Apple Must Compensate Brazilian Customer Over $1,000 for Selling iPhone Without a Charger, Judge Rules

[deeddawg]

This is the correct ruling, IMO. If Apple sold the iPhone with an industry standard port for charging, like USB-C, then I can see Apple not having to be required to include a charger.

People are complaining that Apple stopped including a 5W USB-A charger.

They continue to ship with a USBC to Lightning cable, thereby providing your industry standard charging connector.

Just plug the included cable into any USB-C power source.

If someone is behind the times and has only USBA ports *and* possesses no USBA to Lightning cables, they remain readily available from myriad sources.

I would also note that for several generations, iphones can be charged with industry-standard Qi charging pads.

 

[jaytv111]

I didn't realize the Mac limited the output because other thunderbolt devices can output 100W.

Are you using USB 3 to come up with 5W? I was using USB 2, at 2.5W since that's what most existing USB ports are. I don't think it is reasonable to assume people have USB 3 ports. Maybe in the US, but not globally.

Every computer limits the power they can give out through USB/Thunderbolt ports, it's not just Macs. There'd be no point in charging a laptop with another laptop because then you'd need another charger plugged into the source Mac to have enough power, or else it will drain the battery wicked fast.

USB 3.0 is irrelevant because while it increases the base power, you can still supply charging level power with USB 2.0 or USB 3.0 on USB-A ports. Macs have done it for a long time, through 2.0 then 3.0, and many PCs have done it for 10 years now. On PCs these are identified as "charging ports", they sometimes color them yellow or have a power logo or something, and it supplies usually 5 watts. But that's for USB-A ports, USB-C ports on PCs typically can offer 15 watts. This is for laptops available globally, from cheap Chinese laptops to expensive laptops. Nowadays the cheap laptops skip out mostly on type-C, both input and output, but they do have to have A ports and typically A will offer charging and won't cost more to implement, the A port is there and the controller typically offers USB charging as a bonus and not something that requires extra circuitry.

 

[Phil77354]

Think that it's not one person checking international laws, I would think there is a team focused on each country (or at least group of countries) to check this laws and others. . .

It’s not that hard. You just hire some specialist in that country.

you think Apple has no employees in Brazil? or any other country they do biz in?

. . . I think they should be able to afford hiring people in each country they do business in to help out with region-specific regulations.

You suggesting that Apple's $1 billion+ per year legal department budget isn't enough to decipher regulations in every country where they sell their products? . . .

Of course Apple has the resources to deal with regulations in all of the jurisdictions that they do business. I was simply making the observation that it is complicated, not impossible.

 

[maxoakland]

$1075???? Am I understanding this correctly? Brazilians are pretty much getting their entire iPhone purchase refunded over the charger?

Companies will too often break laws and keep doing it if their profits exceed the fine. This is a great way to enforce laws

 

[maxoakland]

I'm still a bit peeved that they didn't include a charger.
I had a ton of the USB-A chargers, but no USB-C chargers when I bought my last iPhone.
So yeah... it sucks that I have to go and buy one.
Apple certainly didn't lower the price of the phone once they started removing things like headphones and chargers.

If Apple really cares about environmentalism, they’ll make it easy for us to repair our computers and upgrade them so they last longer

This was nothing but a way for them to save money and it really bugs me that they pretended it was about the environment

 

[visualseed]

I think not including a commodity with your device is ok. It might not be in the best interest of the customer and your relationship with them, but I don't think it can be called "hostile." Granted, what defines a "commodity" does get a little nebulous.

I think Apple's point, and one where a lot of people disagree, is that USB chargers are now commodities.

 

[joshdammit]

At one point, it seemed plausible that Brazil would have forced Apple to include a charger in the box for every ‌iPhone‌ sold in the country. Procon-SP said that the charger is an "essential part" of the smartphone experience.

Really?!?! Rubbish!!!!

Dang! Does this mean that I can sue an auto manufacturer for not supplying me with gas for the life of my car? After all, gas is an essential part of the car experience.

This is a poor argument and you should feel embarrassed for making it.

Analogies are a poor replacement for an actual argument and this is a perfect example. Because now I’m going to debunk your analogy and congratulations, the conversation has now been derailed.

Gas is not equivalent to a phone charger because an iPhone charger is not the fuel - electricity is. If we want to play the bottom run analogy game, a better analign would be like a car manufacturer selling a car without (somehow) any means of putting gas in it without the addition of some sort of adapter.

This is a lousy decision Apple made. They took the charger out of their boxes, and then included a USB-C cable that the average iPhone user did not have at the time, necessitating the purchase of a new charger. Apple knew exactly what they were doing by removing the charger, and the “environmental” excuse was just a way to make them look responsible for doing it.

Get some help for your Apple Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[darngooddesign]

If that were the case they wouldn't wrap every single device they make in plastic.

