Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
They can easily make an inexpensive combo package that includes the overpriced power adapter for free (sort of like how they include a wrist band with the Apple Watch). They just don't want to.

Apple rather keep the price the same and let customers who want a charger easily add one at checkout rather than raise prices (which they would very likely do to cover the added cost) and unnecessarily and wastefully include items many don't want/need.
 
You don’t understand my statement.
The law is weird on its own & I was not even mentioning anything about the law.

I’m just saying if the Brazillizns could afford a costly iphone without charger, they could also afford a charger if they have not yet had one (even though it is weird to not already possessing one)

There are far better & cheaper chargers out there namely, baseus, ugreen, anker, aukey

I don’t know what is hard about that
It's not about whether you can afford or not.

It's all about if not selling with a charger is an abusive practice or not.

If it is, and the LOCAL law has been violated, Apple will either have to comply or not sell anything.

I can also afford buying a remote control for my air conditioner, or a power cord for my TV, but when I buy both, if they don't come inside the box, then we have a problem. You can't sell any product "unsuitable for the intended use" in here.

These shenanigans are not going to fly.

You have done nothing to convince me by saying 'this is different'. All you have convinced me in, is that Apple have been singled out and there is zero consistency in the ruling. Based on your analysis, I see no reason why Apple won’t win this appeal.
I hope Apple loses all possible appeals. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Also, the government has instructed that Samsung should be sued, too:


This article says back in January both Apple/Samsung were fined in one of brazilian states:

The problem is, with all their power $$$$$$$$ they will appeal this to the death.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: strongy
You don’t understand my statement.
The law is weird on its own & I was not even mentioning anything about the law.

I’m just saying if the Brazillizns could afford a costly iphone without charger, they could also afford a charger if they have not yet had one (even though it is weird to not already possessing one)

There are far better & cheaper chargers out there namely, baseus, ugreen, anker, aukey

I don’t know what is hard about that
Can anyone actually provide a source that states the law is the a mobile phone actually has to come with a charger in the box? The best references I can find is to "complete product" or "include critical component". Beyond that the ruling that the iPhone as currently packaged is "not a complete product."

Apple's appeal is that the phone is complete and that the charger block is an accessory. There is no need to use a first party charger. you can charge from PC, Mac, iPad, any block (OEM or 3rd-party; already owned or cam with another product), car, wall plates, etc.

Including a cord in the box is not really necessary anyway but is helpful in case someone needs this often replaced component. And it provide support for charge / data for all current Mac and most iPads as a source. You can also use the block that came with your Mac or iPad.

The fact there are no reports of any companies but Apple being targeted implies this is more of a cash grab than consumer protection or legal issue. There are several Android phones that do not come with a block and I would bet that there are other products the are "batteries not included."

edit:
Apparently Samsung has also been tagged with this so apparently not targeted specifically to Apple. But the rest of my post still holds.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy and strongy
It's not about whether you can afford or not.

It's all about if not selling with a charger is an abusive practice or not.

If it is, and the LOCAL law has been violated, Apple will either have to comply or not sell anything.

I can also afford buying a remote control for my air conditioner, or a power cord for my TV, but when I buy both, if they don't come inside the box, then we have a problem. You can't sell any product "unsuitable for the intended use" in here.

These shenanigans are not going to fly.

I hope Apple loses all possible appeals. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Also, the government has instructed that Samsung should be sued, too:


This article says back in January both Apple/Samsung were fined in one of brazilian states:

The problem is, with all their power $$$$$$$$ they will appeal this to the death.
So when batteries arent included I wanted to confirm that a product is being sold and is an abusive practice.
 
I can also afford buying a remote control for my air conditioner, or a power cord for my TV, but when I buy both, if they don't come inside the box, then we have a problem. You can't sell any product "unsuitable for the intended use" in here.
This comment is a bit of a straw man that is nothing like a phone. A TV (or desktop computer, or any other device that only works with mains power (e.g., no battery)) MUST come with a power cord. You still need to provide the power (wall outlet and electrical service). But that is beside the point.

There is no way that you can use the TV without a means to connect it to the wall outlet.

Apple is including the cord to the wall just like the TV. Apple just states that you have to provide the "wall outlet".

edit: typos
 
Last edited:
The fact there are no reports of any companies but Apple being targeted implies this is more of a cash grab than consumer protection or legal issue. There are several Android phones that do not come with a block and I would bet that there are other products the are "batteries not included."

But there are reports of other companies. According to articles below (and others), Samsung is also a target. It's not just Apple. I would assume any phone maker that sells products in Brazil would at least eventually be a target if they don't include chargers with their devices.



