Apple Facing Class Action Lawsuit Over 'Error 53' iPhone 6 Bricking

[djgamble]

So... They made third-party repairs, which annulled their warranty, and bricked their phone and now they're suing? Why does Apple owe them anything, exactly? Didn't they agree to Apple's terms when they purchased the device?

Yep what he said...

What exactly are they trying to sue Apple for?

'Apple's failure to give a warning about the consequence of an update'

Sounds like they're trying to call this a breach of contract and spend ages arguing the facts rather than any specific laws. Yeah but the contract when I clicked the update button didn't specifically say 'this update disables unsupported 3rd party equipment'.

I'm not a US lawyer, but IMO the contract (aka the terms and conditions of usage) most likely states that 3rd party hacks aren't supported. Quite rightly the phone checks that all the right components are present when updating... if not (particularly with a security feather such as a touch sensor) then what's Apple supposed to do when they have made it clear that only endorsed parts are supported?

Again I'm pretty sure that by cracking open the iPhones, people void the terms of usage, and from that point onwards they're on their own.

It's like back in the 90s. I had a Bondi iMac Rev B... I installed a CPU upgrade, an internal CD burner and a Voodoo 2 (graphics card). Does Apple have to tell me these sorts of things might cause unusual behaviour? Or... am I on my own the moment I start installing unsupported hacks? I suggest the latter.

 

[KennethS]

I can't believe anyone can defend Apple's position on this. They have potentially significantly reduced the resale value of iPhones. Perhaps not yet, but as this issue becomes more widely known it will. I know I would now never purchase a second hand iPhone. How can I be certain it has never been repaired and is only a software upgrade away from becoming an unusable brick?

I have an iPhone 6 that I purchased new from Apple and has never had any repairs, and I am now in fear of allowing any more software updates for fear of it becoming bricked.

 

[gnasher729]

PCVA attorney Darrell Cochran, who is leading the Error 53 lawsuit, claims that Apple's security argument is invalid because affected iPhones often work fine for several months following repairs as the validation check only occurs when downloading a new version of iOS.

PCVA attorney Darrell Cochran is an idiot (or more likely someone who knowingly spreads false arguments when they further his case). Apple continuously improves safety. Therefore it is not unexpected that a security risk isn't caught by an older operating system, but gets caught as soon as a newer operating system gets installed.

 

[kdarling]

See that, no warranty on unauthorized modifications. Every company on the whole wide world excludes unauthorized modifications,

If you read the warranty, they're talking about modifications that alter the original functionality. This is not that case.

because who knows what will happen? The battery might even explode and kill you, that's not Apples problem. You did it.

Correct, Apple is not liable for failure of third party parts.

However, you and others keep confusing the right of Apple to void a warranty if there's damage caused to other components (no damage occured in this case), with your perceived right of Apple to brick phones.

 

[MH01]

I can't believe anyone can defend Apple's position on this. They have potentially significantly reduced the resale value of iPhones. Perhaps not yet, but as this issue becomes more widely known it will. I know I would now never purchase a second hand iPhone. How can I be certain it has never been repaired and is only a software upgrade away from becoming an unusable brick?

I have an iPhone 6 that I purchased new from Apple and has never had any repairs, and I am now in fear of allowing any more software updates for fear of it becoming bricked.

You make an excellent point. Resale value could take a huge hit. People are going to be wary of buying a second hand iPhone knowing the expansive repair costs.
[doublepost=1455268039][/doublepost]

PCVA attorney Darrell Cochran is an idiot (or more likely someone who knowingly spreads false arguments when they further his case). Apple continuously improves safety. Therefore it is not unexpected that a security risk isn't caught by an older operating system, but gets caught as soon as a newer operating system gets installed.

You missed his point. It's not about the security Risk being patched, it's about the manner it was done in. A device goes from working fine to brick. He is not an idiot. The reasoning by apple is fine, the implementation is flawed.

 

[Gudi]

If you read the warranty, they're talking about modifications that alter the original functionality. This is not that case.

