Apple Facing Class Action Lawsuit for Offering Refurbished Replacement Devices Under AppleCare+

[flyinmac]

Only merit I can see to this is if they received replacement devices that failed very soon after the replacement. By most accounts this is a rare occurrence. So, "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" is accurate and defensible. Are these people claiming their replacement devices were noticeably worse than the original?

If you buy a new apple device or computer, and it arrives doa. Then Apple replaces it with a refurbished device, you are essentially robbed. The refurbished device or computer is typically sold at 10 to 25% discount.

If you purchased a new device, you are entitled to a new device as a replacement.

I've argued this point before with Apple when brand new $3000 computers arrived DOA and they offered a refurbished machine in its place. If I paid for new, then give me new.

Now, if they want to replace my new computer or device along with a 10 to 25% refund, then I'd happily consider a refurbished machine.

 

[A Hobo]

Apple you are IDOTS

Pot calling the kettle black I see.

 

[decafjava]

Not to mention I remember the hundreds of threads on here about peoples iPhone 6 replacements having a loose screen in the corners. New ones didn't have it.

Well I've had two replacements for my iPhone 6 which were perfect (first one was replaced two weeks ago since I stupidly spilled a large cup of coffee on it).
[doublepost=1469089506][/doublepost]

Equivalent to new (not identical in all ways), and in terms of performance and reliability.
How can they prove that a refurbished model is not as reliable and fast as a new?

Like everyone else here says--idiots. Lawyers will probably get paid something in an agreement by Apple and the claimants will get new phones.

Everyone so quick to sue deep pocket companies for anything.

Not everyone it seems.

 

[Ries]

Well I've had two replacements for my iPhone 6 which were perfect (first one was replaced two weeks ago since I stupidly spilled a large cup of coffee on it).

And what do you think happens to the one you spilled coffee on? They drill the fried power chip off it, put a new one on it and replace and moisture indicators. Then run the standard test and sell it some moron who think refurbished are better or give it to someone who needs his new DOA phone replaced.

 

[Shirasaki]

It's actually more the Japanese way. We in Japan simply store that garbage in separate boxes labeled plastics, glass, metals, paper, etc.

Seriously, when people buy a used home here in Japan, in almost every case they bulldoze the old home to make room for the new. I've lived here 21 years, but that mentality still boggles the mind. Sure they have a lot of quakes here. But the quest for NEW is a very serious quest indeed in Japan. As such, Japanese people would likely have more of a problem with getting a refurb as a replacement than most Americans. And yet, the Japanese simply DON'T SUE. Hmmm...

Hmm. This sounds similar to some Chinese I know, who tend to not offend anyone in anyway. Tolerance and acceptance. Something like this. Culture difference I can only say.

 

[617aircav]

Looking for Apple to settle. Obviously.

 

[617aircav]

If you think that PCBs (and the components on them) do not suffer wear and tear, then you're pretty ignorant about PCBs.

You should probably check your facts before calling people idiots and greedy.

While I disagree with the lawsuit, you are very correct.

 

[leman]

This lawsuit utterly hilarious. It is destined to fail in any state of law, where the plaintiffs need to PROOVE that refurbished in this sense is not 'equivalent to new'. Which they can't. Just the mere fact that Apple sells refurbished items under the same conditions as new (warranty terms) means that Apple does not recognise refurbished items as inferior, to its own disadvantage.

But then again, we are talking about the USA Everything can happen.

 

[vooke]

The end result will be the end of the replacement program.

Be careful what you wish for. You may just get it.

Nonsense, Apple is forced by market forces to replace and not magnanimity. They kill that and the backlash will kill them

 

[Robstevo]

AppleCare + is an insurance . Let's remove apple from the equation here and talk insurance.

Say you make an issuance claim, do you expect a new item or a refurb.

You are confusing the warranty of an apple device with additional isurance you bought.

It depends on what the insurance policy is and its terms on conditions. You can't cry foul play when you have agreed to the the policy you have signed upto and then cry foul after the fact.

 

[vooke]

I have bought Apple refurbished iPads, Macs, iPods on many occasions. I bought them because they were cheaper and you can't tell that they aren't new.
The fact is, unless you know you bought refurbished there is absolutely no way to tell. Refurbished devices even get a new serial number. These people are wacky to expect a new device. Assurion, SquareTrade and a host of other companies only send new when refurbished is not available. AppleCare gives you a device of like quality and function.

These people have no idea what refurbished means.
This suit has no merits.

You miss the point; if refurbished are that good, then Apple should make it optional to get either a new or a refurbished piece,many see how equal they be

 

[MH01]

It depends on what the insurance policy is and its terms on conditions. You can't cry foul play when you have agreed to the the policy you have signed upto and then cry foul after the fact.

I'm not crying foul, I'm just pointing out that's it's an insurance and not warranty. AppleCare used to be just a warranty extension.