 
But there are reports of other companies. According to articles below (and others), Samsung is also a target. It's not just Apple. I would assume any phone maker that sells products in Brazil would at least eventually be a target if they don't include chargers with their devices.



I did not see those until after I posted my comment. I should edit my post.

The rest of my comment still holds.
 
Why is this a “problem”?

I think some could view it as a wealth/privilege "problem." A wealthy company is more easily able to afford paying fines and/or is more easily able to afford a court/legal battle. Therefore, depending on the circumstances, a wealthy company can potentially get away with delaying or avoiding compliance with a law they may not happen to liike or agree with more easily than a less wealthy company.

Having said that, I am still largely on Apple's side in this particular situation. I don’t think Apple or any other company should be required to include a charger because A) many people already have one and B) they are easy and inexpensive to buy. Including something that many at this point don't need is a waste.
 
  • Love
Reactions: compwiz1202
I think some could view it as a wealth/privilege "problem." A wealthy company is more easily able to afford paying fines and/or is more easily able to afford a court/legal battle. Therefore, depending on the circumstances, a wealthy company can potentially get away with delaying or avoiding compliance with a law they may not happen to liike or agree with more easily than a less wealthy company.
Who else other than large multinational tech companies have the ability to deliver products at scale? Seems like the Brazil not only wants to benefit from this tech but to control it as well. They want their cake and eat it too. Forget the environment; free chargers for all.
Having said that, I am still largely on Apple's side in this particular situation. I don’t think Apple or any other company should be required to include a charger because A) many people already have one and B) they are easy and inexpensive to buy. Including something that many at this point don't need is a waste.
And c)Chargers are ubiquitous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
That’s ridiculous and absurd
Yes, that's the point. If you sell something that has to work in a larger system you have to draw a line somewhere about what is bundled. Otherwise it's ridiculous.

Personally I think almost everything should be available individually and retailers should just make it very clear to consumers how to know what parts they need. Then people can mix and match parts till they have a system they are happy with.
 
Who else other than large multinational tech companies have the ability to deliver products at scale? Seems like the Brazil not only wants to benefit from this tech but to control it as well. They want their cake and eat it too. Forget the environment; free chargers for all.

And c)Chargers are ubiquitous.
Any company that wants to bypass local laws isn't going to thrive anywhere.

FACT.

Look at what happens with Google in China, or what used to in Russia. They either comply or are shut down.

It doesn't matter if said laws are considered unfair by 99.9% of people that live in the country or foreigners...

Believe it or not, the brazilian Consumer Code is fair - on the other hand, the judicial system is a complete joke.

I think some could view it as a wealth/privilege "problem." A wealthy company is more easily able to afford paying fines and/or is more easily able to afford a court/legal battle. Therefore, depending on the circumstances, a wealthy company can potentially get away with delaying or avoiding compliance with a law they may not happen to liike or agree with more easily than a less wealthy company.

Having said that, I am still largely on Apple's side in this particular situation. I don’t think Apple or any other company should be required to include a charger because A) many people already have one and B) they are easy and inexpensive to buy. Including something that many at this point don't need is a waste.
That's not a valid argument, because it assumes you are a past user of said product, and owns a previous charger that is compatible with that iPhone. Neither are the case for most purchases.

What if this is your first Apple device? Or if the previous charger is not suitable for the intended smartphone?

That would mean you are at a disadvantage compared to other buyers.

This is also illegal as much as charging more for the same product if you are from a certain skin color... In both cases you are breaking the law. I can quote you which one is it, and it's not in the Consumer Code: you can find here.

The link says:

********************
It defines crimes against tax, economic and consumer relations, and provides other provisions.

Art. 7th - It constitutes a crime against "consumer relations":

I - to favor or prefer, without just cause, the buyer or customers, except for delivery systems for consumption through distributors or resellers;

Penalty - detention, from 2 (two) to 5 (five) years, or a fine.
********************

It doesn't matter if it costs 1 dollar, you can't sell any product without an essential part of it (note the word ESSENTIAL) for it to continue working.

Someone said the customer can provide the wall outlet and the energy for the charger to be plugged in. But what Apple is doing is simply removing the charger and still forcing us to buy it, with fake arguments about saving the planet, while we are still forced to get what we need from them, anyway.

If they asked for more $$$$$ and included that charger, there would be no lawsuit. Recent reports from Brazil said some stores were fined for the same reason: not selling the PHONES with it. It's not just Apple.


