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

[bluespark]

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.

Read the opinion. On a motion to dismiss, the court is not in a position to rule one way or the other as to whether statements by the defendant are actionably "misleading." Rather, it must consider whether plaintiffs can meet all of their required elements. If not, the court must dismiss. Here, the plaintiffs could not show that their phones were damaged in a way that contradicts any guarantees by Apple. Since they do not have evidence that their damage is connected to the bad acts they allege, their case cannot continue.

The judge of course knows about the warranty if it's placed into evidence by either side in connection with this motion.

 

[I7guy]

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.

Waterproof is not water resistant and ip68 standards are quite clear. There is some strong measure of water resistance, that doesn't mean if one drops their phone into the toilet...it will survive the dunking. But good this got dismissed.

 

[jsmith78]

What a bunch of morons. There should be penalties for idiots who bring crap lawsuits like this.

Why, I find Apple 100% at fault here, they market a product with a specific water resistance rating, they put an External water sensor on it (in the lightning port) and refuse, ALL warranty claims if the device so much has even seen a raindrop.

How can they advertise a device that can withstand full SUBMERSION in water for 1.5 meters for 30 minutes, and then reject warranty claims if it exposed to a raindrop! (not kidding, if a single drop of rain enters the charge port, that's it - phones warranty void!) We would NEVER accept this stance from any other company.

New Mustang - 350 HP, goes 150MPH!, but Ford refusing warranty if you drove it over 1MPH!?

 

[mithat1]

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.

They should cover the damage if they advertise underwater photo shoots, and if you can prove that water resistance isn’t compromised due to an impact, or that you didn’t take the phone deeper than the depth limit advertised.

 

[I7guy]

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.

People are stupid, which is why on knives, there is a warning they are sharp and they can hurt you if used in the wrong way. So companies who advertise products and their features have to protect themselves. There is nothing subversive about this.

 

[bluespark]

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

Probably not. Plaintiffs' attorneys typically are paid by commission, so they do not get paid unless they achieve certain agreed objectives.

 

[DMG35]

That is the point. Water resistance means it will protect your phone from liquid damage only in ideal conditions, not in all circumstances.

So that photo I posted above, that Apple showed at a keynote, is an ideal condition? Interesting.

 

[Tres]

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.

I agree that would be best in an ideal world, but how can you objectively prove that is how the water got into the phone? Also, how can you objectively prove that your usage didn't cause the water resistant seals to deteriorate?

The only way to apply a warranty fairly is to try and be as objective as possible. Basing warranty claims purely on the customer's word would create all sorts of issues and would be open to abuse.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

That headline is misleading. The judge did not rule that Apple did not mislead consumers. According to the article, the judge said that the plaintiffs did not meet minimum burdens of proof and that there wasn't any evidence presented to him that Apple committed fraud. Not the same as the headline declares that Apple did no wrong.

Since it was a class-action lawsuit, surely there are other plaintiffs that DID have their iPhones damaged by water and/or bought their iPhones because water-resistance was important to them. Did the lawyers just not do their due diligence?

 

[DPUser]

I fell in the pool a week ago. My wife now has a new iPhone. I have her old one.

 

[Grey Area]

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

A non-open standard that costs $400 per copy. It is disingenuous to advertise the iPhone with all sorts of splishy-splashy pictures and stop worrying about water and good for x meters, and then in the fine print absolving yourself from responsibility by referring to arcane lab condition specifications hidden in a $400-tome.

IP-ratings are fine for engineers who need to select the right equipment given some legal spec, e.g. the law says lights on the outside of a building must be at least IP44, so that is what you install. IP-ratings are useless for civilians who see "30 minutes at 2 meters" and believe this means they can go swimming with the device for 20 minutes.

Apple should either have the burden of proof and be forced to fix all water damage under warranty (and if Apple is afraid of divers abusing this, stop advertising the water resistance, because right now this is abusing the customers), or be forced to accompany each water resistance ad with a thorough rundown of what this rating actually means in practice, to really drive home how easy it is to exceed the lab conditions and that the touted water resistance is fairly meaningless.

 

[aliasfox]

I'm going to guess most people commenting on this forum haven't bought watches? At least with watches, a manufacturer can put any water resistance rating they want on their dials. Whether or not your specific watch can actually withstand that rating is a whole different matter. Your Seiko or your Tissot might say 100M water resistant - but that just means that the case design and construction are designed such that it should be able to resist that level of static water pressure - and says nothing about your specific watch. I've had a Hamilton and a Seiko, both rated to 100M, have their water resistance fail less than 5 years after purchase, with nothing more than a bad rainstorm and vigorous hand washing causing water ingress.

If one wanted a watch that were actually tested to its water resistance level, one should look for an ISO6425 certified watch, which has been individually tested to 125% of its rated pressure level. But even with this level of individual testing, it's recommended that divers (who may actually rely on their watches to time how much air they have) get their watch tested every year.

Given that Apple sells ~300M iPhones a year, I highly doubt the IP rating requires individual testing. In which case, "designed to IP68 standards, your mileage may vary" would be the best way to view this.

