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

[JayLenochiniMac]

Keep in mind that not all remanufactured iPhones are used. If someone changes their mind and returns a sealed retail box back to Apple within the 14-day return period, Apple will still open it up and refurbish it with a brand new screen, shell and battery. They take no chance.

I hope you're willing to pay even more than $99 AC+ and $99 deductible if you truly want Apple to start offering brand new instead of remanufactured as white box replacement. There's no free lunch, and all costs are passed to the customer.

 

[Johnny907]

You would have been off the hook in the first place had you listed it with "I received this replacement iPhone on date xx/xx/xxxx under AppleCare."

Basically everyone on this forum knows that white box replacements may be either brand new or remanufactured.

I have sold retail box iPhones and white box replacement iPhones at the end of the year and it's made essentially no difference in the selling price. If anything, I've actually gotten more for the white box replacement if it was swapped out right before selling because it was in a better condition.

Even if you replace it with a brand new device, some anal-retentive buyers would still get upset because the serial number does not match up with the retail box. Fortunately, the vast majority aren't like that and hence it doesn't make a difference whether it's original, brand new replacement or remanufactured replacement, as long as the condition is the same. Just be sure to disclose exactly how you've acquired it.

I had no idea the replacement was refurbished until the buyer pointed it out, nor did Apple point this out anytime during the replacement process. Apparently Apple has a model number specifically for refurbished items. This was not the case the last time I had an Apple product replaced by Apple, which was an iPad 2 with a bad screen. It came in the same non-retail box, but I was assured by the rep that it was a brand new item and they just came like that to save money on packaging, which made sense. I wasn't aware, nor was I made aware at any point, that this practice had changed since then, and nowhere on the packaging itself was the item identified or described as Refurbished.

As it stands, Apple outright admits that refurbished items have a lower market value than "new" items with the existence of the Refubished Store on their website, which offers items at a substantial discount. At the very least, it is up to Apple at all points of the process to make it clear to the customer that they are getting a refurbished item. They failed to that with me, and apparently everyone involved in this lawsuit, and that's a problem.
[doublepost=1469128034][/doublepost]

Or they stop offering white box replacements on the spot and start sending the broken iPhones to the depot for the actual repair, which they're doing for the Apple Watch. How would you like to be without your iPhone for a week at time?

People ought to be careful what they ask for. Greed can only go a long way.

There you go with the whole "greed" angle again. People expecting what they paid for isn't "greed," Jay. Apple replaces items in-store because they know it's their best defense against customers going with third-party options like Assurant, which by the way had a replacement phone to me next day air the last time I used them. The deductible was higher at 149 versus 99, but as far as I'm concerned, the price difference is worth is since Assurant also covers lost and stolen phones as I previously mentioned. Were Apple to cease in-store replacements, they not only lose that "wow" factor of implied superior service, but then also would have to match that same speed of replacement Assurant and others like it offer. Even with small boxes, next day air isn't cheap.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I had no idea the replacement was refurbished until the buyer pointed it out, nor did Apple point this out anytime during the replacement process.

You failed to read or understand the terms and conditions when you bought AC+. What did you think "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" meant if it wasn't new? If it's new, it's not "equivalent to new in performance and reliability". It's new, period.
[doublepost=1469128586][/doublepost]

There you go with the whole "greed" angle again. People expecting what they paid for isn't "greed," Jay.

They paid for a replacement that may be "new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability." Again, what is "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" if it's not new?

 

[Johnny907]

You failed to read or understand the terms and conditions when you bought AC+. What did you think "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" meant if it wasn't new? If it's new, it's not "equivalent to new in performance and reliability". It's new, period.
[doublepost=1469128586][/doublepost]

They paid for a replacement that may be "new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability." Again, what is "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" if it's not new?

Yes Jay, I am a normal human being and failed to read the small print that comes on the back of the tiny card you get with AppleCare+. Silly me, as I said above, I assumed their practice of replacing new with new hadn't changed since the last time I used their warranty service.
Again I take issue with that wording, as clearly Apple itself acknowledges that their refurbished items AREN'T equivalent because they sell them at a steep discount directly from their website. If they're so equivalent, why the discount? Why admit outright that they are in fact NOT equivalent?