One of the things Apple loves to say is that you should never buy any other charger if it's not one of the * official * ones they sell. We even had Amazon being sued for selling lots of APPLE counterfeits! It has been said over and over these "alternate" chargers may reduce the product's lifespan or be dangerous.

Anyway, if the product (the iPhone) was intended to be used continuously, and the package lacks a crucial part of it, which enables that we continue enjoying the next day, as amazing as this may appear to you, it's illegal in Brazil.

It's considered the same as buying something defective. That "Consumer Code" kinda assumes Apple or any other are scamming you. That's my point.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
Reactions: strongy and I7guy
Any company that wants to bypass local laws isn't going to thrive anywhere.

FACT.

Look at what happens with Google in China, or what used to in Russia. They either comply or are shut down.

It doesn't matter if said laws are considered unfair by 99.9% of people that live in the country or foreigners...

Believe it or not, the brazilian Consumer Code is fair - on the other hand, the judicial system is a complete joke.


That's not a valid argument, because it assumes you are a past user of said product, and owns a previous charger that is compatible with that iPhone. Neither are the case for most purchases.

What if this is your first Apple device? Or if the previous charger is not suitable for the intended smartphone?

That would mean you are at a disadvantage compared to other buyers.

This is also illegal as much as charging more for the same product if you are from a certain skin color... In both cases you are breaking the law. I can quote you which one is it, and it's not in the Consumer Code: you can find here.

The link says:

********************
It defines crimes against tax, economic and consumer relations, and provides other provisions.

Art. 7th - It constitutes a crime against "consumer relations":

I - to favor or prefer, without just cause, the buyer or customers, except for delivery systems for consumption through distributors or resellers;

Penalty - detention, from 2 (two) to 5 (five) years, or a fine.
********************

It doesn't matter if it costs 1 dollar, you can't sell any product without an essential part of it (note the word ESSENTIAL) for it to continue working.

Someone said the customer can provide the wall outlet and the energy for the charger to be plugged in. But what Apple is doing is simply removing the charger and still forcing us to buy it, with fake arguments about saving the planet, while we are still forced to get what we need from them, anyway.

If they asked for more $$$$$ and included that charger, there would be no lawsuit. Recent reports from Brazil said some stores were fined for the same reason: not selling the PHONES with it. It's not just Apple.


One of the things Apple loves to say is that you should never buy any other charger if it's not one of the * official * ones they sell. We even had Amazon being sued for selling lots of APPLE counterfeits! It has been said over and over these "alternate" chargers may reduce the product's lifespan or be dangerous.

Anyway, if the product (the iPhone) was intended to be used continuously, and the package lacks a crucial part of it, which enables that we continue enjoying the next day, as amazing as this may appear to you, it's illegal in Brazil.

It's considered the same as buying something defective. That "Consumer Code" kinda assumes Apple or any other are scamming you. That's my point.
Actually it’s not fake arguments since thats now the law in the EU 🤷‍♂️

A charger is NOT essential any usb port can be used in fact EU law now explicitly says they have to dissociate chargers with the sale of electronics meaning the removal of chargers from boxes so you will be seeing a lot more of that
 
That's not a valid argument, because it assumes you are a past user of said product, and owns a previous charger that is compatible with that iPhone. Neither are the case for most purchases.

What if this is your first Apple device? Or if the previous charger is not suitable for the intended smartphone?

That would mean you are at a disadvantage compared to other buyers.

What if someone has a case that doesn't work on their new iPhone, is Apple supposed to provide "free" cases too? Apple shouldn't be expected to provide chargers, cases, screen protectors, etc. for every customer just because some may need them. Let the customer decide what they want/need rather than wastefully and unnecessarily have Apple include some or all these items for everyone.
 
Someone said the customer can provide the wall outlet and the energy for the charger to be plugged in. But what Apple is doing is simply removing the charger and still forcing us to buy it, with fake arguments about saving the planet, while we are still forced to get what we need from them, anyway.

E-waste is a monumental problem. Apple's argument is not fake. However, it might be unrelated to their actual motivation.

No matter how this is ultimately address, the solution must not be to ship everyone a charger automatically.

That would mean you are at a disadvantage compared to other buyers.

So many people are disadvantaged compared to other buyers in various ways. Someone who has poor closeup vision doesn't expect reading glasses to be shipped with their iPhones, even though they would be essential.

If chargers, cables, and any other accessory had always been separately purchased items, then this whole topic would never have arisen. People expected chargers, so were disadvantaged when they failed to order one. That's a fair complaint. Change has to happen, but it has to be carefully rolled out.
 
