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

[robco74]

Lets assume for the moment that this is a strategy they employ everyone, suddenly states (in the US) that pass right-to-repair legislation are pulled out of? Pulling out of all markets that have laws that they disagree with would lead them operating no where, what is the threshold for pull out? To me this looks like Apple posturing to force laws upon people, especially since they operate in far worse places (in terms of moral positions).

I'm for right to repair, so long as there are laws in place that ensure that any materials are disposed of responsibly and don't wind up in landfills.

I'm OK with forcing sideloading, as long as privacy laws are strengthened so apps can't just suck up a ton of data.

It all depends upon the intent you place upon Apple, whether you feel they act solely out of malice or greed, or if you might consider other options.

I'll also add that laws don't often change with the times. Here in CA, there was a law that mandated fluorescent light fixtures to save energy. Nobody wanted them, and they would often replace them right after their inspection. And of course, along came LEDs that were less hazardous and more efficient. Fortunately, CA changed the law. This would be an example. If companies are using standardized chargers, then there is no reason why one needs to be included with every purchase. Apple should have pointed this out and requested a change to the law before selling devices there without an included charger.

 

[Student of Life]

Also an inane comparison. Tires are expensive and swapping them is both difficult and expensive; chargers are cheap, the vast majority of people already have one (probably multiple), and most are interchangeable.

Plus, as others have said, it’s widely known that iPhones (and now many other phones) don’t include chargers, so buying an iPhone and suing because it doesn’t have a charger is a bit rich. Just as buying a car that clearly doesn’t have tires and suing over it would be.

Its an analogy. Better question would be how would you feel if Apple removes chargers from Laptops. The same argument applies, its just taken to the next logical step. People already have chargers right? Im pretty sure someone paying 2000 for the new MacBook Pro won't be happy to find out the charger is missing. If you want the new magi safe charger pay up, if not use the old usb c charger you have right?

 

[I7guy]

This isn't about a charger, it is about Apple's disdain for the laws of a foreign country. Brazilian law is clear and Apple deliberate flaunted it, expecting, because of "we're Apple," they'd get away with it.

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

 

[4jasontv]

Also, come on, comparing nominal prices when we all know there is inflation just doesn't make any sense. Things nominally get more expensive over the years, that's just a given for everything.

Production costs and design efficiency can offset inflation. Video game consoles are a great example of this. If you need an example that was updated more frequently, look at the iPod that slowly decreased in price over the life of the product as it got better and better.

History tells us that businesses can keep prices the same in the face of inflation while still making more money YOY.

 

[Gasu E.]

Yup in this case it would be selling the car without tires, since you already have tires from you old car(phone).

The tires from my old car would not fit my new car. There are perhaps hundreds of tire sizes.

On the other hand, all phone chargers are USB chargers, and it's been that way for years.

 

[Jimmy_Banks]

Ok, so do the car manufacturers provide the gas pump, the means of transmitting the energy source?

I get both sides of this, but if you’re gonna try to own someone, make sure your own is solid lol

Another failed analogy. In this example, the gas pump and hose is analogous with the electrical outlet. Once again, last time I checked Apple does not install electrical outlets in your house.

Car analogies never work, give up.

 

[bcortens]

Ok, so do the car manufacturers provide the gas pump, the means of transmitting the energy source?

I get both sides of this, but if you’re gonna try to own someone, make sure your own is solid lol

So in this analogy the gas pump is the charger - gotcha - but the gas stations provide that as part of the infrastructure for supplying gas. In this analogy the equivalent would be if the electrical utility provided a charger in convenient locations for you the consumer. But since electronics aren't charged at communal stations in most situations (barring airports which do provide charging ports in many cases) the analogy doesn't quite work. If you could fill up your car at your house you might have a point here.

Electric cars are a better analogy - since they are similar in the sense that you need to be able to use them "out of the box" and can be refilled at home - and just checked the Hyundai Kona and found that it does indeed come with level 1 charger (slow but still workable).

 

[4jasontv]

For a new phone without a charger one is not getting less. In fact apple held the price of the current models and the difference came from the charger. There is no less in this instance.

You just defined "getting less" as "not getting less."

The tires from my old car would not fit my new car. There are perhaps hundreds of tire sizes.

On the other hand, all phone chargers are USB chargers, and it's been that way for years.

This was true until Apple changed the recommended wattage of the new phones. Existing chargers work on new phones as well as existing tires on new cars.

 

[bcortens]

The tires from my old car would not fit my new car. There are perhaps hundreds of tire sizes.

On the other hand, all phone chargers are USB chargers, and it's been that way for years.