Read again, unauthorized service also voids the iPhone warranty. And that certainly is the case with Error 53. You can't expect the original manufacturer to fix somebody else's faulty repairs. Absolutely no company does that.

 

[Mildredop]

Read again, unauthorized service also voids the iPhone warranty. And that certainly is the case with Error 53. You can't expect the original manufacturer to fix somebody else's faulty repairs. Absolutely no company does that.

Refusing to repair under warranty is one thing. Remotely bricking the phone is something completely different.

 

[kdarling]

Read again, unauthorized service also voids the iPhone warranty. And that certainly is the case with Error 53.

No. It is illegal in the US and many other countries to void a warranty simply because of parts or service that came from places other than the manufacturer.

You keep leaving out the allowable but important requirement that it cause damage.

(f) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider

You can't expect the original manufacturer to fix somebody else's faulty repairs. Absolutely no company does that.

Nobody expects that. Likewise, nobody expects the manufacturer to brick your device without warning.

Again, you confuse voiding of warranty with BRICKING. They are NOT THE SAME THING.

 

[MH01]

Sure I have, as hard drive and memory replacements are explicitly described as user-serviceable for my MacBook, but newer MacBooks are different.

MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2010) - User Guide

My iMac 2009, out of warranty.

I replaced my HDD, non user serviceable according to apple, I replaced the optical drive with a SSD, yet again a modification.

And I replaced the ram : user serviceable.

Is apple allowed to brick my iMac cause I replaced the HDD and replaced the optical drive with a SSD? I mean that HDD and SSD could have been tempered with to steal my data....

 

[gnasher729]

You missed his point. It's not about the security Risk being patched, it's about the manner it was done in. A device goes from working fine to brick. He is not an idiot. The reasoning by apple is fine, the implementation is flawed.

I absolutely didn't miss any point. He claims that Apple's "security" argument is wrong because it means a phone would have to be bricked when it becomes insecure, not when an iOS update is performed. But that is wrong (which makes him an idiot or liar), because the security flaw may not be detected by the older iOS version.

 

[Gudi]

You make an excellent point. Resale value could take a huge hit.

Not at all, because never in history of limited product warranty unauthorized repair meant something other than void. That's why you always got to ask the seller, what kind of defects did the product have and were they any non-authorized repairs? If he lies it's fraud and you can sue the seller, but not Apple. That's why second-hand iPhones are cheaper in the first place.

 

[bingeciren]

If I buy a car. And change the immobilizer to an aftermarket one. And the car stops working. The car company isn't liable.

I don't get the fuss.

Not if you have to trash the car and get a new car as a result and the car company refuses to replace it with an original immobilizer and forces you to buy a new car, even if you are willing to pay for the repair costs.

 

[MH01]

Not at all, because never in history of limited product warranty unauthorized repair meant something other than void. That's why you always got to ask the seller, what kind of defects did the product have and were they any non-authorized repairs? If he lies it's fraud and you can sue the seller, but not Apple. That's why second-hand iPhones are cheaper in the first place.

You don't understand warranty.

This is not about warranty, this is about buying a device that could be bricked anytime cause you do not know its repair history, and costing you big . And second, when making a decision to purchase a second hand iPhone , would you spend £400 on one, knowing that a previous out of warranty repair was £50 down the local will now cost you £249 from an authorised apple repair.

You really think that would not have an impact on resale? Under these conditions I would not buy second hand , and when demand drops, so does the price.

Even people buying new, will now think twice.

 

[Gudi]

My iMac 2009, out of warranty. Is Apple allowed to brick my iMac cause I replaced the HDD and replaced the optical drive with a SSD?

Yes! Even if you still had warranty, it would be void now, because the optical drive unlike the memory is not a user-serviceable part. And even if it was a user-serviceable part, you're probable not allowed to replace it with something else like an SSD. This modification alone is enough for your iMac to go up in flames, destroy all your data, burn down your house, kill your whole family and not be Apples fault at all.

Welcome to the world of limited warranty and consumer laws. You've voided both at own risk.

 

[LV426]

This lawsuit doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance of succeeding. But I really hope it does come to court, because technical details will come to light. They will bamboozle most readers but will make for very interesting reading.