Yeah it is. Because Apple would raise the price to include it. Plus Apple would have to supply a larger number of phones to enable consumer choice (both with and without charger). Then it would cost more for shipping and Apple would have to raise the price to compensate for that.

And that’s not even considering production of 2 different package sizes which would mean greater expense.

Or they could do what they’re doing and everybody wins.
Plue they can't predict demand with what they have now. Would be worse with more SKUs for with out without charger
 
Apple's chargers already use USB-C, and even the older chargers with USB-A should still work with a USB-C to A cable. It's going to be all those iPhone Clock Radios with built-in lightning connectors that form the next geological layer covering the old 30-pin iPod connector docks... Realistically, though, Lightning is already 10 years old - its lived longer than the original 30-pin - and with high-end iPhones being sold more on their photo and video capabilities, Apple will be needing a connector that can do Thunderbolt/USB4 and 4k@60 video or higher - and going to USB-C to match the Mac and iPad Pro would make more sense than developing "Lightning 2". As I said earlier, I think Apple are briar patching a bit over the EU directive...


The extra cost to Apple of putting a charger in the box is probably a few bucks - but something like an iPhone isn't priced by adding up the bill of materials and adding a fixed profit margin.

If you want to save money and help the planet here's a tip - keep using your old iPhone for an extra year or two. Keeping your phone for 3 years instead of 18 months will halve the amount of electrical waste...
I already got a Bluetooth iHome when they went to Lightning to replace my ancient Apple port one since it was taking so long to come out with a Lightning version. Still works after all this time.
 
Any company that wants to bypass local laws isn't going to thrive anywhere.

FACT.

Look at what happens with Google in China, or what used to in Russia. They either comply or are shut down.

It doesn't matter if said laws are considered unfair by 99.9% of people that live in the country or foreigners...

Believe it or not, the brazilian Consumer Code is fair - on the other hand, the judicial system is a complete joke.


That's not a valid argument, because it assumes you are a past user of said product, and owns a previous charger that is compatible with that iPhone. Neither are the case for most purchases.

What if this is your first Apple device? Or if the previous charger is not suitable for the intended smartphone?

That would mean you are at a disadvantage compared to other buyers.

This is also illegal as much as charging more for the same product if you are from a certain skin color... In both cases you are breaking the law. I can quote you which one is it, and it's not in the Consumer Code: you can find here.

The link says:

********************
It defines crimes against tax, economic and consumer relations, and provides other provisions.

Art. 7th - It constitutes a crime against "consumer relations":

I - to favor or prefer, without just cause, the buyer or customers, except for delivery systems for consumption through distributors or resellers;

Penalty - detention, from 2 (two) to 5 (five) years, or a fine.
********************

It doesn't matter if it costs 1 dollar, you can't sell any product without an essential part of it (note the word ESSENTIAL) for it to continue working.

Someone said the customer can provide the wall outlet and the energy for the charger to be plugged in. But what Apple is doing is simply removing the charger and still forcing us to buy it, with fake arguments about saving the planet, while we are still forced to get what we need from them, anyway.

If they asked for more $$$$$ and included that charger, there would be no lawsuit. Recent reports from Brazil said some stores were fined for the same reason: not selling the PHONES with it. It's not just Apple.


One of the things Apple loves to say is that you should never buy any other charger if it's not one of the * official * ones they sell. We even had Amazon being sued for selling lots of APPLE counterfeits! It has been said over and over these "alternate" chargers may reduce the product's lifespan or be dangerous.

Anyway, if the product (the iPhone) was intended to be used continuously, and the package lacks a crucial part of it, which enables that we continue enjoying the next day, as amazing as this may appear to you, it's illegal in Brazil.

It's considered the same as buying something defective. That "Consumer Code" kinda assumes Apple or any other are scamming you. That's my point.
It’s my opinion most smartphone buyers are not first time buyers. And if you are one of the few you buy a charger and/or cable. Usb bricks have been ubiquitous for many years. Apple does not have a monopoly on these devices.

They are within their rights to have a higher priced sku with more stuff in it.

To me the charger isn’t essential given it’s been a ubiquitous item for a while (and I suspect others’ opinions as well).

What Brazil is doing is contributing to more environmental waste and not watching out for consumers. Ymmv.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
They include a cable in the box which CHARGES the phone. They are also all QI, which can CHARGE.

It's the stupid wall wart. No one needs more wall warts.

