Apple Hit With Class-Action Lawsuit Over Failing 27" iMac Displays

[Beezy253]

Wow, Some people…

You shouldn't HAVE to purchase Apple Care for a PREMIUM Computer.

----------

my 27" mid 2011 mac just started having a similar problem. Half of the screen from the left side is dim. I guess this was a bad batch of LCDs and a lot of people have similar problems? Should I take it to apple to try to get it fixed?

If you do contact Apple, bring up the Lawsuit. They will most likely contact the Law team on your behalf, before denying a replacement screen.

 

[Tech198]

......ok

 

[JoeG4]

I bought a 5 year 100,000 mile warranty for my car, it's six years old and the engine went out..I'm suing!!

My Chrysler's Hemi engine had a valve seat drop at 106,000 miles/7 years. The engine now needs to be replaced. I thought it was weird. Kinda.

http://orlandocylinderhead.com/free-tech-advice/Dodge-Hemi-5.7-Intake-Seats-Fall-Out/
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/647544-dodge-5-7-hemi-carnage.html\

Worst part was that I had first read/heard of this about a week before my engine broke, so I was already lining up mechanics to have the heads inspected. Damn.

Unfortunately the general sentiment of the thread is correct - while it seems unethical, I don't believe (I'm not a lawyer) that any states in the US have the 'fitness' laws that some european places do.

It makes ya wonder though, at what point do you draw the line? I haven't really taken a good look but I'd bet the backlight in that imac failed due to overheating (as looking at one of the pictures, the top of the backlight is burned out, and that's where all the heat accumulates). The iMacs do use LED backlights, right?

So in theory, if you run your iMac at full 100% cpu for 2 or 3 years, maybe the heat soak would kill the backlight sooner. At that point is it the fault of the manufacturer for designing the device poorly, and thus not fit to last the average 5 year lifetime of a computer?

What about in cars? If the cooling system fails because of a bad design and the car's engine blows a few years sooner than it would be reasonable for a car's engine to blow, should the manufacturer be responsible?

Funny stuff.

Either way, I highly doubt you'll find much sympathy whatsoever aroudn here because people are very big fans of contractual terms here (I gather by reading the comments). By that standard, if you buy applecare and your machine dies 1 day after the warranty period, Apple should not be seen in any bad light at all.

 

[iMikeT]

I have a BTO 27" 2011 iMac. Since the day it was delivered, the screen has a dark but faint horizontal band going across the bottom. Even though it's faint, I notice it when I look for it or when I look in that direction while performing a task.

I've been thinking about going to Apple to resolve the issue but I haven't had the time or an adequate machine to use as a backup if I were to send this to Apple for a few days or even a week. I also have Apple Care but that will expire in less than a year.

With that said, I hope Apple owns up to this and takes care of the iMacs with screen issues like they recently did with the GPU.

 

[freiheit]

Simple answer, refuse to buy all-in-one machines

Meanwhile those of us who refuse to buy all-in-one machines don't have these problems. I'm just saying. If you choose to buy a $2K machine where the failure of any one component makes the whole thing useless, you run the risk of the failure of a single component making the whole thing useless. Yes we should have stronger consumer protection laws in the US. Yes we should also demand that products we spend this kind of money to buy be more user-serviceable.

 

[pferrari]

I don't know if the guy has any legal grounds to win this, but a one year warranty is simply ridiculous. Period.

For all of you who posted "he should have bought Apple care": Get the **** out of here you tools. I should not have to buy a ****ing 250-dollar insurance to be sure that my expensive Apple computer reaches a reasonable lifetime. Are you out of your mind? That thing has to work for three years no matter what as long as I use it normally.

There is no civilized country on earth except the United States that even allows a warranty to be as short as one year, in all European countries it is at least 2 years by law.

If I buy an electronic device of any kind, let alone anything from Apple, then this device cannot ****ing break after one ridiculous year of normal usage. OF COURSE the company should have to pay for the repair.

And for those of you complaining about the $5 million: I reads to me as if he was claiming that amount not for himself but collectively for all owners of iMacs with this problem. So he is not trying to make five million dollars, the money isn't gonna go to his account.

 

[TTile]

So then you don't have a free market, you support a regulated market.