 

[MH01]

I absolutely didn't miss any point. He claims that Apple's "security" argument is wrong because it means a phone would have to be bricked when it becomes insecure, not when an iOS update is performed. But that is wrong (which makes him an idiot or liar), because the security flaw may not be detected by the older iOS version.

Okay, and you are 100% certain this is a security issue? Cause you seem to have concluded it it, and it's a case of when it was patched.

I ask , cause my iPhone never have been repaired or damaged, could get an error 53 today, cause my Touch ID fails , resulting in my iPhone being bricked.

To which I would say, BS this is about security ! Bloody hardware failed and apple bricked my iPhone never was my data vulnerable.

Hence I am also questioning apples "security" arguement which can be triggered by simple hardware failure . I think your train of thought is very OS security centric where patches are done post event. Though in OS development hardware failure does not trigger a security alert.

 

[bm-2c]

Using the feature is optional, having a TouchID sensor build in is not. TouchID is not an open industry standard everyone can make and expect to work in an iPhone. If you buy fake, you get fake.

Firstly: repairs purchased by these people were not fake at all, as evidenced by the fact that the devices were functional before they installed the update which then caused error 53. It was the OS as created by Apple which caused the bricking - not the repairs itself.

Secondly: Apple did not invent fingerprint scanning. Indeed, laptops can be repaired by a third party just fine without the first party manufacturer suddenly deciding that it is a-ok to completely destroy the functionality of their customer's device and render all the files upon it inaccessible on a flimsy 'security' pretext. Whether an individual goes to get their laptop or their tv or their tablet repaired, they consented to the repair of that device.

They did not, however, consent for a manufacturer to turn a newly repaired, expensive and functional device into an inoperative brick.

They were not offered a choice whether or not to have their expensive device killed.

Thirdly: When a person purchases a device, they own it. You do not expect to return home to find that the owners of a shop to send your car on a one way trip to the trash compactor because you happened to replace the batteries in the keys with a non shop owner approved brand and the security of those keys could have been hypothetically compromised by a satellite hovering in space. Not only would it be incredibly offensive for the owners of the shop to dictate exactly how you should replace your batteries but it is also incredibly offensive for the owners to presume that they have the right to destroy your vehicle. It would also be incredibly offensive for a bystander to happily assume that the shop owner's has everybody's interests at heart, and to not only consign their own vehicle to the scrap heap which they have the right to, but everyone else's cars, even if not everyone has the bystander's disposable income to unnecessarily waste on purchasing a completely new vehicle and to also assume that the contents of the car were as worthless as their own.

Fourthly: I believe like plenty of people on this thread that it is perfectly acceptable to advertise a software as free and containing features (to lure people into downloading it) and for the contents of the software to completely destroy people's devices and hold them hostage until the victim has no choice but to comply and to repair with the 'approved and trusted' retailers or have every important file on their machine and their entire machine fried and rendered completely inaccessible until they must purchase a new replacement machine.

 

[MH01]

Yes! Even if you still had warranty, it would be void now, because the optical drive unlike the memory is not a user-serviceable part. And even if it was a user-serviceable part, you're probable not allowed to replace it with something else like an SSD. This modification alone is enough for your iMac to go up in flames, destroy all your data, burn down your house, kill your whole family and not be Apples fault at all.

Welcome to the world of limited warranty and consumer laws. You've voided both at own risk.

You have no idea what warranty is.

My 2009 iMac, long time out of warranty , cannot be bricked by apple! Given you believe it can, says you have no understanding of consumer rights or warranty.

 

[LV426]

Okay, I guess that settles it.

You missed the bit where an unauthorised modification, e.g. not following the due process of key pairing, invalidates your warranty, in the same way as rooting the OS does. Technically, it's not an iPhone any more. It may look like an iPhone. It may feel like an iPhone. But it's something that was an iPhone. Something that isn't supported and doesn't work any more.

 

[Gudi]

This is not about warranty, this is about buying a device that could be bricked anytime cause you do not know its repair history, and costing you big.

