Lawsuit over refurbished Apple service replacements heading to trial in August
Five years after filing, a class action lawsuit accusing Apple of providing repair replacement devices that aren't "equivalent to new in reliability and performance" is set to go to trial in August.
Credit: Apple
The complaint was originally filed in 2016 and took issue with Apple replacing damaged devices with refurbished models. Although Apple says it provides replacement devices that are "equivalent to new in performance and reliability," the lawsuit alleges that "remanufactured," or refurbished, devices don't meet that definition.
The original plaintiff in the case allegedly received a replacement iPad that did not function properly. As such, the lawsuit claims that it was not "equivalent to new."
According to a notice sent by law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, first spotted by MacRumors, the case will proceed to trial on August 16, 2021.
The class covers U.S. customers who purchased an AppleCare or AppleCare+ plan for iPhone or iPad on or after July 20, 2012 and later received a "remanufactured" replacement device. Those who meet the description are automatically included in the class unless they opt out by May 3.
As AppleInsider reported at the time, the case will hinge on how the court defines "refurbished," or how it interprets the "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" clause in the AppleCare+ contract. The original filing also doesn't seem to consider wear and tear by the user prior to the repair, as it applies to what the user receives in exchange.
Per Apple repair program guidelines, parts that are replaced during repair at an authorized service location are required to be sent back to Apple for evaluation, repair, and a return to service stock. Once a damaged device claimed by Apple during a repair process is repaired, it too is sometimes repaired and sent back to the service replacement process or re-sold directly to consumers as a refurbished device.
Apple denies any wrongdoing in the case. The case is slated to be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. More details can be found at the lawsuit's website.
Credit: Apple
The complaint was originally filed in 2016 and took issue with Apple replacing damaged devices with refurbished models. Although Apple says it provides replacement devices that are "equivalent to new in performance and reliability," the lawsuit alleges that "remanufactured," or refurbished, devices don't meet that definition.
The original plaintiff in the case allegedly received a replacement iPad that did not function properly. As such, the lawsuit claims that it was not "equivalent to new."
According to a notice sent by law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, first spotted by MacRumors, the case will proceed to trial on August 16, 2021.
The class covers U.S. customers who purchased an AppleCare or AppleCare+ plan for iPhone or iPad on or after July 20, 2012 and later received a "remanufactured" replacement device. Those who meet the description are automatically included in the class unless they opt out by May 3.
As AppleInsider reported at the time, the case will hinge on how the court defines "refurbished," or how it interprets the "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" clause in the AppleCare+ contract. The original filing also doesn't seem to consider wear and tear by the user prior to the repair, as it applies to what the user receives in exchange.
Per Apple repair program guidelines, parts that are replaced during repair at an authorized service location are required to be sent back to Apple for evaluation, repair, and a return to service stock. Once a damaged device claimed by Apple during a repair process is repaired, it too is sometimes repaired and sent back to the service replacement process or re-sold directly to consumers as a refurbished device.
Apple denies any wrongdoing in the case. The case is slated to be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. More details can be found at the lawsuit's website.
Comments
Worst case scenario is that you get a refund, then buy a new one. A tiny hassle, only necessary if they somehow won’t work with you, which I doubt would happen.
The key point that I got out of the article was that the issue wasn't with the replacement being refurbished, rather the plaintiff allegedly received a replacement that "didn't function properly." Exactly how it didn't function properly isn't detailed in the article, but if the replacement wasn't fully functional then I would expect Apple to provide another replacement that was. If they didn't then they weren't abiding by the terms of the warranty, but that's not an issue with the warranty, it's breach of contract.
An Apple “Refurbished” device, is basically a totally new devices with a recycled main board that was cleaned and certified. All of the other components are recycled and as well.
There’s also 2 sets of “Refurb” stock as well, when a device is brand new, the stores get a stock of brand new devices meant specifically for swaps if something doesn’t work. They are the same devices as in the retail boxes, just in a generic box, so the first few months a device is out, the likely hood of it actually being refurbished is slim to none.