Apple hit with lawsuit targeting AppleCare+ refurbished devices
A class action suit filing in California complains that "refurbished" service stock replacements doled out by Apple in exchange for damaged devices to AppleCare+ service plan holders are not functionally the same as new.
The class action suit, filed Wednesday, takes offense to Apple replacing damaged devices with refurbished devices. Specifically mentioned, the suit is over the clause in the AppleCare Plus contract documents stating that devices replaced under the program are "equivalent to new in performance and reliability."
Lawyers for the claimants declare in the suit that refurbished means "a secondhand unit that has been modified to appear to be new" and cannot be equivalent in durability or functionality as a new unit.
The suit stems from plaintiff Vicky Maldonado's screen crack in her third generation iPad after six months of ownership. After being told that a replacement iPad would cost $250 in 2012 because of the accidental nature of the damage, she was also suggested that the AppleCare Plus program would cover future damage for an additional $100.
Without going into details of failure, Maldonado claims in the lawsuit filing that the replacement iPad did not function properly, and as such, was not equivalent to new.
In September 2013, Maldonado purchased a fourth generation iPad and AppleCare Plus service plan, and claims that she was not informed that she would receive a refurbished used device in the event of damage. She returned to the Apple store in May of 2015 for repair, and was given another refurbished device.
No failure after replacement was noted in the court filing for the fourth generation iPad. Regardless, the court filing notes that "what Maldonado received was not a device that was new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability."
The court case will hinge on the definitions of refurbished, and on how the court interprets "equivalent to new in performance and reliability." From the beginning of Apple service programs, parts that are replaced in a repair at an authorized service location are required to be returned to Apple for evaluation and component level repair, and an eventual return to service stock.
While some parts on Apple iOS devices can't be refurbished, like the displays, the units themselves are no different. Damaged devices claimed by Apple during the repair process are often sent to a central depot for examination. They are repaired, or "refurbished," and either sent back into the service replacement process, or re-sold by Apple or an allied vendor directly to consumers as a refurbished product.
Some Apple Retail stores have basic repair services on-site. However, most stores will give the AppleCare holders the choice of an in-store repair for basic failures which generally takes between two and four days, waiting up to 10 days for a repair of the original device to return from an off-site repair depot, or being provided a service-stock replacement on the spot.
AppleInsider spoke with a genius at a local Apple Genius Bar about the replacement or repair process. Users with iCloud or iTunes backups of a phone generally opt for an on-the-spot swap, and the customer is told that the device is "refurbished, and functionally equivalent to new."
Owners without a recent backup typically select the in-store or depot repair. It is not known if Maldonado or the other plaintiffs were given the choice of a repair in-store, or a replacement from service stock during the store visits for assorted repairs.
AppleCare+ was unveiled as an extension to the normal AppleCare warranty program. For $99, the AppleCare+ program covers two incidences of user-induced damage for two years after initial device purchase for fees ranging from $50 for an iPad, up to $100 for an iPhone 6s. AppleCare+ must be purchased within 60 days of a device's initial purchase.
The complainants are seeking restitution, a court injunction preventing Apple from giving refurbished devices to customers as service replacements, attorney fees, the option of customers being given the full purchase price for a broken device instead of a repair, and a change to the AppleCare+ service plan terms and conditions.
The class action suit, filed Wednesday, takes offense to Apple replacing damaged devices with refurbished devices. Specifically mentioned, the suit is over the clause in the AppleCare Plus contract documents stating that devices replaced under the program are "equivalent to new in performance and reliability."
Lawyers for the claimants declare in the suit that refurbished means "a secondhand unit that has been modified to appear to be new" and cannot be equivalent in durability or functionality as a new unit.
The suit stems from plaintiff Vicky Maldonado's screen crack in her third generation iPad after six months of ownership. After being told that a replacement iPad would cost $250 in 2012 because of the accidental nature of the damage, she was also suggested that the AppleCare Plus program would cover future damage for an additional $100.
Without going into details of failure, Maldonado claims in the lawsuit filing that the replacement iPad did not function properly, and as such, was not equivalent to new.
