Apple Did Not Mislead Customers About iPhone Water Resistance, Federal Judge Rules

[MacRumors]

A federal judge in the U.S. has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit that accused Apple of misleading customers about the iPhone's water resistance (via Reuters).

Apple has extensively advertised the water resistance of the iPhone in its marketing campaigns since the launch of the iPhone 7, including the claim that some models can survive depths of up to four meters for 30 minutes.

Two plaintiffs from New York and one from South Carolina brought a lawsuit against Apple in the Southern District of New York for "false and misleading" misrepresentations that purportedly allowed the company to charge "twice as much" for iPhones than the cost of "average smartphones."

Now, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote has ruled that while the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Apple's advertising could mislead some customers, they did not demonstrate that their iPhones were damaged by "liquid contact" Apple promised they could withstand. The judge also found no evidence of fraud, citing a lack of proof that Apple consciously intended to overstate its water-resistance claims for commercial gain.

It was also ruled that there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiffs relied on fraudulent marketing statements when choosing to buy their iPhones. A lawyer representing the plaintiffs said that his clients were disappointed with the verdict, and there has not yet been a decision about whether to appeal.

Although this case has been dismissed, an Italian judge in late 2020 fined Apple $12 million for misleading customers about the iPhone's water resistance. The ruling explained that Apple did not suitably clarify that its water-resistance claims are only true under specific conditions, such as during controlled laboratory tests with the use of static and pure water, and not in the normal conditions of use by consumers. The regulator also ruled that it was inappropriate for Apple to highlight water resistance as a feature, while at the same time refusing to provide post-sales warranty assistance if the ‌iPhone‌ models in question suffer water damage.

Apple's iPhone 12 and iPhone 13 lineups feature the best water resistance rating on an iPhone to date with an IP68 rating. This means that the devices can withstand water up to a depth of six meters (19.7 feet) for up to 30 minutes. The IP68 water resistance rating means that the iPhone 12 and iPhone 13 can hold up against splashes, rain, and accidental water exposure, but intentional water exposure should still be avoided if possible.

According to Apple, water and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and can deteriorate over time as a result of normal wear. Apple's warranty does not cover liquid damage, so it is best to exercise caution when it comes to liquid exposure.

Article Link: Apple Did Not Mislead Customers About iPhone Water Resistance, Federal Judge Rules

 

[now i see it]

Judge is splitting hairs using semantics. There’s absolutely zero guarantee that new iPhones will be waterproof- thus nobody can assume they are because some do leak.
Yet Apple advertises that they indeed are waterproof to IP 68 standards - which clearly some of them are not.

 

[Kaze9]

“What do you mean dropping it in the toilet isn’t the same as laboratory conditions??”

 

[DMG35]

"We don't cover liquid damage to iPhones" - Apple

Also Apple:

 

[leman]

My opinion on the matter is simple: if you market your product as being water-resistant, warranty has to cover moisture-related damage, unless it can be demonstrated (by the manufacturer) that the exposure to the water was really excessive.

 

[Jason2000]

They should have bought one of those cheaper phones that were half the price of the iPhone. Everyone is always looking for quick payout. Ridiculous.

 

[ghostface147]

Judge is splitting hairs using semantics. There’s absolutely zero guarantee that new iPhones will be waterproof- thus nobody can assume they are because some do leak.
Yet Apple advertises that they indeed are waterproof to IP 68 standards - which clearly some of them are not.

Where did Apple say waterproof? Don’t they advertise their iPhones as water resistant? That’s not the same thing.

 

[StuBeck]

Seems that the biggest issue here was that the judge is calling them out for bringing a lawsuit when they weren't impacted by the claims. If you're bringing a lawsuit because of an issue with advertising, you actually need to have suffered that issue.

 

[Baumi]

The regulator also ruled that it was inappropriate for Apple to highlight water resistance as a feature, while at the same time refusing to provide post-sales warranty assistance if the ‌iPhone‌ models in question suffer water damage.

That argument actually makes sense to me. If they’re willing to give customers an expectation of how a product is supposed to perform, there should be a recourse if an individual device ends up not living up to those claims.

 

[nortonandreev]

“The regulator also ruled that it was inappropriate for Apple to highlight water resistance as a feature, while at the same time refusing to provide post-sales warranty assistance if the ‌‌iPhone‌‌ models in question suffer water damage.”

I agree with that tho.

 

[yabeweb]

I disagree, there were commercials that led you to believe you could splash it without issue, moisture is part of slashes...

 

[quagmire]

They should have bought one of those cheaper phones that were half the price of the iPhone. Everyone is always looking for quick payout. Ridiculous.