With different port types - I have migrated my house over to USB-C but the old iPhone chargers were USB-A. Additionally while many android phones are USB-C on both ends if you were upgrading from an older android phone you might only have a USB-A port. Or if it is your first phone you don't already own a charger.

 

[Macative]

Yeah, could have purchased An Amazon basics usb-c brick for $15.

Or the already overpriced phone could have just included one. We can do this all day. You're never going to be right about it, and neither will Apple. It was wrong to do, and it was doubly wrong to do without passing the $6.5 billion they saved onto customers.

 

[bcortens]

I'm for right to repair, so long as there are laws in place that ensure that any materials are disposed of responsibly and don't wind up in landfills.

I'm OK with forcing sideloading, as long as privacy laws are strengthened so apps can't just suck up a ton of data.

It all depends upon the intent you place upon Apple, whether you feel they act solely out of malice or greed, or if you might consider other options.

I'll also add that laws don't often change with the times. Here in CA, there was a law that mandated fluorescent light fixtures to save energy. Nobody wanted them, and they would often replace them right after their inspection. And of course, along came LEDs that were less hazardous and more efficient. Fortunately, CA changed the law. This would be an example. If companies are using standardized chargers, then there is no reason why one needs to be included with every purchase. Apple should have pointed this out and requested a change to the law before selling devices there without an included charger.

So what if Apple doesn't like right to repair? Should they just start pulling out of jurisdictions that mandate it? That is what they are doing here, they don't like particular consumer protection laws, and instead of trying to convince people to change the law (lobbying public and politicians) you advocated that they simply stop operating in those jurisdictions.

 

[fernelius]

Hmmm. By the judge's same reasoning, it would seem Apple might be sued for not providing a perpetual cell phone service program with the iPhone. It, also, is generally an "'essential part' of the smartphone experience." Will mains power be bundled? If I live in an area without a cell tower, will the cell tower be bundled? </s>

 

[Macative]

Lol yeah I don’t understand your argument, sophisticated as it is. ?

And you aren’t “paying for a charger that you’re not getting” if you know your aren’t getting a charger and buy the product anyway.

You know full well that Apple removed accessories from the box and raised prices rather than lowering them, at the same time. They saved over 6 billion dollars doing this already, and passed none of that onto customers. Not in the form of discounts, or even lower-cost chargers. They did nothing, except pocket the cash and create minions like you to justify their indefensible behavior.

 

[Gasu E.]

It's been reported that Apple made an additional 6.5B USD in PROFITS from removing the charger. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...providing-chargers-earphones-new-iPhones.html

This is a recent article. UK inflation is running 6%. Did Apple raise their prices 6%? (Yes/No) If "No", this is British tabloid headline "economics", not actual Economics.

 

[tdog1949]

Apple must compensate a Brazilian customer who recently purchased an iPhone for selling the device without a charger included in the box, which violates consumer law, a judge has ruled.

Apple's decision to remove the charger in the box sparked controversy in 2020. Apple claims the move is for environmental reasons, claiming the decision is equivalent to removing nearly 450,000 cars from the road per year.

Nonetheless, the move has sparked some public and legal outcry. In the latest development, a judge in Brazil, a country that has long-questioned Apple's reasoning to remove the accessory, is forcing Apple to compensate a customer nearly $1,075 for the lack of a charger. As reported by Tecmundo:
Last year, Brazil fined Apple $2 million as a punishment for violating consumer law and disrespecting Brazilian customers, according to the head of the consumer group Procon-SP, Fernando Capez.

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.

By not providing one alongside the device, Apple was therefore breaching the Brazilian Consumer Defense Code, according to the consumer protection agency. Apple responded by arguing that many customers already have chargers in their homes, adding the environmental benefits of removing the charger and significantly reducing the overall iPhone box footprint.

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

I paid 700 dollars for my wifes new iPhone 13 , And I fully expect a 15 charger in the box Damn it! Doesn't matter if I already have 20 of em laying around.

 

[Bandaman]

Well, it did, for Apple, they just didn't pass that on to the consumer.

Yes, exactly. This move was all about Apple.

 

[WiiDSmoker]

Do you have evidence of that? To claim such you'd need to know what Apple's margins are only on iPhones before and after removing the charger. You'd also need to distinguish what comes from the charger and what comes from modified packaging and other changes made concurrently. You'd also have to factor in changes in worldwide tariffs, supply chain costs and issues, and more. Then factor in inflation. It's also possible Apple would have raised iPhone base prices if it included a charger and by not including a charger, Apple kept prices the same, which is an effective reduction.