In September 2013, Maldonado purchased a fourth generation iPad and AppleCare Plus service plan, and claims that she was not informed that she would receive a refurbished used device in the event of damage. She returned to the Apple store in May of 2015 for repair, and was given another refurbished device.
No failure after replacement was noted in the court filing for the fourth generation iPad. Regardless, the court filing notes that "what Maldonado received was not a device that was new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability."
The court case will hinge on the definitions of refurbished, and on how the court interprets "equivalent to new in performance and reliability." From the beginning of Apple service programs, parts that are replaced in a repair at an authorized service location are required to be returned to Apple for evaluation and component level repair, and an eventual return to service stock.
While some parts on Apple iOS devices can't be refurbished, like the displays, the units themselves are no different. Damaged devices claimed by Apple during the repair process are often sent to a central depot for examination. They are repaired, or "refurbished," and either sent back into the service replacement process, or re-sold by Apple or an allied vendor directly to consumers as a refurbished product.
Some Apple Retail stores have basic repair services on-site. However, most stores will give the AppleCare holders the choice of an in-store repair for basic failures which generally takes between two and four days, waiting up to 10 days for a repair of the original device to return from an off-site repair depot, or being provided a service-stock replacement on the spot.
AppleInsider spoke with a genius at a local Apple Genius Bar about the replacement or repair process. Users with iCloud or iTunes backups of a phone generally opt for an on-the-spot swap, and the customer is told that the device is "refurbished, and functionally equivalent to new."
Owners without a recent backup typically select the in-store or depot repair. It is not known if Maldonado or the other plaintiffs were given the choice of a repair in-store, or a replacement from service stock during the store visits for assorted repairs.
AppleCare+ was unveiled as an extension to the normal AppleCare warranty program. For $99, the AppleCare+ program covers two incidences of user-induced damage for two years after initial device purchase for fees ranging from $50 for an iPad, up to $100 for an iPhone 6s. AppleCare+ must be purchased within 60 days of a device's initial purchase.
The complainants are seeking restitution, a court injunction preventing Apple from giving refurbished devices to customers as service replacements, attorney fees, the option of customers being given the full purchase price for a broken device instead of a repair, and a change to the AppleCare+ service plan terms and conditions.
AppleCare Class Action by Mikey Campbell on Scribd
Comments
Maybe the speaker surface has deteriorated and will not last as long as a new one?
Maybe she can somehow ascertain there's only 4,322,568 more clicks of the Home button where a new Home button would yield more lifetime remaining clicks?
But these are inconsequential, as a person with AppleCare could simple get another replacement should some physical part wear out sooner than a new one would have. And These examples would not be supportive of her case, as functionally equivalent implies a part's current status, not its remaining lifespan. If pressing the Home button on a refurb feels and functions the same as on a new device, then it's functionally equivalent. Even if ten presses later it dies, though that would speak to the equivalent reliability aspect. So let's see if this is where the lawyers go.
"AppleCare+ for iPhone extends your coverage to two years from the original purchase date of your iPhone and adds up to two incidents of accidental damage coverage, each subject to a service fee plus applicable tax ($79 for iPhone SE or iPhone 6 or earlier models, $99 for iPhone 6s or iPhone 6s Plus)."
"If during the Coverage Period, you submit a valid claim by notifying Apple that (i) a defect in materials and workmanship has arisen in the Covered Equipment, or (ii) the capacity of a covered battery to hold an electrical charge is less than eighty percent (80%) of its original specifications, Apple will either (a) repair the defect at no charge, using new or refurbished parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability, or (b) exchange the Covered Equipment with a replacement product that is new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability, and is at least functionally equivalent to the original product. If Apple exchanges the Covered Equipment, the original product becomes Apple’s property and the replacement product is your property with coverage for the remaining period of the Plan."
In short, she is saying is "I'm suing Apple because I can't read a contract and my attorney is supporting me in this frivolous lawsuit against all sound legal reasoning because, you know, Apple."
Of course one must always be cautious when applying logic and probability to problems driven by human emotions, especially so in a country that is so horrendously out of touch with basic mathematics. iPads aren't milk and getting two defective units in a row is entirely within the realm of randomness.