Consumer laws are just another part of a regulated market.

A completely efficient free market is an unrealizable ideal. Regulation is necessary to eliminate inefficiencies within real markets.

 

[toddzrx]

Hence the reason for consumer law in the UK.
One year warranty is not good enough.
Simple.

I'm glad I didn't have to deal with this issue.
I do agree that 1 year warranty is not enough.
Step up the consumer protection laws U.S.

Yup.

We have the Sale Of Goods Act in the UK, which ensures consumer products must be fit for purpose, and last a reasonable length of time, which is usually around 5 years for small and medium electricals, including computers.

Very surprised that the US does not have similar legislation.

Not that I agree with the guy at all... I do believe there should be laws implemented similar to Europe's with consumer electronics.

Sure parts deteriorate etc. But known issues such are failure's and for example Image retention should not be put on the customer to pay the bill.

my 2cents.

edit: look a post above mine haha

I had the exact same problem recently. However we have greater consumer law protection in Australia which meant that Apple had to fix the screen for free even though the warranty had expired 6 months before the problem arose.

To all of you living outside the US, and those within who desire Europe-esque consumer laws that would extend warranty periods: keep in mind that the costs will get passed on to the consumer.

One of the key reasons that Apple gear costs more outside the US (in addition to fluctuating exchange rates of course) is due to consumer protection laws and longer warranty periods, pure and simple.

Not flaming, just reminding everyone to think their opinions through.

 

[TTile]

I don't even know where to start. The illusional believes of some people here is unbearable.
How about one simple thing to start with?
Why doesn't the company build better product with better quality checks so the products last longer???? 20 years ago things used to work for ages. These days companies hire engineers that will design something that fails after certain time so you HAVE to buy new one. I'm not saying its apple, I'm talking in general.

So, consumer law is here to protect. If company doesn't want to lose money then perhaps need to improve quality which will result in less defects and therefore less expenses that would the consumer law require them to cover.

How about THAT for start?

Your belief that companies purposely design products to fail is ridiculous. In the context of the tech world it is even more ridiculous. Technology has a defined life due to Moore's Law. Your iPad could work 20 years but you wouldn't want to use it past 3-5 years anyways. And designing a product to fail after a set amount of time (but not before that time) would be incredible difficult. If you try to design something to fail after 2 years you'll inevitably see a noticeable rise in failures in the 0-1 and 1-2 year periods.

----------

That is the point, the failure rate warrants a class action lawsuit.

And you know the failure rate how exactly?

----------

So instead in the US they account for legal costs and add that into the price of the product.

Anti monopoly laws also limit the profits of a company.

As for your 10% failure in the first year, get real, try less than 0.1%
Apple is unique in that its profit margin is 30%, other manufacturers work on 5%-10% and failure rates of even 1% would be disastrous.

Depends on what you define as a failure. Usually only one component of a product fails and it is usually cheap to replace. But I would agree that a complete failure (lemon) would be rare event. Regardless, my numbers were just examples to make my point. They weren't based on any particular piece of data.

Anti-monopoly laws are put in place to reduce inefficiencies in the market and allow it to approach the 100% efficient, free market ideal.

----------

My Chrysler's Hemi engine had a valve seat drop at 106,000 miles/7 years. The engine now needs to be replaced. I thought it was weird. Kinda.

http://orlandocylinderhead.com/free-tech-advice/Dodge-Hemi-5.7-Intake-Seats-Fall-Out/
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/647544-dodge-5-7-hemi-carnage.html\

Worst part was that I had first read/heard of this about a week before my engine broke, so I was already lining up mechanics to have the heads inspected. Damn.

Unfortunately the general sentiment of the thread is correct - while it seems unethical, I don't believe (I'm not a lawyer) that any states in the US have the 'fitness' laws that some european places do.

It makes ya wonder though, at what point do you draw the line? I haven't really taken a good look but I'd bet the backlight in that imac failed due to overheating (as looking at one of the pictures, the top of the backlight is burned out, and that's where all the heat accumulates). The iMacs do use LED backlights, right?