None of what I wrote means your statement is necessarily inaccurate. All I'm pointing out is that your claim needs evidence to support it. Unfortunately that evidence is not possible to obtain without being a high-level Apple "insider", or at least have access to internal financial documents. Without evidence you are making an unsubstantiated claim (just like it's unsubstantiated to say removing the charger lowered the cost of the iPhone [because Apple would have raised prices if including it]).

Again, statements written as factual (...did nothing to... OR ...did...) require evidence.

Where’s your evidence they didn’t pocket the cash? I can’t believe how many people here continuously blindly think of this company as their friend.

 

[blackcrayon]

Its an analogy. Better question would be how would you feel if Apple removes chargers from Laptops. The same argument applies, its just taken to the next logical step. People already have chargers right? Im pretty sure someone paying 2000 for the new MacBook Pro won't be happy to find out the charger is missing. If you want the new magi safe charger pay up, if not use the old usb c charger you have right?

It's almost as if phone sized chargers are 10 times more common than laptop chargers, and phones are replaced far more frequently. Naah, couldn't be that!

 

[bcortens]

Hmmm. By the judge's same reasoning, it would seem Apple might be sued for not providing a perpetual cell phone service program with the iPhone. It, also, is generally an "'essential part' of the smartphone experience." Will mains power be bundled? If I live in an area without a cell tower, will the cell tower be bundled? </s>

Depends, is the law written that generally or is it more specific? From what I could find online the law is quite vague and could be interpreted the way you suggest but maybe there is additional information I couldn't find.

 

[WiiDSmoker]

Because probably 90%+ of people already have a charger, and it’s absurd to include one in every single box just to assuage the tiny minority who don’t.

Cool then let people who don’t have one get one for free. That would be the best solution. Everyone wins including the environment.

 

[4jasontv]

Where’s your evidence they didn’t pocket the cash? I can’t believe how many people here continuously blindly think of this company as their friend.

Nooooooo. You can't have a different opinion. Only one person is allowed to ask for proof because they don't intend to accept it. They will tell you "show me a specific law" and if you do they will argue it doesn't apply.

 

[aParkerMusic]

Another failed analogy. In this example, the gas pump and hose is analogous with the electrical outlet. Once again, last time I checked Apple does not install electrical outlets in your house.

Car analogies never work, give up.

Well if you want to get more specific, which apparently you do in your attempt to save face, I guess the charger in this example would be the hose. So, not the power source (electricity), not the plug point (the pump station?), but the means of transmission. The larger point is: you thought you were slick, but you were even sloppier then the person you rudely responded to. And yet you’ll probably be the one that runs and cries to the moderators.

 

[d686546s]

You don't know that.

Do you know whether Apple would have increased the price of the iPhone if they were still including the charger? No, you don't.

Neither do you know that the price would increase if they were forced to add chargers, so technically you're rendering your own argument moot.

What we do know is that the iPhone SE 2020 started out with a charger, which was removed when the iPhone 12 launched without a reduction in price.

Of course we can consider all sorts of what ifs but I think it's more likely than not that Apple primarily increased its profit margin.

 

[Bandaman]

Where’s your evidence they didn’t pocket the cash? I can’t believe how many people here continuously blindly think of this company as their friend.

When Apple started doing this, everyone was up in arms. Now that they've gotten used it, they're defending it. It's a really bizarre phenomenon.

Neither do you know that the price would increase if they were forced to add chargers, so technically you're rendering your own argument moot.

What we do know is that the iPhone SE 2020 started out with a charger, which was removed when the iPhone 12 launched without a reduction in price.

Of course we can consider all sorts of what ifs but I think it's more likely than not that Apple primarily increased its profit margin.

And the new SE just had a price increase.

 

[robco74]

So what if Apple doesn't like right to repair? Should they just start pulling out of jurisdictions that mandate it? That is what they are doing here, they don't like particular consumer protection laws, and instead of trying to convince people to change the law (lobbying public and politicians) you advocated that they simply stop operating in those jurisdictions.

It depends on how the laws are written. I'm saying they should have tried to get the law changed first before selling devices without a charger. I will concede that point.

As for whether or not to continue to sell devices in Brazil, that is a business decision for them to make based on available data. Depending on how different the regulations of a given market are, and based on sales volume, it may or may not be feasible to make the necessary changes to continue operating in that market. Neither of us have that information. They could bundle a charger and raise the purchase price in Brazil to compensate, if that would satisfy the law. But if Apple were required to change the packaging so that the charger is included in the same box, that may not be worthwhile to do.