Shouldn't he also get several millions for his pain and suffering? $3,117.75 seems awfully small for this outrage.
The outrage here is the sloppy legal interpretations of the presiding judge. The point of small claims court is to expedite suits. Involving attorneys delays court proceedings and increases court costs. That’s why you can’t have an attorney represent you in a small claim proceeding.
That said, when the plaintiff filed the small claims (or preferably long before) Apple should have refunded his money and wished him well as they led him to the door.
The judge was ignorant and Apple mishandled the situation.
Another happy sue guy on the loose. My goodness you should know what your buying and if which services it would work...Always buy CDMA iphones if you think you will be switching later to GSM carrier providers. Must be hard to understand if you don’t ask questions and relying on sales person only.
Apple store rep messed up and all they needed to do was change the phone to a Qualcomm modem one.
It could be the buyer was a jerk and no communication between himself and Apple could have ensued. Well, in that case, they both messed up.
Easy to just change a 2 YEAR OLD phone for a new one because he said it should work anywhere !
Apple didn’t have to give him a new one. A refurb with a Qualcomm modem would have been fine and proper.
There’s no point to arguing fault. Either the Apple sales rep didn’t understand what he wanted when he said unlocked, the buyer didn’t understand what he meant by unlocked, or maybe they didn’t understand each other. But Apple had a solution at hand by simply given him a refurb 7 Plus with a QC modem, in exchange for his Intel one. I don’t think it would be right for Apple to give him a new one either. Maybe there should be a cost for doing the exchange, even, but that is usually up to the store manager.
The SIM unlocked iPhones post 7 models, sold in the USA at least, are all QC modem phones. There must have been some confusion between seller and buyer if the buyer walked away with an unlocked ATT or T-Mobile phone. Buyer must have said he wanted either an unlocked ATT or T-Mobile without understanding that CDMA networks aren’t supported. Even so, Apple had an easy solution.
The buyer was not educated in the terminology. Especially in thinking that unlocked meant that it would work on all carriers. It simply means he could use it on any carrier that supports that communications protocol. T, Mobile and Verizon use different protocols. He should have known that his "unlocked" phone would not work all over the world and he would not have the ability to swap to carriers that used CDMA. This Modem thing is a mess and the New Unlocked Phones need to work ON all Carriers' LTE bands. Apple could have easily explained this to the buyer, but I suspect he / she was not up on the subject and was ready to rapidly get a phone and leave the store. Who knows's. I don't think there was any deceptive advertising. Lets make this all uncomplicated and have an "unlocked" phone with a modem that will work on all bands around the world. Verizon is good in Rural Georgia, but in General I do not like going into any Cellular Store. Their service is not great at all. If I were Apple, I would clearly explain the difficulties to the uneducated buyer to avoid any problem. Buyers need to understand the Bands the phone works on and the communication protocols.
Disagree with you. The buyer shouldn't be responsible for phrasing the exact right question to get the desired answer. If I ask for a phone that works on any carrier, give me a phone that works on any carrier. If you are going to boil it down the the base problem, then Apple should train their sales staff better.
Small claims court is great for things where you don't get the correct answers from a big corporation. In most cases, the company won't appear and will settle. It is just not worth it for them to send someone to the court for a $500 or $1500 claim.
I took Compaq to small claims twice (over the same product). First time they just settled. I was not that happy with the settlement but did it to just be done with it. But then I noticed that the agreement we all signed on the first settlement was screwed up and so told them they owed me a new computer. They said no, we settled with you. I said, read the agreement and pointed out the part about the new computer. They said to take a flying hike. I filed another small claim and this time they showed up with their lawyer. (This was in New Hampshire and they had recently bought DEC, so had a whole office of lawyers down in Mass.) We showed up, I stated my case, and the judge asked to see the document. He said that the document did not make sense (it strongly implied what I was claiming but was not 100% clear cut) and asked who had drafted the document. The Compaq lawyer said that a lawyer in the Texas office had drafted it. He said that he needed THAT lawyer in the chambers so that they could be deposed on what it was supposed to mean, answer questions, etc. He adjourned the case for 30 days. Needless to say, Compaq was willing to settle when I suggested we settle since it was certainly not worth their effort to fly that lawyer to NH from Texas. They offered me another $500. I took it to be done and it made up for what I was not happy with in the original settlement. (The issue was they had done a quick and very lousy copy/paste job on the doc and had a bunch of stuff that was not supposed to be there -- since I felt the original settlement was not really fair I took advantage of it).