So in theory, if you run your iMac at full 100% cpu for 2 or 3 years, maybe the heat soak would kill the backlight sooner. At that point is it the fault of the manufacturer for designing the device poorly, and thus not fit to last the average 5 year lifetime of a computer?

What about in cars? If the cooling system fails because of a bad design and the car's engine blows a few years sooner than it would be reasonable for a car's engine to blow, should the manufacturer be responsible?

Funny stuff.

Either way, I highly doubt you'll find much sympathy whatsoever aroudn here because people are very big fans of contractual terms here (I gather by reading the comments). By that standard, if you buy applecare and your machine dies 1 day after the warranty period, Apple should not be seen in any bad light at all.

The opinions for/against Apple are all based on some estimated iMac failure rate (estimated in each individual's head). If we were told the screen failure rate was <.1% everyone would be against this lawsuit. If it was >30%, most people would support it.

 

[uberman15]

As opposed to Apple having to pay lawyers every time a class action suit comes up, and then having to remedy the problem too ?

The cost of lawyers is less than the cost of extending the warranty. Why? Because if it wasn't the case, they'd offer the extended warranty standard. There would be no need to have the law in that case, because all companies would do this. They don't because the occasional lawyer fee due to lawsuits resulting from failure of out-of-warranty products is smaller. They offer an extended warranty program instead to provide the consumer with choice.

The free market you want would also see corporations colluding to raise prices, have agreed monopolies and in fact reduce consumer choice and reduce competition.

Or does your "free market" now require laws to stop this ?

Are you incapable of understanding nuance? Because someone thinks that the free market is sufficient to determine appropriate warranty length (it is!), they are therefore okay with price collusion? Or is it possible that some regulation is fine (e.g. price collusion laws) but not everything under the sun is necessary or reasonable?

that cost works out to be LESS than the cost of an extended warranty.

The risk of being sued is also a cost that manufacturers add in to the price of every product. You pay for it one way or the other.

Prove it. Because you said so is not sufficient. Again, if this was truly the case, Apple would offer 5 year (or even lifetime) warranties standard because the cost of legislation would dictate it.

I don't even know where to start. The illusional believes of some people here is unbearable.
How about one simple thing to start with?
Why doesn't the company build better product with better quality checks so the products last longer???? 20 years ago things used to work for ages. These days companies hire engineers that will design something that fails after certain time so you HAVE to buy new one. I'm not saying its apple, I'm talking in general.

So, consumer law is here to protect. If company doesn't want to lose money then perhaps need to improve quality which will result in less defects and therefore less expenses that would the consumer law require them to cover.

How about THAT for start?

If you force companies to build products that last longer, those products will be more expensive. Let's say you purchase a product that costs $1000. Let's say it comes with a 1-year warranty. Let's say the extended warranty that will cover two additional years costs $200. Now, a law is passed that requires companies to cover all three years standard. Do you think the product will cost $1000 or $1200. Of course, the latter. By removing the flexibility from the consumer, you are requiring companies price their goods higher.

Alternatively, a company can do what you suggest. They can use higher quality materials and impose greater quality control. But now a product that cost $300 to produce and is sold for $1000 will cost $500 to produce and will be sold for $1200+.

If your idea was good for the consumer, then without any additional legislation, you can create a company that makes products that last longer and are of higher quality just like you said. If Apple produces computers that fail immediately after the warranty period (which would be dumb in and of itself because they wouldn't sell extended warranty or it would be inordinately expensive), then you could create a company that produces computers that won't fail for a much longer period of time. If you're right and the consumer prefers this, you will drive Apple out of business or force it to switch to your model. The fact that the market hasn't turned to this should be proof enough that consumers don't want what you're asking for.

I don't know if the guy has any legal grounds to win this, but a one year warranty is simply ridiculous. Period.

For all of you who posted "he should have bought Apple care": Get the **** out of here you tools. I should not have to buy a ****ing 250-dollar insurance to be sure that my expensive Apple computer reaches a reasonable lifetime. Are you out of your mind? That thing has to work for three years no matter what as long as I use it normally.

You buy a $2000 computer and you're saying that you shouldn't have to buy $250 insurance to cover two more years of warranty. So, instead Apple charges you $2250 for the computer and offers you three years of warranty standard. How have you won?