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Silly me, as I said above, I assumed their practice of replacing new with new hadn't changed since the last time I used their warranty service.

You assumed wrong because it has never changed. Standard hardware warranty also says the same thing ("equivalent to new in performance and reliability").

Again I take issue with that wording, as clearly Apple itself acknowledges that their refurbished items AREN'T equivalent because they sell them at a steep discount directly from their website. If they're so equivalent, why the discount? Why admit outright that they are in fact NOT equivalent?

Price has nothing to do with being equivalent to new in performance and reliability. If anything, they warranty their refurbished products with the same one-year warranty so they're obviously of the opinion that they're just as reliable.

 

[jonnysods]

Man alive, is there a company that gets sued more than Apple?

 

[dyn]

The gist of these lawsuits while perhaps not identical, is definitely quite similar in that Apple provided refurbished units to replace broken or defective ones, rather than new, which is what the plaintiffs had sought or expected.

If you want to argue the finer points of each individual case, I'm sure there are differentiating factors for each but they don't change the overall picture of refurbished vs new, which is the essence of both lawsuits.

No, you have not understood the Dutch case at all. The Dutch case was very simple: in case of an unrepairable device the seller has to either refund and take back the sold item OR they have to give a new item of the same model. Apple did neither. It was about following the law.

This American case is about the meaning of "equivalent to new" which is completely different.

The devil is in the details These cases are not comparable, especially since American law functions completely different than Dutch law. Stop the wishful thinking and look at it realistically.

 

[jfischer]

Again I take issue with that wording, as clearly Apple itself acknowledges that their refurbished items AREN'T equivalent because they sell them at a steep discount directly from their website. If they're so equivalent, why the discount? Why admit outright that they are in fact NOT equivalent?

News Flash: Your "New" iPhone isn't worth MSRP the minute you open the box either. It certainly isn't worth MSRP 6 months later when it gets dropped and broken.

 

[ani4ani]

So even if their refurbs are put through higher QA than new products, it still no good?

Well let's face it, the new products go through Apples QA and fail, why do you think a faulty unit that ends up being refurbished will fare any better?

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

No, you have not understood the Dutch case at all. The Dutch case was very simple: in case of an unrepairable device the seller has to either refund and take back the sold item OR they have to give a new item of the same model. Apple did neither. It was about following the law.

This American case is about the meaning of "equivalent to new" which is completely different.

The devil is in the details These cases are not comparable, especially since American law functions completely different than Dutch law. Stop the wishful thinking and look at it realistically.

You need to look at the Dutch case realistically too. It was "unrepairable" because Apple doesn't normally send iPhones to the depot for non-in-store repairs that take longer than one hour and instead provides white box replacements on the spot out of convenience to the customer so 1) the customer won't have to be without their iPhone for one week at a time and 2) they get the additional benefit of receiving a fresher iPhone with a brand new screen, shell and battery instead of their repaired iPhone that may be full of customer-induced scratches.

The ramifications in both cases are the same. Apple can very easily cease to provide white box replacements on the spot (just like they currently do with the Apple Watch) and customers will have to content with being without their iPhone for a week at a time while it's repaired. Alternatively, if people want Apple to start providing brand new instead of remanufactured as white box replacement, they'll pass the cost to the customer in the form of higher AC+, deductible and/or retail price.

Be careful what you ask for.

 

[Yumbo]

You can only BUY a refurb unit in certain countries and from the online store.

All replacement units are service units direct from the factory whether free or paid for out of warranty at a subsidised price.
The MATERIALS used may have been recycled as per the story published in February.

The logic presented in the story suggests a faulty new unit is worth more than a working new service unit is clearly misguided.

Much ado about lawyers arguing over fine print than actual performance.

 

[cmwade77]

Bottom line is warranty replacements should be required to be like for like. If you bought a refurbished unit, it should be replaced with a refurbished unit, if you bought a new unit, it should be replaced with a new unit. It would be very nice if this lawsuit results in this becoming the standard for all warranties going forward.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Bottom line is warranty replacements should be required to be like for like. If you bought a refurbished unit, it should be replaced with a refurbished unit, if you bought a new unit, it should be replaced with a new unit. It would be very nice if this lawsuit results in this becoming the standard for all warranties going forward.

