Apple's iPhone water resistance has a big catch, claims new lawsuit

AppleInsider

A lawyer in Quebec who is calling for a class-action lawsuit against Apple over it refusing to repair any iPhone damaged by water, despite advertising that its phones can be submerged.

Apple says iPhones are water resistant, but there's a catch

In a similar case to a New York suit that was ultimately dismissed in 2022, Quebec lawfirm LPC Avocats is representing a 19-year-old student whose iPhone is described as coming into contact with water near a pool. The account, by Montreal's CTV News is no clearer than that.

But it does report lawyer Joey Zukran recounting how Apple refused to repair the student's iPhone, because of the contact with water.

"So the warranty says that it does not apply the data liquid contact, which is completely ridiculous when you look at the marketing that Apple uses," said Zukran. "How can you exclude liquid when you advertise that it can fall in a pool and be fine?"

Zukran is seeking authorization to bring a class-action suit against Apple on behalf of the student, and of anyone in the province who has had a similar situation. Specifically, the proposed suit wants to have Apple remove its "liquid contact" clause, reimburse any repair fees, and also pay $500 per person.

"So you essentially have a contract that says your phone is 'Oops resistant', you can drop it in the pool, and you'll be fine, only to come a few paragraphs later and say liquid contact voids your warranty," he continued. "So you have two contradictory clauses in a consumer contract, which, again, according to the law, has to be interpreted in favor of the consumer or the adherent."

Zukran previously brought a suit against Apple over battery life in the iPhone. It was filed in 2019, and the Quebec Court of Apple ultimately upheld the decision that went against Apple.



Read on AppleInsider

eriamjh

The warranty doesn't cover water damage.

The phone is water resistant and sometimes, possibly, it may survive contact with water.  

When water damages it, it's not covered.   

When water doesn't damage it, it's still under warranty.

I know it's silly, but basically Apple is saying it might survive water exposure, but it's not under warranty when it doesn't survive.

apple4thewin

A friend dropped his iPhone 12 in a mop bucket and he immediately took it out but it was too late. It sucks but what can one do 🤷🏻‍♂️

elijahg

eriamjh said:

The warranty doesn't cover water damage.

The phone is water resistant and sometimes, possibly, it may survive contact with water.  

When water damages it, it's not covered.   

When water doesn't damage it, it's still under warranty.

I know it's silly, but basically Apple is saying it might survive water exposure, but it's not under warranty when it doesn't survive.

The warranty agreement isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The law is precedent. Advertising something as IP67 (which is a defined standard, 1m submersion for 30 mins), with the phone getting wet in Apple’s own ads; and then saying “actually we don’t warrant using it in the way we are in our ads, nor do we guarantee the IP rating it’s sold with” is laughable. That’s like Ford advertising a car with 5 doors and saying we don’t warrant the doors if you use them. 

raymondai

The terms should be, “without physical damage, “water warranty” for first 12 months (or any reasonable time frame) after the device bought from authorize dealer”.

I don’t think too many people will push their iPhone to the limit beyond the IP67 standards, just for free repairing.

foregoneconclusion

The warranty for Samsung Galaxy phones works the same way. Exposure to water isn't considered normal use under the warranty. In other words, it's not a product that is specifically made to operate in water. 

sloth77

foregoneconclusion said:

The warranty for Samsung Galaxy phones works the same way. Exposure to water isn't considered normal use under the warranty. In other words, it's not a product that is specifically made to operate in water. 

AFAIK, all phone manufacturers that advertise water resistance have a warrantee that excludes water damage.

Counter intuitive perhaps, but it is the way it has always been.

To be fair, AppleCare+ (unlike the standard warrantee) does have a clause that states repairs will not exceed $79 for water damage.

igorsky

foregoneconclusion said:

The warranty for Samsung Galaxy phones works the same way. Exposure to water isn't considered normal use under the warranty. In other words, it's not a product that is specifically made to operate in water. 