I hope apple raises the prices and the Brazil people complain
Me too. Complain to Apple. They just refer you to the gpv't. This is like when people complain about the tax on cells in CA NV LA MA. Well talk to your governor.
 
thats not even anecdotal, its common sense that cables are more subject to wear and tear than chargers.
A>L for sure. But I've never had an issue with a C>L from whenever they started including them. And never had any charging brick stop working.
 
If they really cared about the environment they wouldn’t ship iPhones. They’d have them delivered to the Apple Store with minimum packaging and customers would have to pick them up. We can play the “if they really…” game all day long.
I pick them up anyway. I think this could be a good idea with an exception for if your address has no Apple Store without a reasonable range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
I think some could view it as a wealth/privilege "problem." A wealthy company is more easily able to afford paying fines and/or is more easily able to afford a court/legal battle. Therefore, depending on the circumstances, a wealthy company can potentially get away with delaying or avoiding compliance with a law they may not happen to liike or agree with more easily than a less wealthy company.

Having said that, I am still largely on Apple's side in this particular situation. I don’t think Apple or any other company should be required to include a charger because A) many people already have one and B) they are easy and inexpensive to buy. Including something that many at this point don't need is a waste.
Exactly the same with people when a law only has fines as a penalty. Then that just a pocket change cost for the rich
 
Actually it’s not fake arguments since thats now the law in the EU 🤷‍♂️

A charger is NOT essential any usb port can be used in fact EU law now explicitly says they have to dissociate chargers with the sale of electronics meaning the removal of chargers from boxes so you will be seeing a lot more of that
It may be the case in the EU, not in every country. At least not in Brazil.

Apple knows this, still, wants to continue selling... you can't expect the same laws to apply everywhere you go. That's why I mentioned Google and China, they had to comply with censorship there, which is not the same as in the U.S., where you can freely search stuff like the "1989 Tiananmen Square protests". Do you think Putin's Wikipedia article in Russia is not censored as well?

I can see why they decided against these sales, it's due to the confusion it creates for lacking such charger. If you still have to buy it anyway, they should have included, despite that meaning paying more.

Again: the local law that says they can't do this... is this one:

Article 18. Suppliers of durable or nondurable consumer goods will answer for any quality or quantity deffects that make these goods inadequate for their purpose or that diminish their value, as well as any deffects resulting from the product being different from what is expected, from what is indicated in the packaging, label, or advertisement, taking into account any variations that may be a result of the goods very nature. The consumer has the right to demand substitution of any defective parts.

§ 6. The following are deemed unfitting for use and consumption: I - any expired product; II - products that have deteriorated, been altered, changed, damaged, falsified, corrupted, products that include a type of fraud, that are harmful to life or health, dangerous, or even those that did not abide by manufacturing, distribution or presentation rules;

III – products that, for any reason, may be inadequate for the purposes for which it was intended.


Can we all agree you can't use an iPhone without a charger? A car without wheels, a TV without a power cord?

Yet they didn't rely on this art. 18. It was in this particular case:

Art. 39. Forbidden abusive practices by the products or service provider includes:

I - conditioning product or service delivery to the delivery of another product or service as well as specific quantitative limits without just cause;


The ruling said this was similar to paying for your ISP subscription and also getting Disney+ and paying it monthly even if you didn't ask for that streaming service in that bundle.

It is implied in the above example the ISP needs to separate the supplying of your broadband internet connection and a subscription of Disney+. They can combine the two, but if they * only * provide both at the same time, not allowing you to choose one or the other, it's illegal.

In Apple's case, the judges are saying this is a peculiar case of "conditioning", because they are not forcing you to buy the iPhone with the charger included, that's true, still, they are doing exactly that at the same time, since without said charger you can't continue using it.

Do you understand now why I said earlier the law is fair, the problem is always the people that call themselves judges?

Despite this ruling, I still think Apple should include the charger in the box if the customer wants. For the prices they charge, they should include all these for free, including a wired headphone adapter. Just charge more if needed, but no, they have to do as they please and think can get away with it.

Like in this case...


iPhones will get USB-C charging after Apple says it will have to comply with EU law​


Will they now? 🤣
 
  • Haha
Reactions: strongy
[…]
Despite this ruling, I still think Apple should include the charger in the box if the customer wants. For the prices they charge, they should include all these for free,
Going forward the charger won’t be for free. Apple will probably raise the price.
including a wired headphone adapter.
Those are gone, like the wind.
Just charge more if needed, but no, they have to do as they please and think can get away with it.
No, they follow the law, at least what they interpret as the law.
Like in this case...


iPhones will get USB-C charging after Apple says it will have to comply with EU law​


Will they now? 🤣
Yes they will. Just like SAR, they follow the guidelines on that as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.