They don't. LOL

 

[Bandaman]

The move was and is good for the environment. What’s disturbing is that few seem to see the bigger picture.

What's disturbing is you've convinced yourself this is true.

My recent purchase of Sony wireless headphones included a usb cable but no charger.

That's because Apple sets trends and others follow.

They don't. LOL

I think he's referring to the stuff you peel off the devices.

 

[BootsWalking]

The article was about a $1000 fine for an inexpensive brick.

No accusation.

Follow your own advice?

The article is about Apple violating Brazilian regulations by not including a charger. The article discusses the most recent court case for $1000 and a previous fine of $2M. It's all right there in the text. Again, mental gymnastics to avoid just admitting you were wrong.

 

[Bandaman]

People are complaining that Apple stopped including a 5W USB-A charger.

They continue to ship with a USBC to Lightning cable, thereby providing your industry standard charging connector.

Just plug the included cable into any USB-C power source.

If someone is behind the times and has only USBA ports *and* possesses no USBA to Lightning cables, they remain readily available from myriad sources.

While Apple continued to include a pathetic charger, others were including fast chargers. Instead of matching the competition, they just removed the charger entirely.

 

[visualseed]

If that were the case they wouldn't wrap every single device they make in plastic.

They have started to reduce plastic. The iPhone 13 packaging only uses cardboard and paper tape. I don't think my iPad Pro had much plastic compared to previous years.

 

[siddavis]

Let’s say you need to hire 200 people. That’s really small lol.

Let's say your current workforce is 200 people.
Not everything is made by a $2.7T company.

 

[4jasontv]

Every computer limits the power they can give out through USB/Thunderbolt ports, it's not just Macs. There'd be no point in charging a laptop with another laptop because then you'd need another charger plugged into the source Mac to have enough power, or else it will drain the battery wicked fast.

USB 3.0 is irrelevant because while it increases the base power, you can still supply charging level power with USB 2.0 or USB 3.0 on USB-A ports. Macs have done it for a long time, through 2.0 then 3.0, and many PCs have done it for 10 years now. On PCs these are identified as "charging ports", they sometimes color them yellow or have a power logo or something, and it supplies usually 5 watts. But that's for USB-A ports, USB-C ports on PCs typically can offer 15 watts. This is for laptops available globally, from cheap Chinese laptops to expensive laptops. Nowadays the cheap laptops skip out mostly on type-C, both input and output, but they do have to have A ports and typically A will offer charging and won't cost more to implement, the A port is there and the controller typically offers USB charging as a bonus and not something that requires extra circuitry.

I am not convinced that most 10 to 15-year-old computers have 5W USB ports. Anything newer than 2012 shouldn't be considered as part of the average user.

 

[deeddawg]

While Apple continued to include a pathetic charger, others were including fast chargers. Instead of matching the competition, they just removed the charger entirely.

Good. I have no use for single-port chargers. Waste of an outlet.

 

[aParkerMusic]

So these are different levels of extreme on your own examples, additionally you're taking the law (which I assume is narrowly applied) and trying to generalize it to different product categories and purchasing flows than it was designed for.

Reasonable expectations based on past history are an important part of the equation, as are purchase categories (food, electronics, accessories) and expected workflows in life. We all expect the roads to get to work to be provided and not something we have to build ourselves. It is very difficult to come up with absolute general rules for what is required to be included in any given purchase given how varied life and what we buy in the course of a year and given the practicalities of the world. But we may have expectations based on past purchases, and sometimes the government sets those expectations into law. It also depends on how things fit into life, and as the world changes we change our expectations and laws accordingly.

I’m dizzy after reading that. I’m not referring to any law, I’m referring to the insinuation in the post I replied to that any necessary secondary purchase to make a device reasonably functional is “consumer hostile”. And, to that point: if I buy a PlayStation, does it come with a game? What am I supposed to reasonably do with a PlayStation without a game?

Expectations? Easily solved by Apple saying “the power adapter is no longer included. Need one? Also, if you already have one, it will still work very nicely!” Oh, that’s what they said. Great!

You say it’s very difficult to come up with general rules for these sorts of situations, fair. But…is your contention then that it’s unreasonable for Apple to stop shipping power adapters within product categories that have shipped BILLIONS of devices already? I mean, if there were ever a case for not including power adapters, this would be the best case. If Sega didn’t include a necessary proprietary charger with my Game Gear in the early 1990’s, that would be an issue. A Lightning iOS device in 2022, and the company let me know it’s an additional purchase? Not quite a scandal.

 

[MacDaddyPanda]

They could do that. Or…stay with me..maybe they’re actually trying to reduce the amount of unnecessary plastic waste being shipped, which that solution wouldn’t address….

I agree, but Brazil says otherwise.

 

[aParkerMusic]

What's disturbing is you've convinced yourself this is true.


That's because Apple sets trends and others follow.


I think he's referring to the stuff you peel off the devices.