But they're not obligated to provide white box replacement on the spot in lieu of repairing it. This lawsuit may result in Apple's stop providing white box replacements and start forcing customers to send their broken iPhone to the depot for the actual repair (just like they're currently doing with the Apple Watch).

Do you really want that (and be without an iPhone for one week)? Most manufacturers have you send their products to them to get repaired so your line of thinking is simply wishful.

 

[teknikal90]

The PCB does, actually, suffer from wear and tear. They are usually poorly built and have very low tolerance to moisture, corrosion and heat. So the longer you use it, the more likely it is that something will become corroded and will fail. This is the most likely cause of failure in electronic devices like phones and computers unless you actually physically get it damaged by dropping it. This happens on its own, no matter how careful you are, since air always contains some moisture. Refurbished PCBs often don't have the protective layer against moisture as they have had chips replaced on them, which makes them even more susceptible to corrosion.

Ask any electronics owner whose device failed one day for no apparent reason. That's all due to something becoming corroded on the PCB. Also, the way there are built, they are only designed to last just about the amount of time you're expected to use them, which to Apple seems like a year or two. So if you get a 2 year old refurbished PCB in your device, it will probably fail much sooner than a new one would, since it's already 2 years old and is about to fail. And usually these failures are due to moisture naturally present in the air, which Apple's warranty does not cover if the water indicators have changed color, which they probably have unless you live in the Sahara desert.

Sure, the device you're getting fixed wasn't new to begin with, and that's the very reason it failed. So replacing it with another used device will just continue a cycle of failures. If your car's tires are worn, you should replace them with new ones, not old ones. Same goes for brake pads, oil, and every single other part on a car. Replacing failed parts with used parts is asking for more premature failures. These cheaply made electronic devices are not designed to last, so gambling with used, refurbished components is silly.

The only valid reason I can think of is the lessened environmental impact, maybe there's a benefit there. But otherwise, it's just saving tiny amount of money that don't seem to get passed onto the consumer.

Here's a video explaining this:

BS. My iPhones, iPads, iPods, Macbooks and every electronic I own have all lasted far beyond two years. The battery is the first to go out. Apple replaces that. And I live in Vancouver, the rainiest city ever....I'm not saying they last forever, but to claim that refurbished PCBs are so worn and torn that they shouldn't be used as replacements after 14 days is just nonsensical.
This is just fear, uncertainty, doubt.

 

[iamalan]

I personally hate that Apple gives out refurbished units, I can understand 1 year mandatory warranty doing it but considering you pay for Apple Care it seems like a bunk deal.
Also what is this nonsense that internal components don't get wear and tear? They most definitely do.

So the customer returns a used device then expects a brand new device in the shrink wrapped box? That is totally unrealistic. I don't know of any warranty by any company that offers a brand new unit for damage replacement. Also, ALL Apple devices have reclaimed materials, even brand new models off the assembly line. It's good for the environment. No Apple replacement products are refurbished to the extent they are pre-owned phones. They may have certain metal components that Apple quality assurance deems them to be 100% ok. It's unrealistic for consumers to expect a company to replaced used devices with new ones when those devices may not even be being made anymore. How do I know all this? I worked for Apple for over 4 years. The claim is ludicrous and probably due to the carriers exchanging with used devices or devices REFURBISHED by Insurion.

 

[Johnny907]

News Flash: Your "New" iPhone isn't worth MSRP the minute you open the box either. It certainly isn't worth MSRP 6 months later when it gets dropped and broken.

Spoiler: in six months that refurb is going to be worth even less so again, not equivalent is it?

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Spoiler: in six months that refurb is going to be worth even less so again, not equivalent is it?

That's false. Given the same condition, I've seen no difference in used market values between original retail box iPhones and replacement iPhones in the 10 years of selling my year-old iPhones.

 

[Deuce on the Clock]

Yes, Apple replaces entire modules in a device at the Apple Store or Authorised Service Provider. That's the front line service channel, the process that the customer sees.

However once the defective Logic Board is removed from the machine, the replacement has been installed and the customer is on their way, the old defective board is returned to Apple as an exchange part. That exchange part is then refurbished, tested and returned to service stock for another Apple Store or AASP to use in their repair as a whole replacement component.