If you want AppleCare, it's not a choice....you have to agree. We are though allowed to debates the pros/cons of apple switching to using an insurance company
[doublepost=1469094587][/doublepost]

This lawsuit utterly hilarious. It is destined to fail in any state of law, where the plaintiffs need to PROOVE that refurbished in this sense is not 'equivalent to new'. Which they can't. Just the mere fact that Apple sells refurbished items under the same conditions as new (warranty terms) means that Apple does not recognise refurbished items as inferior, to its own disadvantage.

But then again, we are talking about the USA Everything can happen.

So why are refurbished items sold by apple cheaper?? Seems apple does recognise the fact by the discount offered.

Also do people on this thread actually read the terms and conditions?? I have to ask causer there are illusion that apple offers "as new" refurbs.

No where does apple ever ever mention its refurbs as equivalent to new or as new or to that effect, what apple makes clear as, is that they are pre-owned.

http://www.apple.com/uk/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/refurbfaq_popup

Always amazes me people have a new meaning for refurbished when it comes to apple products,

 

[applepuree]

You miss the point; if refurbished are that good, then Apple should make it optional to get either a new or a refurbished piece,many see how equal they be

The GB should give the option. Repair, will take 2 - 3 weeks or so and no there is no loaner, or replace with a refurbished. Your choice. Problem solved.

 

[vooke]

And secondly, I think a factory refurbished phone is better than a brand new phone...factory refurbished means someone physically fixed it, they tested it, they saw it...it's good. Brand new phones are not all checked ... Even if you get a dud, you can still get another refurb?

So would you rather a refurbished for the price of a brand new?

 

[scottytwo]

An apple refurb is comple

Apple is facing a new class action lawsuit, levied today by customers in California who are unhappy that their iPhones and iPads were replaced with refurbished devices under Apple's AppleCare or AppleCare+ warranty plan.

Filed by Vicky Maldonado and Joanne McRight, the lawsuit, first shared by Cult of Mac, accuses Apple of failing to provide replacement devices that are "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" as stated in the company's terms and conditions.

Both plaintiffs purchased replacement devices under AppleCare protection plans and were given refurbished devices rather than new devices, which they claim is a violation of the aforementioned line in the AppleCare Terms and Conditions.

The plaintiffs claim they were deprived of the "use and value" of their original devices when Apple replaced them with refurbished devices, suffering an economic loss in the amount of the cost of the AppleCare plans, the loss of value of their original non-refurbished devices, and the purchase cost and replacement cost paid to Apple.

Apple is being accused of breach of contract, breach of warranty, concealing information from the public, deceptive marketing, violating labeling requirements, and unfair competitive practices. The lawsuit covers all customers who purchased an AppleCare or AppleCare+ plan for an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch after July 11, 2011.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages, attorneys fees, an order that would prevent Apple from replacing damaged or defective iOS devices with refurbished devices in the future, updated AppleCare+ terms and conditions, and an option to get a refund for a broken device instead of a repair.

Article Link: Apple Facing Class Action Lawsuit for Offering Refurbished Replacement Devices Under AppleCare+

I would blacklist them if I were Apple, cancel their iTunes accounts and restrict them from ever activating an Apple product again ... let them go to Android.

Retaliation serves no good. Case is flawed. AppleCare+ doesn't equal refurbished unit, you get a service replacement.

There is a significant difference between the two.
-

 

[vooke]

Give me Apple refurbs any day. These people are morons.

Put your money where your mouth is; buy a refurb for the price of a brand new

 

[Kabeyun]

"refurbished devices can never be the equivalent to new in performance and reliability"

This is one of those little phrases that is completely false but if you pass it by, you've just accepted the entire premise of the argument.

btw, I've been very happy with my two refurb Apple gadgets (my Mac Mini is 7 years old and my Cinema Display is 9; not one hiccup; I'd love all new gadgets to work that well). Yes, I bought them that way, but the point I'm refuting is the one above.

 

[vooke]

"refurbished devices can never be the equivalent to new in performance and reliability"

This is one of those little phrases that is completely false but if you pass it by, you've just accepted the entire premise of the argument.

btw, I've been very happy with my two refurb Apple gadgets (my Mac Mini is 7 years old and my Cinema Display is 9; not one hiccup; I'd love all new gadgets to work that well). Yes, I bought them that way, but the point I'm refuting is the one above.

Why are refurbished units cheaper than brand new ones?
Would you pay for a refurbished piece the same amount as a new one?

The point of the case is when customers go out of their way to buy brand new items it's unfair shoving old pieces they passed over to get the news ones for mistakes that had zilch to do with them.

The onus will now be on Apple to ensure higher reliability on brand new pieces because the cost for not doing that is prohibitive

 

[MH01]

An apple refurb is comple


Retaliation serves no good. Case is flawed. AppleCare+ doesn't equal refurbished unit, you get a service replacement.

There is a significant difference between the two.
-

Do you have a link where apples defines a service replacement. I've not seen it anywhere .