Why is it that just because a computer is expensive that it isn't normal for it to have some probability of failure? All products can fail after a couple years. In the past, if the frequency of failures exceeds their quality standards, they've extended the warranty for free. I've had that happen with my MacBook Pro. But they do this because of their brand. Not because of some stupid law that will force the company to pass the warranty costs on to the consumer without giving the consumer the choice of deciding whether or not he/she actually wants it.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

just trying to make money and never work again. Pathetic

'Merica

 

[phoenixsan]

The plaintiff......

have my simpathy. No computer, well cared and in right conditions of operations must fail before 3-5 years.

Some people can make a case here for AppleCare, but sometimes people tend to forget about it or neglect the importance of extended warranties, more puzzling if they consider they are making a "huge investment" in a computer. No point going there, tough.....

Seems to me another case of bullying against the high ivory tower or the sitting white
elephant..........

And Apple in any moment can avoid bad press and look as greedy with a free replacement screen or even a fully new computer....

 

[DJJAZZYJET]

He's basically trying to say regardless of when the guy's warranty expired - it shouldn't matter. It expired. If you're getting yours replaced after warranty, even if it's 6 months after why is it that I can't get mine 6 years after?

Make sense?

Actually you can if you live in the UK. I believe Europe gets 6 years consumer warranty.

 

[Synapsee]

He has a legitimate case. If he's asking $5 million for personal damages, that's ridiculous. The words class action I think change who that $5 million goes to, but I might be wrong as I don't know all the lawsuit lingo.

I work for an AASP (not Apple, a third party shop), and I've seen quite a few 27" iMacs roll through with bad display panels. When they're out of warranty, that repair ends up being about $700 figuring in our labor charge, markup on the $449 part and sales tax. That's EXTREMELY expensive for a relatively basic repair, and I've personally done the repairs on about 30 that were NOT under warranty in the last two years. These parts are notably defective, and in the end LG should be the ones footing the bill, just like NVidia did with their GeForce 8600M GT cards in the 2008 MacBook Pros.

 

[AppleScruff1]

When I first read the title of this thread I thought it said falling 27" displays.

 

[Elijahg]

I'd expect any computer to last more than 6 years simply because I've never had one that didn't (ignoring the odd hard disk) and like you said, electronic devices tend to last.

My 2006 Mac Pro didn't last 6 years, the PSU and logic board failed a few months ago, a common failure for those.

I've bought a couple of special-offer Dell machines (<£200) over the years because they were much cheaper than I could build myself, and if any of them had failed before ~5 years, you could bet that I'd be complaining till it's fixed.
What I've never understood is how these sorts of things are defined (I suspect they're not).

That's the problem, the law is not well defined, it's very vague which makes retailers beat around the bush saying they aren't responsible until you start waving the Sale of Goods Act under their nose.

I expect the majority of a computer (all the parts that aren't moving) to last a long time because of what it is, not because of the price tag, brand name or marketing blurb.

I do too, though the non-silicon components such as the backlight and capacitors do fail, and the no-name brand used is often the reason why caps fail. Electrolytics are usually only rated for 10,000 hours, which is nothing since they're powered on all the time in a modern PSU. Apple, Dell, HP and many others had problems with fake capacitors a few years back, and that was a problem with was the PSU supplier's fault (usually Delta).

There seems to be two clear schools of thought on warranty - people that think it's hilarious that people pay for it and people that think it's hilarious that people don't.
Am I savvy, spoilt or just an arsehole? I expect (and get...) a lot for my money, irrelevant of the purchase price - It's nice not to have to fight when there's an issue, but my future purchases are vastly based on price, not previous experience.

I never have had Applecare, because usually desktops are pretty solid. Any defects are pretty rare in the grand scheme of things. Laptops though are a different kettle of fish: the Unibody ones are much much better, but even so due to all the flexing and being bumped about, their reliability is lower.

 

[Mystic386]

Is this guy joking? That stinks his monitor is not working well but it is well past the warranty period.

The A/C on my 4 year old car isn't blowing as cold now as it used to when new - guess I should sue BMW for 10 million lol.

America and these law suit laws seriously need an overhaul so frivolousness can be cut off at the source before tying up court time.