It's during the refurbishment process, after the customer's entire board has been replaced, that the component-level board repair takes place. The customer never sees this stage of the process.

No they dont do that. They test whole parts then replace them. They dont repair them. They frankenstein devices and call them refurbed for sale and for service parts.

 

[mentholiptus]

Ive received refurbished iPhones thru AppleCare+ with scratched & dented cases, and other minor blemishes. It is a little irritating considering I've spent $30k+ with them easily, but I wouldn't ever sue over it.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Ive received refurbished iPhones thru AppleCare+ with scratched & dented cases, and other minor blemishes. It is a little irritating considering I've spent $30k+ with them easily, but I wouldn't ever sue over it.

As if that doesn't happen to brand new retail box iPhones (remember the black and slate iPhone 5 arriving out of the box full of scratches and nicks). All remanufactured iPhones from Apple receive a brand new screen, shell and battery.

 

[mm3000]

Spoiler: in six months that refurb is going to be worth even less so again, not equivalent is it?

I think you are still missing the point. They may not be equivalent in value/price.... but equivalent in performance and reliability... Which is what Apple has stated.
[doublepost=1469148233][/doublepost]Both new and 'refurbished' iphones have the chance of coming out of the box with imperfections, glitches, and poor quality parts. So How can you prove that a service replacement is less than equivalent in performance or reliability to the new phone?

For every refurbished horror story, there is a new-out-of-box horror story... And therefore, to Apple's point, they both are equivalent (in performance and reliability)

 

[Johnny907]

I think you are still missing the point. They may not be equivalent in value/price.... but equivalent in performance and reliability... Which is what Apple has stated.
[doublepost=1469148233][/doublepost]Both new and 'refurbished' iphones have the chance of coming out of the box with imperfections, glitches, and poor quality parts. So How can you prove that a service replacement is less than equivalent in performance or reliability to the new phone?

For every refurbished horror story, there is a new-out-of-box horror story... And therefore, to Apple's point, they both are equivalent (in performance and reliability)

If all things are equal, then, why do they have a completely different model number? That implies that there is not only a functional difference, but a legal one as well. Sort of like when a vehicle is damaged so badly that the frame is bent, even after repairing it back to original spec you are required by law to get a rebuilt title for it. Functionally it could be the exact same as a similar age vehicle of the exact same type, but legally and value wise it absolutely is not.

 

[mm3000]

If all things are equal, then, why do they have a completely different model number? That implies that there is not only a functional difference, but a legal one as well. Sort of like when a vehicle is damaged so badly that the frame is bent, even after repairing it back to original spec you are required by law to get a rebuilt title for it. Functionally it could be the exact same as a similar age vehicle of the exact same type, but legally and value wise it absolutely is not.

Perhaps for value purposes, or maybe it is simply for internal organization (after all, that is what model numbers are typically for)... Regardless, that doesn't a imply a functional difference. The rose gold iPhone has a different model number from the space grey... Functionally they are the same.

 

[tjleonard]

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

Sure...factory refurbished is not the same as "refurbished"...someone physically sees the phone, they find something wrong with it...they fix it...add a perfect case, and make sure it's super close to new...

To be quite honest, most people would never know it was refurbished if they were not told. You can't say that you've never bought a refurbished phone...after all, a new device that fails a QC check is fixed and then likely dropped right back with the new devices. I have never received a refurbished phone from Apple that I could actually tell was refurbished. After being in your pocket for 10 minutes, it already looks way worse than one if they were to spit shine it.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

If all things are equal, then, why do they have a completely different model number? That implies that there is not only a functional difference, but a legal one as well. Sort of like when a vehicle is damaged so badly that the frame is bent, even after repairing it back to original spec you are required by law to get a rebuilt title for it. Functionally it could be the exact same as a similar age vehicle of the exact same type, but legally and value wise it absolutely is not.

Model number or serial number? We haven't been able to glean whether it's new or refurbished from the serial numbers since the iPhone 4 days. Back then, if it started with 5K it's a refurb and if it began with a 7, it's new. This is no longer the case. Either way, different serial numbers per se do not indicate a functional difference.