That’s is exactly right. And I’m sure this parasite of a lawyer knows this, but lawyers gonna lawyer. 

ihatescreennames

It’s an odd situation. There is no way for Apple to know if a phone was submerged deeper or longer than the seals are rated for. The seals are rated for certain depths and lengths of time and if either is exceeded then water can potentially leaked around the seal and cause internal damage. I get that.

Just because someone says the phone was only submerged briefly doesn’t mean it’s true. It’s like the people that claim their display shattered when their phone only fell on a soft mattress, I swear!

However, it’s also possible that not every seal is perfect and let water through with a quick encounter with shallow water. Apple knows that they sometimes ship a faulty display or TouchID sensor that needs replacement under warranty. Do they assume that all the seals are 100% perfect in every device sold?

Doodpants

No, you see, Apple advertises that their phones don't get damaged by water. So if your phone has water damage, then you did something impossible. The warrany doesn't cover physical impossibilities. QED.

Panner_Nudding

ihatescreennames said:

It’s an odd situation. There is no way for Apple to know if a phone was submerged deeper or longer than the seals are rated for. The seals are rated for certain depths and lengths of time and if either is exceeded then water can potentially leaked around the seal and cause internal damage. I get that.

Just because someone says the phone was only submerged briefly doesn’t mean it’s true. It’s like the people that claim their display shattered when their phone only fell on a soft mattress, I swear!

However, it’s also possible that not every seal is perfect and let water through with a quick encounter with shallow water. Apple knows that they sometimes ship a faulty display or TouchID sensor that needs replacement under warranty. Do they assume that all the seals are 100% perfect in every device sold?

In the end it doesn’t matter if it was at the bottom of a lake for a year or got a few little splashes from a sink if it shows water damage the person warranty is voided. 

h2p

.
The warranty agreement isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The law is precedent. Advertising something as IP67 (which is a defined standard, 1m submersion for 30 mins), with the phone getting wet in Apple’s own ads; and then saying “actually we don’t warrant using it in the way we are in our ads, nor do we guarantee the IP rating it’s sold with” is laughable. That’s like Ford advertising a car with 5 doors and saying we don’t warrant the doors if you use them. 

I’m with you @Elijahg. My 15 Pro Max is rated as IP68 (Maximum depth of 6 meters for up to 30 minutes)… BUT it voids the AppleCare?? Whoa. That’s disturbing, and it means I haven’t read the AC+ terms recently. Been a MacHead since the 80’s. Even had my 2013 MBP replaced for free by AC after the 3rd instance of a video card malfunction in 2016 1 week before AC expiration. 

This suit may have legs.

Now about to contact AC+ about my wife’s Series 9 Apple Watch that quits logging an activity within a few minutes. (Activities are one of the main uses for her Apple Watche). Will see the response. Honestly I will go thru the troubleshooting steps again w Apple (didn’t help when I did them) and will request a replacement if unsuccessful. See how it goes. 

mknelson

h2p said:
I’m with you @Elijahg. My 15 Pro Max is rated as IP68 (Maximum depth of 6 meters for up to 30 minutes)… BUT it voids the AppleCare?? Whoa. That’s disturbing, and it means I haven’t read the AC+ terms recently. Been a MacHead since the 80’s. Even had my 2013 MBP replaced for free by AC after the 3rd instance of a video card malfunction in 2016 1 week before AC expiration. 

This suit may have legs.

Now about to contact AC+ about my wife’s Series 9 Apple Watch that quits logging an activity within a few minutes. (Activities are one of the main uses for her Apple Watche). Will see the response. Honestly I will go thru the troubleshooting steps again w Apple (didn’t help when I did them) and will request a replacement if unsuccessful. See how it goes. 

AC+ would cover the liquid damage repair for a service fee. That's accidental damage. It's the limited warranty that would be voided.