I also took Amazon to small claims court. I used to sell stuff on Amazon. They kicked me off claiming I had tried to collude with other sellers on price (which is not true). They then froze my account and would not release the funds they owed me from legit sales I had made previous to their action. I did not contest their action of closing my account -- that was their business and ended up being a blessing in disguise as it pushed me to get back into SW engineering instead of selling cr*p -- but did contest the 6 month freeze on my funds as I needed the money to pay my vendors and stuff. They would not release but as soon as they got notice of my small claim (was like $17xx) they sent me documentation to settle if I would agree to not sue them over it. I signed and they sent me my money right away.
I don't know about Ohio law but small claims court does not require a lawyer on either party's side, though you certainly can bring one (at least in those states I have done a claim). Small claims court is a good venue when you feel you have a legitimate complaint against a big company who won't do the right thing. Just prepare your case, lay it out logically and with as much evidence as possible, and see what happens. Most of the time they (big companies) will just settle without actually going to court in my experience (personal and with talking to others). (Cases against other individuals and small companies are more likely to go to court --e specially if they are local to you -- my advice deals with large companies; especially ones not local to you where the cost of showing up is not worth it).
Shouldn't he also get several millions for his pain and suffering? $3,117.75 seems awfully small for this outrage.
The outrage here is the sloppy legal interpretations of the presiding judge. The point of small claims court is to expedite suits. Involving attorneys delays court proceedings and increases court costs. That’s why you can’t have an attorney represent you in a small claim proceeding.
That said, when the plaintiff filed the small claims (or preferably long before) Apple should have refunded his money and wished him well as they led him to the door.
The judge was ignorant and Apple mishandled the situation.
When it involves two individuals, attorneys are not needed. But when the defendent is a business or corporation, they need to send a legal representive. Store manager was not named in the claim and cannot represent Apple, Inc.
I'm glad he won. Those scenarios where you base your purchase on what you've been told, then later find out that it was wrong and get told something else, yeah those scenarios are super irritating. Especially when you later request a reasonable solution, and get denied one. I'm glad he won, good for him!
My sentiments exactly. More, the Apple Store staff were incredibly rude to me at the store and asked me to leave. First time in my life that happened.
Shouldn't he also get several millions for his pain and suffering? $3,117.75 seems awfully small for this outrage.
All I was hoping for was a phone that would work on all carriers, as I thought I purchased. Because of the Ohio Consumer Protection Law I was awarded 3x damages.
Promised in writing he could submit as evidence? OR a sales rep made an oversimplified mistake, possibly out of ignorance, while the actual written tech specs documented the fact of their being multiple versions.
Why would an attorney be required in small claims court? Isn't that part of the point od small claims court? A store manager could easily have explained the difference between unlocked and carrier restrictions with each model.
Individuals don't need an attorney, but companies do.
Apple has explicitly written that you can change carriers if you want, and mention nothing about certain versions having limitations. If it was explained that buying a Verizon phone will allow you to switch to any carrier and a T-Mobile will only offer GSM carriers that would be fine, but they do not state this. The manager in this situation should have swapped out the phone based on the poor language on Apple's website. The store representatives also just state the device is unlocked and the phone is not tied to any carriers, something that is also incorrect. The customer is right in this situation.
Apple's explanation of iPhone Upgrade Program on the website:
"And if you ever decide to switch carriers after you activate your iPhone with AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, or Verizon, you can easily do that, too.3
Footnote 3: AT&T and T-Mobile customers may need to visit an Apple Store to switch carriers. See a Specialist for details.
Nowhere does it explain that the phone will not work, only that you need to visit an Apple Store to switch. Purposefully vague which is somewhat shameful. I would have pushed it harder with the store manager or escalated it higher with customer support. Good that he won the lawsuit.
Thanks and very interesting indeed. May I quote you in case Apple appeals and I need to reply.
This all relates back to a central question: "What exactly did he ask for and what exactly was he told when he bought the phone?"
This term "unlocked" has had multiple meanings throughout the years and created grey, muddy waters for most people. And, for most in the general public, they don't even realize the waters are muddy. They don't even know that there is a question to be asked.
Back in the day, a carrier would "lock" a device to their network until you had paid off its 2 year contract. Essentially, the phone and the carrier were inseparable. Later, as people started keeping phones longer, carriers were required to remove that lock (aka "Unlock") the phone after it was paid off.
