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
You should expect brand new parts. If they can’t provide new parts than they should provide a new replacement. If Apple feels it’s more cost effective to centralize repairs and just hand out units at retail than they need to be replacing units with new since they are opting to replace all parts. But that doesn’t trump the expectation that replacement parts are new.
I think there is a difference between the 14 day return period and the 1 year warranty or AppleCare, which may specify a refurbished product may be provided. Many companies do the latter with in warranty replacements, so it's not unusual. They do need to be clear up front so you know what you might get out of their warranty. What is unusual is having a defect in the first 14 day return window and being given a refurb. I also wonder why more people don't just return it and go buy a brand new one. That's what I have done and would do in the future.
No problem. That can be done. Just expect to see increased iPhone prices for Apple to account for the extra overhead cost of providing a new iPhone. An extra 10+% wouldn't surprise me.
Similarly, consumers pay for the car warranty when they purchase a new car. It's just not itemized in the sticker price.
Sure, the car analogy doesn’t fit but why do you think someone should have the right to receive a brand new phone instead of a refurbished one after his used phone was broken while still under warranty? It’s a good way to reduce electronic waste and refurbished devices from Apple usually are as good as new.
Did you even read what he wrote? His example was an 11 month iPhone that failed. In that example, the phone you're turning in to Apple for warranty repair is no longer new. You aren't entitled to anything more than what you had immediately before the device malfunctioned. If the device you get back is in the same working condition as before it broke (or even better condition), then they did right by you. If you do happen to get a new device back, then you should consider that as above and beyond what they had to do, not something you were entitled to.
Warranties traditionally were about comped parts and labor for repair, not replacement with new device. The "like new" or "functions as new" type language in Apple's warranties is not ambiguous. At all. Nobody should have ever understood it as literally new. Because it clearly wasn't.
That’s the theory, does anyone have the data to prove it? I think the burden is on the plaintiff to provide the proof.
easy money for Apple indeed but $95 million is still millions .. probably the cost of Apple Pencil 3 R&D so it's money lost that could've been effectively used. spending is spending, payments is still an expense.
Why is the difference so great? It sounds like new devices aren’t QC tested at all, and refurbishes are all completely QC tested. I don’t like refurbish because somebody returned it, maybe just because they didn’t like the color or something, but also because of some intermittent problem that isn’t caught on QC tests. And I don’t feel Apple would do a complete battery of QC tests on refurbished because that’s costly to the point that Apple would be better off replacing with a new device.
They probably don't. Funny thing is, in case of actual repair (provided it's done correctly) board rework probably uses new SMD components and will have fresh solder joints, as well as being individually tested beyond what new devices usually are. It probably is equivalent to new in function, if not better. In other cases where whole parts are replaced, provided said part is actually functional, of equivalent or better quality, and is no older than the part replaced, I don't see the issue. From what I recall, Apple never promised only new parts; they said new or refurbished/like new/functionally equivalent. People keep getting hung up on new when that was never an exclusive promise, as I remember. The case was likely settled because it's easier to do that than deal with it in court, whether the plaintiff is correct or not.
Do you really think Apple would settle for $95 million if the plaintiffs didn't have the data to prove it?
That's a lot of legal fees if Apple was sure they were right.
There is a difference between broken and failure. One thing if you drop it. It’s Another thing when your for example, Wi-Fi toggle is greyed out. Due to a Hardware failure.
Still under warranty and should be replaced with brand new if the phone fails. Not broken by owner
True. Had a refurbished AirPort Extreme and it failed after a while. Got another refurbished one as a replacement and it failed too. Some electrons can die after some time. You never know how the previous owner treated that thing. It may have fallen down or had been sitting next to a heating for years and got microscopic cracks in the chips. You never know what you get.
My wife bought me an iPhone 5 for Christmas a few years ago. If I remember right, they were $750.00 at the time for the mid-storage model. Anyway, there were a few dead pixels out of the box. I took it to the Apple store two or three days after Christmas and they tried to give me a refurbished phone. I was pissed. My wife had paid $750 for a brand new phone, not a refurbished one. I could understand had I been in there well into the warranty, but my phone was literally messed up out of the box. I absolutely couldn't get the guy to understand how what they were doing was effectively selling a refurbished phone at a new phone price. After enough complaining, they finally gave me a new one. Honestly, I didn't really feel the need to have another brand new phone, but it felt like they were almost pulling a bait and switch. I'm still mad about it.
Last edited:
I only had to take advantage of Apple's warranty (in my case, it was the standard 1-year warranty, not Apple Care) once when my couple month old AW S4 stopped charging. I have no idea if the replacement was literally brand new or refurbished, nor did I care because it looked brand new and functioned without issue. I'm so glad I'm not a litigious person.
Whether a consumer should be entitled to a completely new device after having used the device that failed is an interesting question. One could defend the position that by receiving a new device, the consumer merely receives what they were entitled to from the start, namely a working device. This is the position taken by the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ 17 April 2008, Quelle AG).
Reworking a logic board is far more than having some new components and solder.
When you heat up specific sections of a board using a heat nozzle, you can easily warp a board. Too much moisture on the plastic BGA package can lead to delamination. You can only eyeball corrosion caused by liquids because nobody will remove every component to clean underneath everything.
Anyone know how to deposit a check worth 1/20th of a penny? Will the bank round up or down? Asking for a friend…
This isn't untrue, on the other hand, new parts can easily be defective right out of manufacturing. Are there any statistics on new vs refurbished components or devices from Apple, or is this fear/uncertainty/doubt?
Or the fact that, by law, any open box returned item cannot be marked or sold as new might have something to do with that. Refurbished is simply a returned device - purchased new and returned the next day after opening the box goes into the refurb pipeline. Not all refurbs are damaged devices.
Apple sells refurbished iPhones less than the cost of new iPhones. That is the evidence.