This lawsuit is a bunch of crap. I have bought refurb Apple products multiple times and I CANNOT tell the difference from new. I would be happy to receive Apple refurb if I was due one because of a repair.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Agrees to Pay $95 Million to Settle Lawsuit Claiming Refurbished Devices Aren't 'Equivalent to New' [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I strongly agree. I’m mostly aggravated that Apple doesn’t specify more about if the parts on a device are new or replaced or whatever they do with the Apple Refurbished Program.
The Apple repairs policy:
If possible claim defects are "normal"
If a minor component is defective, replace device and charge customer out of warranty
If a replacement is expensive and warranty covers it, give old device as new
If anyone actually repairs device using Apple parts stripped from other products - sue them, claim they endanger customers
If possible claim defects are "normal"
If a minor component is defective, replace device and charge customer out of warranty
If a replacement is expensive and warranty covers it, give old device as new
If anyone actually repairs device using Apple parts stripped from other products - sue them, claim they endanger customers
The lawyer's sure made a bundle. Between 26.9 and 31.6 MILLION dollars.
And what do they do? They guide. That's it. Law is complicated, there are plenty of traps to the uninitiated. All a lawyer does is guide people around these traps, and try to use the law to extract justice, money, or whatever else it is that the plaintiff is after. It can't be a fun job. Probably highly stressful at times, however, 30 ish MILLION? Something seriously wrong there.
And what do they do? They guide. That's it. Law is complicated, there are plenty of traps to the uninitiated. All a lawyer does is guide people around these traps, and try to use the law to extract justice, money, or whatever else it is that the plaintiff is after. It can't be a fun job. Probably highly stressful at times, however, 30 ish MILLION? Something seriously wrong there.
Exactly. I never ever participate in these class-action money grabs for trial attorneys. All you are doing is helping them buy their next Gulfstream while raising prices for everyone.
Because the change is on the inside. It's far from like a new one, it's a damaged product they repaired. If you're lucky, its one with a damaged screen, because that would be replaced. If you're unlucky, it could be a water damaged one, where they tried makeshift repairs on the logic board.
Thats why Apple paid up, they know this will never fly and in Europe they where force to drop the practice due to consumer laws.
Last edited:
Just to be clear....the majority of people who have posted do not want Apple to recycle?
This.....and....Precedent?!
Where I *live there was a lawsuit against Apple for the same reason, woman got refurb phone instead of new one within Warranty period, this was close to a decade ago, the woman won easily.
Refurb ≠ New
*Somewhere in Europe.
Last edited:
Just to be clear.... You do know they still can recycle without giving people a replacement phone claiming it's "new"?
Don’t know US law but if they settled doesn’t that mean that no precedent has been set because a judge never made a decision. So future consumers don’t benefit and lawyers line their pockets. While the claimants will probably receive a token amount.
Doesn’t seem like a victory for consumers and instead a massive win for Apple where $95m is just loose change Tim probably found down his sofa?
Doesn’t seem like a victory for consumers and instead a massive win for Apple where $95m is just loose change Tim probably found down his sofa?
A “couple of hours”? This suit has been going on for over 5 years. But I’m not saying they deserve $30M.
I don't know how much a lawyer would charge for an hour in the states, but, lets say $500...30.000.000/500= 60.000 hours, that seems a lot (To me).
Just found this:
But do they say it is new? Or “just as new”, “behaves like new”, “indistinguishable from new”, “receive a replamecement” vs “receive a new replacement”, etc
Fair point this one, I was thinking exactly the same as the post you were referring to, but indeed they could just put more stuff on the refurbished store. And they better, else the attorneys will come back for round two wi a pollution/waste hit.
If anything, their refurbs go through more thorough testing to ensure no issues. The chances of receiving a defective unit compared to buying a new one are smaller.
that $500hr lawyer during those 60000 hours (that’s 29 years of vacation-less and never sick 8 hours a day work weeks) is also handling many other cases, especially while waiting for the back and forth. I’m not expecting a lawyer to be 29 years focused day in and day out on a single case.
Shuffle at will, one $500/hr for 29years, or 5 $500/hr attorneys for ~6years or 30 $100/hr attorney for ~6years, etc
EDIT: to clarify, that I also find these numbers no matter the angle quite the unbelievable deal (for them).
Last edited:
cool. i wonder why my refurbed 15inch was a complete junk and it took 2 months of multiple replacements before they made me sign a form and ship me a BNIB replacement.
To add to it, but I need to recheck my memory on this, during some Probabilities classes long ago the teacher explained to us the students that individual electronic components have higher chances to fail at the beginning than later on… i.e, if a NES is working fine after 10 years it will probably function forever by then… that was during 2000s though, when a 20yo NES worked (and still does today 35 years later since it’s release) but who knows with the orders of magnitude more complex modern devices.
So, with that theory, a salvaged refurbished component not only is it tested but might be actually more robust long term too.
The fact that Apple doesn’t sell these “refurbished” devices as “new” on their website strongly suggests they are not equivalent to “new”. That’s probably why Apple decided to settle the case.
The problem for consumers is Apple will simply continue this behavior as if nothing ever happened.
The problem for consumers is Apple will simply continue this behavior as if nothing ever happened.
How many people have had one? Seems highly unlikely it would be more cost efficient for Apple to make good something like that rather than just replacing it with a new part.
And what evidence do you have that Apple’s refurbished items are less reliable than their brand new ones? Anecdotally, I’m not personally aware of anyone suffering from poorer reliability with refurbs (and apart from anything else, I’ve had a fairly large number of them myself).
I repair iPhone motherboards.
You cannot know how much a phone has been thrown on the ground and some soldered connection made weaker.
You cannot know how much humidity has been on the inside (trust me, it does).
You cannot know how many times and with what quality of charger it’s been charged.
But you know the answer is “more than zero”.
A refurbished phone IS less reliable. Absolutely no doubt about it.
You cannot know how much a phone has been thrown on the ground and some soldered connection made weaker.
You cannot know how much humidity has been on the inside (trust me, it does).
You cannot know how many times and with what quality of charger it’s been charged.
But you know the answer is “more than zero”.
A refurbished phone IS less reliable. Absolutely no doubt about it.
Granted it's a few years ago but when my iPhone 5 failed, I went through 4 refurb units as the first 3 all broke within a couple of months of each other. 2 of those were completely dead out of the box in the store. That's not even close to being equivalent to new. Using that logic I could buy 5 new iPhones and 3 of them could have a higher chance of being faulty out of the box or developing a fault down the line.
I can somewhat understand the lawsuit. Go to anybody else other than Apple, and their definition of "refurbished" is "random crap we give you," ranging from okay-ish to obviously used and dirty. I have seen "refurbished" stuff being dusty out-of-the-box, clearly the company don't even bother inspecting it from someone returning the junk.
Meanwhile, Apple's standard of refurbished is literally "new" in a white box. But obviously Apple cannot say it's "new" anymore, thus the nail is on the definition of new, and thus anything not new is false.
Meanwhile, Apple's standard of refurbished is literally "new" in a white box. But obviously Apple cannot say it's "new" anymore, thus the nail is on the definition of new, and thus anything not new is false.