Here is the refurb one

http://www.apple.com/uk/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/refurbfaq_popup

 

[VulchR]

It seems to me this is entirely about what Apple will say that they will do in the AppleCare+ agreement. However, I expect a new device is Apple sells me one that is defective. Quite apart from anything, batteries and memory chips have a limited life, as do the screens.

 

[MH01]

Customer buys a brand new iPhone, takes it out of the box, changes his mind, never even turns it on, and takes it straight back to the store. Now it's not a new phone anymore, it is a "refurbished" phone. The only difference is that it had a little journey and was taken out of its box and put into a "refurbished" box.

With Macs it is quite common that when a new model is released, they stop selling the old model immediately, and all the products they have are sold as "refurbished" a bit later. So sometimes refurbished _is_ actually brand new.

You are quoting the best case scenario . The Mac Pro I bought as a refurb could have been one day used or 23 months used.... I don't Know..... I payed for a pre-owned Mac and got a discount . If I wanted brand new , I'd pay new price, bowing it was zero days used.

 

[Abazigal]

If you buy a new apple device or computer, and it arrives doa. Then Apple replaces it with a refurbished device, you are essentially robbed. The refurbished device or computer is typically sold at 10 to 25% discount.

If you purchased a new device, you are entitled to a new device as a replacement.

I've argued this point before with Apple when brand new $3000 computers arrived DOA and they offered a refurbished machine in its place. If I paid for new, then give me new.

Now, if they want to replace my new computer or device along with a 10 to 25% refund, then I'd happily consider a refurbished machine.

So how do you know that your refurbished replacement also wasn't only 7 hours old?

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Apple sells refurbished iPhones on their web site for cheaper than new. That is evidence right there what is better.

Not sure what you're talking about because Apple doesn't even sell refurbished iPhones on their refurb store. They only issue remanufactured iPhones for warranty or AC+ purposes.

I've never had an issue with getting a refurb as part of a warranty claim from Apple.

Though with AppleCare+ being an insurance, offered by a 3rd party I don't see why I cannot recieve a new item as a replacement , when I make an insurance claim.

How many here would choose an insurance policy if it stated you would get "like new" replacement.

So if you total your vehicle that's a few years old, you expect your insurance company to reimburse you the full price you originally paid for it so you can go out and buy a new one?

You do know that insurance companies only make you whole on what your vehicle is worth at the time.
[doublepost=1469099812][/doublepost]

If you buy a new apple device or computer, and it arrives doa. Then Apple replaces it with a refurbished device, you are essentially robbed. The refurbished device or computer is typically sold at 10 to 25% discount.

If you purchased a new device, you are entitled to a new device as a replacement.

I've argued this point before with Apple when brand new $3000 computers arrived DOA and they offered a refurbished machine in its place. If I paid for new, then give me new.

Now, if they want to replace my new computer or device along with a 10 to 25% refund, then I'd happily consider a refurbished machine.

You know you can return any Apple product within the 14-day return period for a full refund and re-purchase a new retail box, right? You're not obligated to take that route if you don't want to.

 

[pygothian]

I bought my wife her 1st iPhone 6 plus when they first came out as I was impressed with mine. I bought it direct from an apple store outright with the apple plus warranty. Within 1 month her phone was rebooting constantly, crashing and the battery life was significantly less than mine that was 6 months older despite having them set up pretty much the same. I urged her to take it to the apple store which she did, and they swapped it out for a brand "new" phone she was told. Obviously when I was setting it up again for her, I noticed it had 5 other appleIDs associated with it, and needed the passwords for them to do various things. It was pretty clear to me, despite looking like new, it was definitely 2nd hand or "refurbished". Despite trying to get a new phone, I was not able to, and she was stuck with this phone. She still has it, and to this day the battery goes down to 20% and into emergency mode within about 3 hours of being disconnected from the charger. My phone in the same time will still be in the 85% range with more apps running, and the brightness at full, and everything running in the background. Her refurbished phone is clearly still defected, and always was, and she should never have received a 2nd hand phone. It is pretty embarrassing when you convince someone to try a phone that you tell them is great, and this happens. I will never take out apple care again - as they clearly lead me to believe it was a warranty to replace with new - and even told me it was new when I discovered it was not but seeing the 5 other previous users appleID's and apps purchased with other users passwords on the phone when trying to install new software.

 

[bobbykjack]

Just the mere fact that Apple sells refurbished items under the same conditions as new (warranty terms) means that Apple does not recognise refurbished items as inferior

Why do they sell them at a lower price then?
[doublepost=1469103400][/doublepost]

So if you total your vehicle that's a few years old, you expect your insurance company to reimburse you the full price you originally paid for it so you can go out and buy a new one?

I don't know if the OP meant that, but there's a huge difference between totalling a car and receiving a defective one. If a product is defective, it would be churlish to replace it with one that's like-for-like, since that would also need to have the same defect by definition.