Second class-action suit filed over alleged iPhone battery fraud
A Bay Area resident is the next to join the ranks of those filing lawsuits against Apple and AT&T, arguing that both companies have tricked customers into paying for frequent battery replacements.
Sydney Leung's nine-page class-action complaint, filed in a Northern District of California court on Monday, accusing both Apple and AT&T of fraud in neglecting to inform potential iPhone buyers of the costs involved in maintaining a working battery for the iPhone over the course of the handset's lifespan.
In a virtual repeat of the argument made by Jose Trujillo in his Illinois lawsuit from July, Leung and his representing lawyers Arthur Lazear and Max Folkenflik claim that the battery in the iPhone will last only 300 complete charges before depleting entirely. And again like Trujillo, the new suit contends that the battery will need to be replaced every year by Apple alone due to the sealed rear compartment, which prevents third-party technicians and users from swapping batteries themselves without voiding the warranty.
The accumulated costs of ordering the replacement, shipping, and the loaner iPhone would amount to over $100 each year on top of the three-day replacement process, the lawsuit claims. But as neither Apple nor AT&T had provided warning about any of the costs involved in maintaining a useful battery until after the launch, customers who had bought iPhones during the June 29th introductory weekend -- including Leung -- were not informed of the time and money required until they were locked into a two-year AT&T service contract.
The scope of the complaint is believed to cover the "hundreds of thousands" of users who had bought iPhones before Apple and AT&T publicized the battery replacement details, and therefore demands a class-action suit on their behalf, Folkenflik and Lazear write. As a representative of the affected iPhone buyers, Leung's party demands a jury trial and hopes to recoup the cost of replacing batteries as well as punitive damages for misleading the first wave of customers.
For its part, Apple has not issued public statements about the suit and continues to contradict the claims of both Leung and Trujillo regarding the cellphone's battery life. The Cupertino, Calif.-based electronics firm officially states on its website that the lithium-ion pack maintains its full charging potential for between 300 and 400 cycles and should still hold the majority of its charge for some time afterwards.
Customers are also not required to spend more than $100 for each replacement, since purchasing the AppleCare plan for iPhones would cover any battery replacements needed during the two years of the AT&T agreement. Users have further reported that the iPhone's SIM card functions on a basic level in many other AT&T phones, allowing customers with existing handsets to waive the $29 fee for a temporary iPhone in the event of a battery swap.
Sydney Leung's nine-page class-action complaint, filed in a Northern District of California court on Monday, accusing both Apple and AT&T of fraud in neglecting to inform potential iPhone buyers of the costs involved in maintaining a working battery for the iPhone over the course of the handset's lifespan.
In a virtual repeat of the argument made by Jose Trujillo in his Illinois lawsuit from July, Leung and his representing lawyers Arthur Lazear and Max Folkenflik claim that the battery in the iPhone will last only 300 complete charges before depleting entirely. And again like Trujillo, the new suit contends that the battery will need to be replaced every year by Apple alone due to the sealed rear compartment, which prevents third-party technicians and users from swapping batteries themselves without voiding the warranty.
The accumulated costs of ordering the replacement, shipping, and the loaner iPhone would amount to over $100 each year on top of the three-day replacement process, the lawsuit claims. But as neither Apple nor AT&T had provided warning about any of the costs involved in maintaining a useful battery until after the launch, customers who had bought iPhones during the June 29th introductory weekend -- including Leung -- were not informed of the time and money required until they were locked into a two-year AT&T service contract.
The scope of the complaint is believed to cover the "hundreds of thousands" of users who had bought iPhones before Apple and AT&T publicized the battery replacement details, and therefore demands a class-action suit on their behalf, Folkenflik and Lazear write. As a representative of the affected iPhone buyers, Leung's party demands a jury trial and hopes to recoup the cost of replacing batteries as well as punitive damages for misleading the first wave of customers.
For its part, Apple has not issued public statements about the suit and continues to contradict the claims of both Leung and Trujillo regarding the cellphone's battery life. The Cupertino, Calif.-based electronics firm officially states on its website that the lithium-ion pack maintains its full charging potential for between 300 and 400 cycles and should still hold the majority of its charge for some time afterwards.
Customers are also not required to spend more than $100 for each replacement, since purchasing the AppleCare plan for iPhones would cover any battery replacements needed during the two years of the AT&T agreement. Users have further reported that the iPhone's SIM card functions on a basic level in many other AT&T phones, allowing customers with existing handsets to waive the $29 fee for a temporary iPhone in the event of a battery swap.
Comments
I would love it if they would drag everyone who ever filed a frivolous claim into the center of town and cut their fu*king heads off.
I would love it if they would drag everyone who ever filed a frivolous claim into the center of town and cut their fu*king heads off.
Yea, you're right. Your way would be better.
There's absolutely no fu**ing reason Apple couldn't have made the back cover user friendly to access the battery. They knew they were getting into a new area of income just like Home Depot wants you to pay for an extended warranty for a stupid $29 ceiling fan.