Yeah no one is paying double the amount on a smartphone just because the iPhone is water resistant......

Now I do agree if Apple is going to make it water resistant, warranty should cover water damage up to what the iPhone is rated for.

 

[69Mustang]

Two different judges in two different courts in two different countries render two different verdicts. Both were correct, imo. The US case should have been lost based on what the plaintiffs alleged. Conversely, the Italian case highlighted the problem I have with all phone makers and their advertising of water resistance. Ads show resistance to sea water, beer/liquor, and other liquids. None are covered under warranty and the IP rated resistance is only truly valid under controlled conditions.

 

[MacLawyer]

Oh no! The lawyers will go hungry.

 

[sputnikv]

“The ruling explained that Apple did not suitably clarify that its water-resistance claims are only true under specific conditions, such as during controlled laboratory tests with the use of static and pure water, and not in the normal conditions of use by consumers.”

What constitutes “normal condition of use by consumers” that has people submerging their phones for long stretches of time in deep water?

 

[MauiPa]

So water resistant to a published verifiable standard, Meet that standard and the Italians are upset? Maybe they should fine the standard

 

[MauiPa]

Two different judges in two different courts in two different countries render two different verdicts. Both were correct, imo. The US case should have been lost based on what the plaintiffs alleged. Conversely, the Italian case highlighted the problem I have with all phone makers and their advertising of water resistance. Ads show resistance to sea water, beer/liquor, and other liquids. None are covered under warranty and the IP rated resistance is only truly valid under controlled conditions.

Need a new standard

 

[assb10yr]

People have too much time on their hands, sitting home, getting paid by the govt. Send them to work in the fields or something.

 

[TheDemogordon]

IMO the ethical thing to do is make your devices more water resistant as a means of improving the durability of your product, but do so without flaunting it as a feature. All the phone manufacturers were competing on water resistance as a new addition to phones around the iPhone 7 era.

Then again I am not very smart and swam with my (still working) XS in Florida springs to get some cool underwater shots 🥴

 

[TonyC28]

“I know the reason I pay a premium for my iPhones is because of the water resistance.” - No one ever

 

[Reelmower]

My daughter accidentally ran her iPhone 8 in the washing machine for 15 minutes and it survived undamaged. Our experience has been good.
It does seem somewhat deceptive that they advertise resistance to water, but don’t warranty it.
The older iPhone water exposure indicator was famously sensitive. I had a legitimate claim denied because humidity tripped the liquid sensor. Things are better now.

 

[Tres]

Apple’s stance regarding water resistance is the same as almost every other manufacturer. Water resistance does not mean waterproof. Seals and gaskets degrade over time and may degrade rapidly due to environmental factors.

As the judge ruled in this case: It’s impossible to objectively prove that water damage wasn’t caused by a situation exceeding the specifications that Apple has set.

Basically: water resistance might save your phone if you’re lucky, but don’t get your expensive device wet on purpose.

 

[TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️]

This makes no sense. Not too sure what the judges were thinking. Maybe it was harder to prove to them what water damage actually entails.

Do the judges not know that Apple can deny any form of warranty if there is contact with the liquid being made. Apple pretty much tells you to pay for the replacement.

 

[quagmire]

Apple’s stance regarding water resistance is the same as almost every other manufacturer. Water resistance does not mean waterproof. Seals and gaskets degrade over time and may degrade rapidly due to environmental factors.

As the judge ruled in this case: It’s impossible to objectively prove that water damage wasn’t caused by a situation exceeding the specifications that Apple has set.

Basically: water resistance might save your phone if you’re lucky, but don’t get your expensive device wet on purpose.

Do they degrade so fast that the phone loses water resistance over the warranty period?

Don't advertise your product as water resistant if you're not going to warranty it to what it is designed to withstand. Sure over time it may lose it, but it should be able to keep its rated abilities through the typical warranty period. Warranties are for product defects, not wear and tear. It's like automakers that make sports cars that advertise how the car is made for the track, it has a racing suspension, extra cooling, etc etc but then goes, " Oh you actually took it to the track? Warranty is void!". Biggest form of BS in the world.

 

[bradman83]

“What constitutes “normal condition of use by consumers” that has people submerging their phones for long stretches of time in deep water?”

iPhones die all the time in lesser conditions than they’re rated for. I accidentally had my three month old iPhone XS in my swimsuit pocket when I stepped into the pool. I was in the water less than 30 seconds (and the phone was submerged by only a few inches) and it was enough to kill the phone. The XS is IP67 rated for up to a meter deep for 30 minutes and failed well before that threshold. A friend did the same thing with his iPhone months later and it was fine, so clearly the water resistance on mine was defective, but Apple would never cover it under warranty.