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 Did Not Mislead Customers About iPhone Water Resistance, Federal Judge Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If it’s IP rated, which they all are, then it is very well specified. They would have to honour the warranty if the specification wasn’t exceeded. If you drop your 13 in the sink and it dies then that doesn’t break IP68.
In the UK if they denied it, you’d have grounds to take them to small claims court.
Policy is to deny warranty coverage if the sim card LI is red.
But Documents on the *redacted* indicates if the customer requests the internal LI to be checked and it is WHITE(no water intrusion) then it is supposed to be covered if external liquid caused speaker or mic or charging port damage.
That should be covered because if there is no water intrusion into the main body then it is expected that the device was not subjected to any water forced exceeding its rating.
but the cx is supposed to push for it and it states to provide coverage for those issues.
Apple absolutely does some shady ****. Fun fact steam can intrude through the seals and THAT IS NOT covered
lol
But Documents on the *redacted* indicates if the customer requests the internal LI to be checked and it is WHITE(no water intrusion) then it is supposed to be covered if external liquid caused speaker or mic or charging port damage.
That should be covered because if there is no water intrusion into the main body then it is expected that the device was not subjected to any water forced exceeding its rating.
but the cx is supposed to push for it and it states to provide coverage for those issues.
Apple absolutely does some shady ****. Fun fact steam can intrude through the seals and THAT IS NOT covered
lolIf Apple markets it products as having a specific water resistance standard, i.e. IP68, then the devices need to conform to that standard, and if the device fails to conform to such standard then they need to warranty the device for failure to meet specifications.
This is common sense, and common practice. I have pans that are marketed as "oven safe up to 500°F", if they melt at 350°F in the oven, I would EXPECT the manufacturer to warranty them and NOT reject my warranty on the basis of "We don't cover damage due to heat or cooking".
I just cannot imagine advertising a product can do "X" thing, but not warrantying the product if you do "X" thing with it, of if it fails to do "X" thing.
This is common sense, and common practice. I have pans that are marketed as "oven safe up to 500°F", if they melt at 350°F in the oven, I would EXPECT the manufacturer to warranty them and NOT reject my warranty on the basis of "We don't cover damage due to heat or cooking".
I just cannot imagine advertising a product can do "X" thing, but not warrantying the product if you do "X" thing with it, of if it fails to do "X" thing.
You’re forgetting that environmental factors can cause the seals to degrade much more quickly than anticipated. You’re also forgetting that Apple never promised anything. Resistant does not equal “proof”.
This article does a pretty good job of summing up the difference between water resistance and waterproofing:
Water-Resistant vs. Waterproof: What's the Difference?
Water resistant or waterproof? Which one is better and how do you define these terms? Bob Vila breaks it down in this guide.
www.bobvila.com
What a bunch of morons. There should be penalties for idiots who bring crap lawsuits like this.
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
The warranty doc is also specific that its water resistance will wane and loose its effectiveness the moment the phone is in use and it continues to degrade over time (pretty much true based on how thin the proofing is).
SO they may have determined the seals dried out in that time frame and BOOM done.But also request the internal LI to be checked. if its white you just need to ask them to look at the VMI and it will say to service the phone even if the external LI is red.
Water resistant doesn’t mean waterproof. Do they advertise underwater photo shoots? You should still keep it away from intentional water exposure. If you drop your phone even once, the water resistance can be decreased, and there’s no way to prove what decreased it. That’s why you can’t make any claims for water damage.
Don't worry, Tim's already said he's doubling-down on leaks.
The best part is when the plaintiffs tell the lawyer “well we didn’t win so see ya” and the lawyer then says..”not so fast here are some bills for you”…”.bills?!” “But you said if we don’t win it wouldn’t cost me anything?”…”yes but read the fine print not everything is covered such as expenses and other non traditional service fees”…”I expect payment in 30 days or I will garnish your bank account see ya!”……”what?!”…………………happens every time
Last edited:
Lol the lawyers never go hungry. They will certainly be sending invoices to those plaintiffs for lexpenses and other items” you can bet your bottom dollar that will happen
Water resistance doesn’t prevent liquid damage in all circumstances. It’s simply impossible in which conditions the liquid damage occured. Maybe the phone was kept underwater for too long, or too deep, or the phone was dropped earlier and water resistance was compromised due to the impact. Water resistance is just there to protect your phone from accidents, but as with the durable glass, you can’t guarantee it not to fail.
That's not the point. Apple highlights that their phones are liquid resistant. But if liquid damages your phone in any way they will not cover it under warranty.
The is true, but the current regulations are putting all the disadvantage on the rely weak party (the user). There has to be at least some manufacturer accountability. When e.g. my iPhone briefly exposes to some rains and dies, I would expect to be compensated. Because that is not the functionality I was led to believe the product has.
You're assuming he is deciding the ultimate issue, but he wasn't. If the plaintiffs cannot show that they were damaged by the alleged harm, the law requires dismissal.
That is the point. Water resistance means it will protect your phone from liquid damage only in ideal conditions, not in all circumstances.
tactic as old as advertising itself. show a feature but use clever wording to not have to stand behind it end of day. similar to the Apple Watch. remember the biking guy headed out in the middle of the rain. anyone who's used a watch in the rain knows you cannot use the screen to control the device when it's wet. so sure, it didn't melt down in the rain but was completely inoperable. the phone tv ads - showing the phone being splashed pool side, getting beers dumped on it by a clumsy waiter in a bar, etc. - hey your phone is water resistant and we'll splash (pun intended) all the IPxx ratings to suggest how you could go for a shallow scuba with your phone for less than half an hour - but if it doesn't live up to these in the real world, we're not responsible.
you're splashing it wrong.
imo, if they advertise the phone being splashed, they gotta cover water damage. American courts will always protect the corporation first. these people didn't have standing - the couldn't prove they bought the phone specifically because of the waterproof/resistant properties. so they lost. but that doesn't excuse apple from using misleading advertising to hype their products.
you're splashing it wrong.
imo, if they advertise the phone being splashed, they gotta cover water damage. American courts will always protect the corporation first. these people didn't have standing - the couldn't prove they bought the phone specifically because of the waterproof/resistant properties. so they lost. but that doesn't excuse apple from using misleading advertising to hype their products.