective part/design, because the repair was done outside of warranty. Because of Apple design, the whole monitor needed to be replace, to replace the bad $6 cable.
But that' is not the same as saying that Apple was not responsible for paying for those repairs cost done outside of warranty. And Apple offered to pay for any repair done outside of warranty and before their program.
https://support.apple.com/13-inch-macbook-pro-display-backlight-service
>Additional Information
This worldwide Apple program does not extend the standard warranty coverage of your MacBook Pro.
If you believe your MacBook Pro was affected by this issue, and you paid to have your display repaired, you can contact Apple about a refund.
The program covers eligible MacBook Pro models for 5 years after the first retail sale of the unit or 3 years from the start date of this program, whichever is longer.<
Um, isn’t that exactly the POINT of the lawsuit? If the bad design is known, and the failure happens outside the warranty, then the warranty of one year is expressly in the favor of Apple.
This 1-year warranty nonsense has to end. 3-years should be the absolute minimum. Product-makers need to be incentivized to consider a bare minimum of 3 years of “longevity” for the stuff they sell when they design their products.
Without reading Apple's warranty, my guess is they have language in it saying there is no other 'express or implied' warranty which would mean the implied warranty you reference does not apply. The other ambiguous part of the 'standard implied warranty' is duration. I'm assuming this is precisely why manufacturers add language to their warranties, so consumers can't come back and argue that an item should be fit for its stated purpose for x years, dramatically increasing the manufacturers' liability.
Legally, if the defect was showing up after the warranty period, I'm not sure that Apple has any responsibilities. Further more, as @davidw posted, they have a repair program already in place for the affected devices, so I don't know what more the suit expected to gain (beyond fees for the lawyers who filed it.) Seems to me like Apple has already done the right thing both legally and ethically once they uncovered the defect.
https://support.apple.com/13-inch-macbook-pro-display-backlight-service
The POINT of this class action lawsuit was about extracting money from Apple, by claiming that Apple knew about the defect, before they sold the laptop to customers and that their design subject their customers to potential high fees, to repair the laptop.( Not to mention the defect posed a safety hazard. )
Why would it be necessary to sue Apple to cover the cost of out of warranty repair, when Apple had already agreed to do that back in May of 2019? This suit was filed this year.
The funny thing is that this is the same Judge that allowed the lawsuit to go ahead in the first place, providing the plaintiffs lawyers could provide enough evidence to their claim(s). But evidently, the plaintiffs lawyers did not provide the evidence needed to go ahead with their claim(s) or their claim(s) had nothing to do with the defect. So this isn't a case of one Judge seeing things differently, than another Judge. But they can still refile, after coming up with the evidence or filing a claim (that qualify for class action status) that they do have evidence for.
https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/05/apple_macbook_screen/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-316