Meanwhile, nobody explained to GENERAL PUBLIC that certain modems would only operate on certain networks and certain bands. It took me 2 months to get that point across to a friend of mine. ... But, there was still a difference between "unlocked" and able to operate on "any" domestic carrier. .........In fact, there isn't even a term to describe a phone as able to operate on any carrier!
Apple has defaulted now to calling those phones "SIM free" -- which technically means it doesn't come to the Apple Store with a SIM card in it!
I think that Apple could have done better to explain these technicalities to there customers and helped to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. I suspect that this lawsuit relates back to that. The customer thought he was buying a phone that would operate on any carrier while the more tech savvy Apple Store employee simply sold him an "unlocked" phone without clarifying that it was restricted to only certain carriers.
I made it very clear that I needed a carrier-unlocked phone for my business. I bought what they sold me. At the time, I was not aware that the 7 Plus had two models of unlocked devices - one full unlock and one partial.
The buyer was not educated in the terminology. Especially in thinking that unlocked meant that it would work on all carriers. It simply means he could use it on any carrier that supports that communications protocol. T, Mobile and Verizon use different protocols. He should have known that his "unlocked" phone would not work all over the world and he would not have the ability to swap to carriers that used CDMA. This Modem thing is a mess and the New Unlocked Phones need to work ON all Carriers' LTE bands. Apple could have easily explained this to the buyer, but I suspect he / she was not up on the subject and was ready to rapidly get a phone and leave the store. Who knows's. I don't think there was any deceptive advertising. Lets make this all uncomplicated and have an "unlocked" phone with a modem that will work on all bands around the world. Verizon is good in Rural Georgia, but in General I do not like going into any Cellular Store. Their service is not great at all. If I were Apple, I would clearly explain the difficulties to the uneducated buyer to avoid any problem. Buyers need to understand the Bands the phone works on and the communication protocols.
I clearly explained my situation and needed a phone that would work on all (not some, not most, but all) carriers, and paid full price for it. Period.
I'm glad he won. Those scenarios where you base your purchase on what you've been told, then later find out that it was wrong and get told something else, yeah those scenarios are super irritating. Especially when you later request a reasonable solution, and get denied one. I'm glad he won, good for him!
It would have cost Apple almost nothing to just give him a new phone. My wife took an insurance company to small claims court over a $1500 damage claim after an automobile accident. They refused to pay and brushed her off like so much dirt under their fingernails. The judge ruled in my wife’s favor so the insurance company not only had to pay the claim but court costs and their lawyer’s fees. My wife represented herself. Then the bastards drug their feet in sending the check so my wife called the court and the clerk threatened them with legal action. The check came a few days later.
I never expected or asked for a new phone. I asked for a phone that would work on all carriers. They said no, then asked me to leave the store.
Well, did he recorded what he exactly asked and what he was exactly told? Or he just stated what he thinks he asked and what he recalls to be told? Used to work on the other side of the shelter so i can remember, that people often think they asked something and they didn’t. Of course he won, because in these cases the consumer is taken as the weaker one so he’s the one who gets it right. But yet again - i wouldn’t be so strict to blame the Apple Store only
I didn't record the audio of the transaction, but I have never, ever bought a carrier-restricted phone in my life. I made it clear this model needs to work on all carriers (like the previous 6S model) and was clearly told it would. Then it didn't.
Apple store rep messed up and all they needed to do was change the phone to a Qualcomm modem one.
It could be the buyer was a jerk and no communication between himself and Apple could have ensued. Well, in that case, they both messed up.
Easy to just change a 2 YEAR OLD phone for a new one because he said it should work anywhere !
I bought the phone in October 2016, and tried using it on Verizon in January 2018 - 15 months, not 24. And I asked, and was told, that the phone I purchased would work anywhere. That's exactly why I bought it.
Apple store rep messed up and all they needed to do was change the phone to a Qualcomm modem one.
It could be the buyer was a jerk and no communication between himself and Apple could have ensued. Well, in that case, they both messed up.
All I asked for was a phone that would work on all networks, as it has been with every phone I have purchased in my life. I had no problems with the mechanics of the phone whatsoever - but when I tried another network it didn't work. At the time I wasn't aware that this particular model (unlike previous models) had two separate and unequal chipsets.
Promised in writing he could submit as evidence? OR a sales rep made an oversimplified mistake, possibly out of ignorance, while the actual written tech specs documented the fact of their being multiple versions.