 

[laptech]

From reading the article it looks like the judge dismissed the case on a technicality because the plantifs did not actually test Apple's water resistant claim and thus not proving if Apple's water resistant claim is false or not. You cannot claim false advertising if you haven't put the claim to test which the plantifs did not.

Regarding this part in the article, and i quote

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.

The EU judge disagreed here because it was found that the water-resistant claim could only be achieved under 'laboratory' conditions, hence the $12 million fine. Just goes to show that US Judges will defend Apple when they have the oppertunity to do so.

 

[I7guy]

[...]

The EU judge disagreed here because it was found that the water-resistant claim could only be achieved under 'laboratory' conditions, hence the $12 million fine. Just goes to show that US Judges will defend Apple when they have the oppertunity to do so.

Incorrect. Water resistance is not water proofing. And the ip ratings are a standard way to test water resistance. It's is documented that these are laboratory conditions. That Italy disagreed with that says more on the way they view the standardized testing.

 

[gaximus]

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.

How could a manufacture prove that it leaked due to only being in 1 meter of water? Someone could take there iPhone scuba diving, then take it in for water damage and claim it was only in the rain.

 

[SDJim]

Apple misled me to believe buying an iPhone would make me cool, and it didn't! I'm gonna sue!

 

[JosephAW]

Stereo speakers worked great until the one crapped out. But at least I could get it wet.

 

[JosephAW]

I had issues with my iPhone 4S which was not water resistant but because I lived in a very cold environment all the water stickers were pink from the temperature changes and when I had trouble with the 30 pin connector they would not service it saying I immersed it. Anyway the corrosion on the 30 pin connector was easily cleaned with a soft brass brush.

 

[monkeybongo]

Well, screens are more scratch resistant but it doesn't mean it will never have scratches. Nor will they warranty you for a scratch on the screen. If you want, they provide you AppleCare+ or use your credit card warranty.

From a warranty perspective, how can they be sure if you dunked it in 2M for 30 minutes or 1M for 3 hours? How do they know if it was open previously and the seals were compromised? There's no appropriate way for any manufacturer to know how it was damaged in the first place and if there's fraud taking place. That's why they break out the cost for AppleCare+ for accident prone people, so it doesn't impact the rest of the customers. I'm still careful but have some relief in an accident or drop that it would likely be okay.

Plus now with the IPXX ratings, it clearly states how the testing was performed.

 

[applicious84]

People aren't exactly reading the fine print when they're buying an iPhone. They're seeing Apple's commercials and giant billboard advertisements .

If I wasn't informed when I bought an iPhone, and I was just behaving like people on Apple's advertisements, I'd be really disappointed if my phone broke and they wouldn't cover it.

That's misleading to most people. People feel suckered when that stuff happens. Not everyone is (nor should be) an attorney when they buy an iPhone, especially from a company with that much profit.

Analogies and legal arguments are one thing, but expensive warranties pushed by sales associates in Apple Stores along with deceptive ads do mislead customers.

 

[mithat1]

So that photo I posted above, that Apple showed at a keynote, is an ideal condition? Interesting.

Ideal conditions mean that the phone is not submerged longer than specified time or deeper than specified depth, and that it has never received an impact and that the SIM card tray was inserted properly and that the case was never opened. All these conditions are dependent on the user so it is obvious no claim can be made if water goes inside.

 

[DMG35]

Ideal conditions mean that the phone is not submerged longer than specified time or deeper than specified depth, and that it has never received an impact and that the SIM card tray was inserted properly. All these conditions are dependent on the user so it is obvious no claim can be made if water goes inside.

It doesn’t matter. If there is any liquid damage at all Apple won’t cover it or at least isn’t obligated to cover it.

If I walk my phone into an Apple store tomorrow. Let them inspect it, and see that its in perfect condition and has no damage, and then spill a glass of water on it and it stops working Apple doesn’t have to cover it.

There are no conditions that Apple says are ideal if liquid damage occurs in which they have to replace the phone. That is the point.

 

[mithat1]

It doesn’t matter. If there is any liquid damage at all Apple won’t cover it or at least isn’t obligated to cover it.

If I walk my phone into an Apple store tomorrow. Let them inspect it, and see that its in perfect condition and has no damage, and then spill a glass of water on it and it stops working Apple doesn’t have to cover it.

There are no conditions that Apple says are ideal if liquid damage occurs in which they have to replace the phone. That is the point.

Because it’s impossible to prove that the phone did receive an impact. If you unbox the iPhone in front of them in the Apple Store, spill some water on it by mistake and the phone stops working, I’m sure they’ll replace it.

 

[DeepIn2U]

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.

First Apple states 'Water Resistance' words have different meanings for a reason - this isn't semantics.

Secondly both plantiffs did NOT prove their case. Were they born yesterday thinking they could just cry wolf and win? smh. Like going to school and handing in your homework, show your work how did you get the answer. same basic principle here.

 

[DMG35]

Because it’s impossible to prove. If you unbox the iPhone in front of them in the Apple Store, spill some water on it by mistake and the phone stops working, I’m sure they’ll replace it.

No, they don’t have to replace it, that’s the point.