Dutch judge rules Apple can't swap refurbished iPads for broken ones
Another court ruling in the Netherlands mandates that when Apple needs to replace a broken iPhone or iPad, it must do so with a new unit, and not a refurbished one.
The suit started in 2015 when a woman purchased an iPad Air 2 with AppleCare. After four months, the unit developed wi-fi issues, and Apple replaced her tablet with a refurbished unit -- as is normal for Apple and spelled out in the device's terms of service.
Despite the terms, the judge overseeing the case ruled on April 18 that Apple can only replace like with like. While a device purchased refurbished can be replaced with a refurbished product, a device purchased new must be replaced with a new device.
"If a plaintiff had purchased a refurbished or replacement iPad, Apple may replace it with a refurbished or replacement copy," ruled the judge. "But if the consumer, as in this case, purchased a new iPad , She is entitled to a new iPad as a replacement. "
The ruling does not cover replacement parts, however. It affirms a previous ruling from December 2016, disallowing refurbished iPhones from being doled out for service swaps.
In July, Apple was hit with a class action suit filing in California, with the same complaint as the two from the Dutch courts -- that refurbished devices are not the same as new, and shouldn't be used as service exchanges. Lawyers for the claimants declare in the suit that refurbished means "a secondhand unit that has been modified to appear to be new" and therefore, cannot be equivalent in durability or functionality to a new unit.
The U.S. court case will also hinge on the definition of refurbished, and on how the court interprets "equivalent to new in performance and reliability," which remains in the Dutch terms of service and was present for both the December ruling, and now April's.
Parts that are replaced in a repair at an Apple authorized service location are required to be returned to Apple for evaluation and potential component level repair, with the goal of an eventual return to service stock.
While some parts on Apple iOS devices can't be refurbished, like displays, 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.
The suit started in 2015 when a woman purchased an iPad Air 2 with AppleCare. After four months, the unit developed wi-fi issues, and Apple replaced her tablet with a refurbished unit -- as is normal for Apple and spelled out in the device's terms of service.
Despite the terms, the judge overseeing the case ruled on April 18 that Apple can only replace like with like. While a device purchased refurbished can be replaced with a refurbished product, a device purchased new must be replaced with a new device.
"If a plaintiff had purchased a refurbished or replacement iPad, Apple may replace it with a refurbished or replacement copy," ruled the judge. "But if the consumer, as in this case, purchased a new iPad , She is entitled to a new iPad as a replacement. "
The ruling does not cover replacement parts, however. It affirms a previous ruling from December 2016, disallowing refurbished iPhones from being doled out for service swaps.
In July, Apple was hit with a class action suit filing in California, with the same complaint as the two from the Dutch courts -- that refurbished devices are not the same as new, and shouldn't be used as service exchanges. Lawyers for the claimants declare in the suit that refurbished means "a secondhand unit that has been modified to appear to be new" and therefore, cannot be equivalent in durability or functionality to a new unit.
The U.S. court case will also hinge on the definition of refurbished, and on how the court interprets "equivalent to new in performance and reliability," which remains in the Dutch terms of service and was present for both the December ruling, and now April's.
Parts that are replaced in a repair at an Apple authorized service location are required to be returned to Apple for evaluation and potential component level repair, with the goal of an eventual return to service stock.
While some parts on Apple iOS devices can't be refurbished, like displays, 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.
Comments
The [Plaintiff] felt that they were given back a lower-cost (or lower-quality?) product. World of winers?
Apple can put what it wants in its terms but that doesn't make them necessarily legal.
I have also always taken issue with Apple reserving the right to use used components in repairs.
Who else can say "yeah, this part is new and ready to go" besides Apple? Nobody. Demanding new parts is utter folly, and forcing Apple to do so is wasteful and will drive consumer costs way up.
As far as service replacements coming from new stock, yeah, that's dumb. Maybe if you have something with an infant failure in a month, but anything longer than that, and the mileage a customer puts on a product should render that null and void.
Refurbish units are different. Apple disassembles and reassembles each refurb unit, testing every component along the way. Once assembled, each refurb unit goes through QA testing. This is why apple is still able to offer AppleCare on refurb units.
Dont confuse refurb units units with open box items from places like Best Buy. Open box items don't go back to apple and are sold "as is"
The MBTF of a non replaced component in a refurbished device is always less than the MTBF of the same component in a new device, so statistically a refurbished device will fail earlier. If this failure just happens after the warranty of the refurbished, then you as a customer are screwed.
By the way I did not mention Apple in my reply, because it is applicable for ever manufacturer
Do these people expect the new replacement unit to have it's own full warranty now, guaranteeing these people will pretty much be guaranteed a new device at least once a year?!
With this woman not only she is under the manufacturer warranty but she paid extra warranty, the stupid apple care, so she basically paid almost twice for her initial iPad that broke. Getting a used device is unacceptable in her case. The comparison with the car that someone made does not make sense: You are still keeping your initial car although it has a part or two under the hood that were changed. You are not getting someon elses fixed and used car in exchange for your car..
Last year my iPhone 6S Plus died after 3-4 months and I had to drive a long way to the apple store. When I got there the phone was not replace right away and I was offered an inferior product on loan. I refused it since it did not have the capacity I needed and I purchased a brand new phone for a week to have to drive again and return it and receive a similar refurbished phone. At least in my case I did not have apple care. Apple had to repackage the brand new phone i returned or sell it open box to someone else so they lost money, but no matter how hard I tried they wouldn't let me keep the purchased identical one and refund me. They wanted me to drive again return that one and get another refurbished phone. In this case the brand new phone had the better chip that did not drain battery as fast and not heat up as much whereas the refurbished one came with the questionable chip. All this after I initially paid $1000 for a 'quality' phone.