I've been buying Apple prolducts for over 10 years and I'm getting sick of their deceiving designs. "Well, we don't want any screws showing, so we'll just seal the whole thing for design sake and charge the customer extra in the future."
I would love it if Apple was able to countersue these idiots for making baseless claims.
First of all, Apple was very clear about the battery not being replaceable, way before the iPhone shipped. I remember reading about the non-replaceable battery in many many early press reports after the January unveiling, so the information was out there well ahead of time.
Second of all, these early iPhone buyers could have simply asked a sales person if the battery was replaceable before buying. When they learned the answer, they didn't have to buy. By the way, a non-replaceable battery is not unusual in Apple devices...anybody ever hear of the iPod?
Thirdly, these jackasses are making claims about the battery that are based purely on conjecture and misinformation. They claim that the battery will be depleted after 300 or so charges, and need replacing. Where do they get that? I ask them to prove it! The fact is, Apple has said that the battery could be charged for that many cycles and THEN would begin to lose its charge, like all other batteries.
Is this what America has come to? Nobody forced these idiots to buy the iPhone. Nobody lied to them about the iPhone's capabilities. But somehow these leaches feel they've been wronged, and deserve vast compensation....for a product that works as advertised and has only been on the market for 2 months!
This is as frivolous as it gets.
P.S. I think I'll go out and buy a car right now, and then sue the manufacturer because my car doesn't fly.
They're not baseless. There was absolutely no information available for people to make a decision about how they would handle battery replacement before the launch because no one was able to look at the phone. If I were givien a used iPhone for 3 days for a battery replacement I would be damn pissed.
There's absolutely no fu**ing reason Apple couldn't have made the back cover user friendly to access the battery. They knew they were getting into a new area of income just like Home Depot wants you to pay for an extended warranty for a stupid $29 ceiling fan.
I've been buying Apple prolducts for over 10 years and I'm getting sick of their deceiving designs. "Well, we don't want any screws showing, so we'll just seal the whole thing for design sake and charge the customer extra in the future."
And according to you, batteries are free obviously since your saying Apple would charge extra and no one else would.
Do I care that I can not replace the battery? Yes Does it matter to me in actual use? No ,because my three year old Sony Ericson STILL has its original battery and I have only removed it to replace the SIM card.
And whats up with this "replace one a year" BS. This idiots sewing seem to keep assuming 300 or so charges - NOT full CYCLES as Apple states.
They're not baseless. There was absolutely no information available for people to make a decision about how they would handle battery replacement before the launch because no one was able to look at the phone. If I were givien a used iPhone for 3 days for a battery replacement I would be damn pissed.
There's absolutely no fu**ing reason Apple couldn't have made the back cover user friendly to access the battery. They knew they were getting into a new area of income just like Home Depot wants you to pay for an extended warranty for a stupid $29 ceiling fan.
I've been buying Apple prolducts for over 10 years and I'm getting sick of their deceiving designs. "Well, we don't want any screws showing, so we'll just seal the whole thing for design sake and charge the customer extra in the future."
Before the "launch" of the iPhone their website clearly stated the battery was built-in and info on charge cycles for LI-Ion batteries are well known and universal among these type batteries. The battery will not magically be rendered useless once 300 cycles or 1 year hits so it's a baseless claim.
You've been buying Apple products for 10 years and feel deceived by their design? Go build a PC then. Apple can make it's products how ever they feel. You are not required to buy any Apple products and i suggest that it may be in your best interest to not by anything that has an all-in-one design... something Apple has been doing since the 1970s.
I have no problem (well, not a severe problem) with the non user replaceable battery thing-- I understand the design tradeoffs and all-- but it is true that making you have to pay to have a phone to use while they take three days to put a new batt in is pretty much adding insult to injury.
So: either no cost for a loaner, or very little downtime, everybody's happy, except those who aren't, but they'll presumably have less company.
I think I'll go out and buy a car right now, and then sue the manufacturer because my car doesn't fly.
As for your question of where America is heading, the answer is down the crapper. This is a country not "by the people and for the people", but "by a select few and for a select fewer". The legal system in this country has been structured to ensure an endless amount of business for - you guessed it - lawyers.
Apple could put this all to rest by either offering a free loaner during the battery replacement downtime, or training their geniuses to do battery replacements while you wait, at the Apple stores, or both.
I have no problem (well, not a severe problem) with the non user replaceable battery thing-- I understand the design tradeoffs and all-- but it is true that making you have to pay to have a phone to use while they take three days to put a new batt in is pretty much adding insult to injury.
So: either no cost for a loaner, or very little downtime, everybody's happy, except those who aren't, but they'll presumably have less company.
I think those are great ideas and the only case anyone has against Apple. Of course, these ideas would result in the lawyers making squat.
I would love it if they would drag everyone who ever filed a frivolous claim into the center of town and cut their fu*king heads off.
WTF?
You need serious help, dude. Srsly.