And they’ll still be wrong. please describe the plastic that’s being peeled off of the devices these days. in detail. Thanks.

 

[4jasontv]

Companies will too often break laws and keep doing it if their profits exceed the fine. This is a great way to enforce laws

No, it's a great way to get them to comply with this law. If they wanted to stop breaking laws they would make the payout for each victim equal to the total revenue generated for all devices sold in the country.

$1075???? Am I understanding this correctly? Brazilians are pretty much getting their entire iPhone purchase refunded over the charger?

At launch, the iPhone 12 Pro Max cost, in US dollars, $2,535.
The iPhone 12 mini cost $1,268.

Like India, Brazil charges higher taxes if the product isn't manufactured in their country.

They got about half back.

 

[siddavis]

So these are different levels of extreme on your own examples, additionally you're taking the law (which I assume is narrowly applied) and trying to generalize it to different product categories and purchasing flows than it was designed for.

Reasonable expectations based on past history are an important part of the equation, as are purchase categories (food, electronics, accessories) and expected workflows in life. We all expect the roads to get to work to be provided and not something we have to build ourselves. It is very difficult to come up with absolute general rules for what is required to be included in any given purchase given how varied life and what we buy in the course of a year and given the practicalities of the world. But we may have expectations based on past purchases, and sometimes the government sets those expectations into law. It also depends on how things fit into life, and as the world changes we change our expectations and laws accordingly.

Or there's this thing called the market where nobody has to be all knowing about everything.

My expectation is that my phone should come with a physical keyboard based on past purchases and experiences. Mr. Bureaucrat, make it so.

 

[Phil77354]

Apple could just ask every new iPhone purchaser if they needed a charger, and if so then include it with the purchase (no extra cost).

Oh, but if they did that, I bet lots of folks would take the free charger even if they didn't need it.

Never mind.

 

[bcortens]

I’m dizzy after reading that. I’m not referring to any law, I’m referring to the insinuation in the post I replied to that any necessary secondary purchase to make a device reasonably functional is “consumer hostile”. And, to that point: if I buy a PlayStation, does it come with a game? What am I supposed to reasonably do with a PlayStation without a game?

Expectations? Easily solved by Apple saying “the power adapter is no longer included. Need one? Also, if you already have one, it will still work very nicely!” Oh, that’s what they said. Great!

You say it’s very difficult to come up with general rules for these sorts of situations, fair. But…is your contention then that it’s unreasonable for Apple to stop shipping power adapters within product categories that have shipped BILLIONS of devices already? I mean, if there were ever a case for not including power adapters, this would be the best case. If Sega didn’t include a necessary proprietary charger with my Game Gear in the early 1990’s, that would be an issue. A Lightning iOS device in 2022, and the company let me know it’s an additional purchase? Not quite a scandal.

Consumer hostile (which is a term I used since you replied to me originally) is a relative term. It has a flexible definition that is based on consumer expectations. One could argue that soldered flash storage is consumer hostile since it prevents the consumer from prolonging or improving the usability of their purchase since they can not upgrade this storage when needed.

Expectations are not set by Apple and their marketing. If a history of phone purchases sets an expectation of an included charger, Apple changing that does not change the expectation of the consumer, instead Apple is violating that expectation in a way the consumer may feel is hostile to their interests. Spelling out the fact that they are violating and trying to reset your expectations around what should be included in a phone purchase does not change this fact.

My contention is that in this context Apple is breaking the law (a codification of historic expectations around phone purchases).

I actually agreed with someone else above and said that we might want to move away from including any excess cables and charges in electronics, since it is pretty wasteful. Assuming existing cables meet the minimum specifications it is less wasteful to make the cables a standalone purchase (for example my current stereo power cable would have been easily served by my old dead ones cable but now the old cable just sits in a box).

 

[Macative]

Yeah, definitely no “well if I can a new one for free why not” effect there. Come on. I get both sides, but that’s just silly. People will always choose to get something for “free” when given the option..which negates the entire environmental purpose.

If they choose to get one, it means they want one. The entire situation is predicated on the lie that they don't need one in the first place.

 

[bcortens]

Or there's this thing called the market where nobody has to be all knowing about everything.

My expectation is that my phone should come with a physical keyboard based on past purchases and experiences. Mr. Bureaucrat, make it so.

Let's pretend you're serious, go lobby the government and get it passed into law. All industries are regulated to different degrees, you may feel this is a case of over-regulation, fine, get enough people to agree with you to change the law.

 

[BurgDog]

Can you cite the law if it’s that clear? Where does it say apple has to include a charger with every iPhone?

In the article - According to article 39 of the Consumer Code (CDC), "tie sale" is an abusive and prohibited practice in Brazil, so it is not allowed to sell cell phone and charger separately. Therefore, Apple is being sentenced after selling an iPhone model and charger separately to a consumer in the city of Goiânia.