You can't overhaul the American legal system. Lawyers won't allow it.

 

[iMLo]

Umm... no.

1 year warranty is fine on a $75 keyboard, not on a $3000 computer, especially on components like screens. Or motherboards with capacitors that like to blow up. Remember those?

Don't cherry pick sentences from my post. If you're going to quote me, use the whole thing. It wasn't a long post.

I said that a 1 year warranty is fine with me because I prefer not to be forced to purchase additional protection, which is exactly what the "Consumer protection laws" do by driving up the price. I don't know about you, but I prefer to make decisions for myself and not have them forced upon me by the government.

 

[aliensporebomb]

AppleCare

I bought AppleCare for my 27" iMac Core i7 and had some minor issues addressed while it was covered.

It is now out of warranty coverage and I realize I'm on borrowed time.

We'll see how long it lasts.

This guy is no doubt mad - 18 months is way too short IMO but anyone here in the U.S. should really get AppleCare. It's the only way to get your machine covered if it blows up after 12 months.

 

[iMLo]

The crux of the issue is whether or not it's reasonable for a company to have to replace faulty units when the failure rate is unusually high. This particular product is a basket case. So that means, that:

- This has nothing to do with Apple care
- This has nothing to with warranty periods

Yet only a small minority here are actually discussing the issue. Typical MR.

I agree. Good post.

 

[0x0x0x0]

To all of you living outside the US, and those within who desire Europe-esque consumer laws that would extend warranty periods: keep in mind that the costs will get passed on to the consumer.

One of the key reasons that Apple gear costs more outside the US (in addition to fluctuating exchange rates of course) is due to consumer protection laws and longer warranty periods, pure and simple.

Not flaming, just reminding everyone to think their opinions through.

I already replied to that sort of opinion:

That might be a part of it, but the price in the UK (and presumably the rest of the EU) is the price the consumer pays, whereas the price State-side excludes local taxes that the consumer will have to pay on top as well… Added to that, a lot of posters repeatedly say "buy AppleCare", which costs how much on top?

In any event, wouldn't you rather pay a little bit now and have a piece of mind that you can demand a replacement down the line, than to have to fork out the same, albeit slightly smaller amount, once the product goes out of warranty?

 

[TTile]

Wow, Some people…

You shouldn't HAVE to purchase Apple Care for a PREMIUM Computer.

----------



If you do contact Apple, bring up the Lawsuit. They will most likely contact the Law team on your behalf, before denying a replacement screen.

If the failure rate is higher than usual its one thing. Apple should be responsible if there is a consistent defect in the design. If not, then if one chooses to forego buying AppleCare they assume the financial risks in the unlikely event that their product fails prematurely.

 

[RDeckard]

I don't know about you guys, but I always buy all of my electronics with a credit or charge card that doubles the factory warranty -- up to 1 extra year. I'm sure *some* people don't use credit/charge cards to buy stuff, so this doesn't apply to those folks. With almost all of my credit cards (not debit cards), if I buy an extended warranty, like AppleCare, then they also add 1 additional year of warranty coverage.

Anyway, I never have "just a 1 year warranty" -- it's always 2 years in my case. It should be the same for most of you out there (that use credit or charge cards to make purchases).

BTW, check with your credit card company (or companies) for your account(s) specifically; not all credit card accounts have this benefit... But if you do -- then use it!!! If this knucklehead just used a credit card with a similar benefit, he wouldn't have to resort to using these leeches... I mean, lawyers. Same thing.

 

[InuNacho]

To all of you living outside the US, and those within who desire Europe-esque consumer laws that would extend warranty periods: keep in mind that the costs will get passed on to the consumer.

One of the key reasons that Apple gear costs more outside the US (in addition to fluctuating exchange rates of course) is due to consumer protection laws and longer warranty periods, pure and simple.

Not flaming, just reminding everyone to think their opinions through.

Hey, I'd be fine with that.

 

[JamietheMac]

This guy is a fame seeker but he is within his statutory rights to expect this kind of product to last for years.

I disagree with your statement, I hardly expect a a screen on a 18 month imac to fail.

so you would buy a brand new car and be ok if the engine died after 1 year?