I was using T-Mobile at the time. I asked for a carrier unlocked phone. I was told this was. I paid for it and got the receipt. It clearly stated "AT&T". I said I don't use AT&T and was told not to worry as it was carrier unlocked and would work with any carrier. I think the Apple Store sales rep didn't understand there were two separate models of this device and their intricacies. I am attaching my receipt - no where does it say what modem or carrier limitations it has.
Another happy sue guy on the loose. My goodness you should know what your buying and if which services it would work...Always buy CDMA iphones if you think you will be switching later to GSM carrier providers. Must be hard to understand if you don’t ask questions and relying on sales person only.
I disagree. He tried all avenues. He should have been made aware what an "unlocked" phone implies at first. He should have been given a refurb that worked on the network he wanted.
Comments
Must be hard to understand if you don’t ask questions and relying on sales person only.
There’s no point to arguing fault. Either the Apple sales rep didn’t understand what he wanted when he said unlocked, the buyer didn’t understand what he meant by unlocked, or maybe they didn’t understand each other. But Apple had a solution at hand by simply given him a refurb 7 Plus with a QC modem, in exchange for his Intel one. I don’t think it would be right for Apple to give him a new one either. Maybe there should be a cost for doing the exchange, even, but that is usually up to the store manager.
The SIM unlocked iPhones post 7 models, sold in the USA at least, are all QC modem phones. There must have been some confusion between seller and buyer if the buyer walked away with an unlocked ATT or T-Mobile phone. Buyer must have said he wanted either an unlocked ATT or T-Mobile without understanding that CDMA networks aren’t supported. Even so, Apple had an easy solution.
Small claims court is great for things where you don't get the correct answers from a big corporation. In most cases, the company won't appear and will settle. It is just not worth it for them to send someone to the court for a $500 or $1500 claim.
I took Compaq to small claims twice (over the same product). First time they just settled. I was not that happy with the settlement but did it to just be done with it. But then I noticed that the agreement we all signed on the first settlement was screwed up and so told them they owed me a new computer. They said no, we settled with you. I said, read the agreement and pointed out the part about the new computer. They said to take a flying hike. I filed another small claim and this time they showed up with their lawyer. (This was in New Hampshire and they had recently bought DEC, so had a whole office of lawyers down in Mass.) We showed up, I stated my case, and the judge asked to see the document. He said that the document did not make sense (it strongly implied what I was claiming but was not 100% clear cut) and asked who had drafted the document. The Compaq lawyer said that a lawyer in the Texas office had drafted it. He said that he needed THAT lawyer in the chambers so that they could be deposed on what it was supposed to mean, answer questions, etc. He adjourned the case for 30 days. Needless to say, Compaq was willing to settle when I suggested we settle since it was certainly not worth their effort to fly that lawyer to NH from Texas. They offered me another $500. I took it to be done and it made up for what I was not happy with in the original settlement. (The issue was they had done a quick and very lousy copy/paste job on the doc and had a bunch of stuff that was not supposed to be there -- since I felt the original settlement was not really fair I took advantage of it).
I also took Amazon to small claims court. I used to sell stuff on Amazon. They kicked me off claiming I had tried to collude with other sellers on price (which is not true). They then froze my account and would not release the funds they owed me from legit sales I had made previous to their action. I did not contest their action of closing my account -- that was their business and ended up being a blessing in disguise as it pushed me to get back into SW engineering instead of selling cr*p -- but did contest the 6 month freeze on my funds as I needed the money to pay my vendors and stuff. They would not release but as soon as they got notice of my small claim (was like $17xx) they sent me documentation to settle if I would agree to not sue them over it. I signed and they sent me my money right away.
I don't know about Ohio law but small claims court does not require a lawyer on either party's side, though you certainly can bring one (at least in those states I have done a claim). Small claims court is a good venue when you feel you have a legitimate complaint against a big company who won't do the right thing. Just prepare your case, lay it out logically and with as much evidence as possible, and see what happens. Most of the time they (big companies) will just settle without actually going to court in my experience (personal and with talking to others). (Cases against other individuals and small companies are more likely to go to court --e specially if they are local to you -- my advice deals with large companies; especially ones not local to you where the cost of showing up is not worth it).
I disagree. He tried all avenues. He should have been made aware what an "unlocked" phone implies at first. He should have been given a refurb that worked on the network he wanted.
I'm glad he won.