"If during the Plan Term you submit a valid claim by notifying Apple that the Covered Device has failed due to accidental damage from handling resulting from an unexpected and unintentional external event (such as, drops and damage caused by liquid contact) (“ADH”), Apple will, subject to your payment of the service fee described below, either (i) repair the defect using new parts or previously used genuine Apple parts that have been tested and pass Apple functional requirements, or (ii) exchange the Covered Device with a replacement product that is new or comprised of new and/or previously used genuine Apple parts and has been tested and passed Apple Functional requirements."

The logic for the limited warranty is probably something along the lines of "The design was tested for IP##, if there is water ingress under those conditions you must have damaged the seals".

kamyk35

Sounds like he's is trying to redefine the definitions for water resistant & water proof

gatorguy

kamyk35 said:

Sounds like he's is trying to redefine the definitions for water resistant & water proof

It's not as though Apple marketing discourages the inference of being "waterproof".  We have them promoting "look what we found on the lake bottom and it still works!" stories on a regular basis. Marketing can be a bit weasily, so always go by the specs and legal disclaimers. 

chasm

I predict this case will ultimately be dismissed. All Apple has to do is prove that ANY OTHER damage occurred on the way into the water — like bouncing off the concrete before entering the pool — and they’re off the hook.

forgot username

AppleInsider said:

the Quebec Court of Apple ultimately upheld the decision that went against Apple. 

I wish there were a Quebec Court of Apple  

raymondai

I can understand many lawsuit is BS, but this time the lawyer has the point.
Apple should mention that iPhone is rated at IPxx on the specification list, but don’t advertise how does it resist the water by any circumstance.
It is some thing back to the day only a few manufacturers make IP rated phone (Sony start this?), then the Water Resistance capability was standout, but most of the well known player in the market already did it now, not much excited about it anymore.

Apple designs the iPhone to comply the IP rate, tested, but Apple does not send Every iPhone to test, to say the iPhone in your hand will 100% the same.
It is not like to guarantee the display works properly, the battery has the capacity which stated, the camera can take picture, the phone works…etc.
Apple has QC to test these to guarantee the quality of the product, if there are any odd case, warranty and replacement, or even refund will take care of it.
So, the official ads give an image to the people that the iPhone can take picture next to the pool and withstand a splash, or talking to the phone under the rain, or even wash the iPhone…(you may find it on youtube~)
It did give a illusion to the customer.

forgot username

The ads have a disclaimer. The question is whether the disclaimer is prominent enough. I suspect future water ads will have a more prominent disclaimer. 

elijahg

mknelson said:

The logic for the limited warranty is probably something along the lines of "The design was tested for IP##, if there is water ingress under those conditions you must have damaged the seals".

That is a flawed argument. By that standard, zero warranty claims could ever exist because there would never be a manufacturing defect; every problem is user-created, which is obviously false. A defect in the seal could have existed from the factory, and allow water ingress when used in the conditions it's advertised with. To exclude that is no different to excluding camera problems due to using it in the sun too much, when advertising the phone being used to take photos in the sun.

My iPhone 13 Pro had dust in the lens, despite being sealed. You're saying that shouldn't have been covered because I must have somehow done something to get dust in the lens?

Either way in the UK, or the EU, and I would imagine Canada, Apple would have not a leg to stand on. You can't advertise the use of something then claim that using it that way might damage the product and that they won't cover it. That's just ridiculous, and it's fraudulent advertising.

elijahg

sloth77 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

The warranty for Samsung Galaxy phones works the same way. Exposure to water isn't considered normal use under the warranty. In other words, it's not a product that is specifically made to operate in water. 

AFAIK, all phone manufacturers that advertise water resistance have a warrantee that excludes water damage.

Counter intuitive perhaps, but it is the way it has always been.

To be fair, AppleCare+ (unlike the standard warrantee) does have a clause that states repairs will not exceed $79 for water damage.

Adding an exclusion doesn't mean it's legal. It has yet to be tested in court.