You could know it's repair history by asking for it. And the seller has to answer truthfully or he is committing a fraud. If there wasn't any risk associated with buying second-hand, second-hand products wouldn't be cheaper than new products. Of course second-hand products can cost you big, not only if there was an unauthorized repair that voided your warranty. I bought a brand-new a little cheaper but still expensive iPad Air 2 64GB LTE at a seriously looking shop on eBay and it was stolen, so I couldn't acquire ownership although I had paid full. You can always become the victim of fraud, if you buy second-hand or not at Apple Inc. directly.

 

[Pez555]

So... They made third-party repairs, which annulled their warranty, and bricked their phone and now they're suing? Why does Apple owe them anything, exactly? Didn't they agree to Apple's terms when they purchased the device?

Stop defending apple.

Nowhere was it ever stated that getting your iPhone repaired by a third party would brick your phone after a period of usage with no issues. THAT is the issue here.

I am all for Apple doing this, however the problem here is that Apple did not inform anybody that this would happen.

 

[Gudi]

You have no idea what warranty is. My 2009 iMac, long time out of warranty , cannot be bricked by apple! Given you believe it can, says you have no understanding of consumer rights or warranty.

SSDs emit less heat than ODDs, but it could well be the other way around and your modification could make your iMac burn in the middle of the night. That's something you are responsible for not Apple. If your neighbors house catches fire, you are responsible for his damages too. Apple is not guilty, they said the ODD is not user-serviceable and that means you are not supposed to touch it or warranty is gone.
[doublepost=1455271164][/doublepost]

Nowhere was it ever stated that getting your iPhone repaired by a third party would brick your phone after a period of usage with no issues. THAT is the issue here.

The period of usage with seemingly no issues is of no importance. The iPhone has no user-serviceable parts at all. At the point of opening it, your warranty was gone. Doing it yourself or hiring unauthorized repair is also the same. Repair under warranty can only be done by Apple Authorized Service Providers.

 

[gwales123]

Typical overzealous Apple control. I've been a fan since the Mac Plus - no HD was around, but I'm sick of Apple's lack of respect for their customers. I think the iPhone and the iOS system are great, but Mac hardware and OS X is getting worse - less is more and form over function. Thanks, Jony.

 

[H2SO4]

No. It is illegal in the US and many other countries to void a warranty simply because of parts or service that came from places other than the manufacturer.

You keep leaving out the allowable but important requirement that it cause damage.

(f) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider



Nobody expects that. Likewise, nobody expects the manufacturer to brick your device without warning.

Again, you confuse voiding of warranty with BRICKING. They are NOT THE SAME THING.

You have the patience of a saint. I would have given up with this guy long ago. For those asking as to the extent of the problem, according to the lawyers;
The code has rendered thousands of the Affected Models completely disabled or “bricked” after its users updated iOS or restored the device from a backup. After spending hundreds of dollars purchasing Affected Models, the Plaintiffs here had their phone rendered useless.

4. Consumers began receiving an Error 53 code in early 2015, and likely earlier. Many consumers raised the issue with Apple representatives immediately because an
inoperable phone represented hardships both personally and professionally. Apple representatives told consumers that disabled phones could not be fixed under warranty and were a problem the consumer created by using an unauthorized repair service to fix a hardware issue with the phone. Some consumers had used a repair service other than an Apple service to fix problems such as broken screens and “Home” buttons, but they pointed out to Apple representatives that nothing in marketing materials or purchase documents ever disclosed that their iPhone products would be destroyed by an imbedded software code if they had repaired iPhones using an independent service and then updated to certain iOS versions.

 

[kdarling]

Using the feature is optional, having a TouchID sensor build in is not. TouchID is not an open industry standard everyone can make and expect to work in an iPhone. If you buy fake, you get fake.

It fails the same way with a genuine Apple part.

This is not about using third part parts. It's about only working with the originally installed part... unless the replacement part is relinked using an Apple software tool.

(Note that the existence of such a tool means that if its secret is ever discovered, security is lost. As Apple keeps pointing out, a back door can be used by anyone.)