Class Action Lawsuit Against Apple for Offering Refurbished Replacement Devices Under AppleCare Moves Forward

[Jason2000]

Hmm, so refurb is only listed once? So how many times is it required to be listed for it to be legit? Twice? Three times? Also if one has a phone and after some period of time its broken and is in need for an AppleCare replacement, that device is no longer new either so an equivalent to new would be a direct replacement for that device not a brand new one. People are off their rockers any more with everything. SMH

Exactly. People expecting Apple to give them a brand new device when the broken device could be 18 months old and look like complete trash. I am so sick of people and these frivolous law suits. I wish Apple would start counter suing some of these people. Scum trash lawyers.

 

[T-R-S]

the whiners keep whining about nothing ... There is nothing inferior about a refurbished product - FWIW chances are if you need a a replacement within the first 4 or moths of of a product launch you are more than likely going to get a new product because it's going to take months for refurbished to work their way through the supply chain. Good luck to lawyer trying to PROVE that a refurbished product does not meet the standards of new product.

 

[mi7chy]

Exactly. People expecting Apple to give them a brand new device when the broken device could be 18 months old and look like complete trash. I am so sick of people and these frivolous law suits. I wish Apple would start counter suing some of these people. Scum trash lawyers.

You're cherry picking worst case scenario. How about for customers where the product fails shortly after the 14-day return period in practically new condition in armored case and they're stuck with refurb replacement that could've been previously fished out of a crapper or pee tub? Apple needs to stop playing on words and call it for what it is, 'refurb' or 'new' but not the BS 'equivalent to new'. They can also offer a premium Applecare++ that provides 'new' from the factory replacements for extended coverage but if the product is a lemon within factory warranty it should be replaced with 'new' considering the customer has already paid premium pricing.

 

[1984 Mac Guru]

apple refurb might as well be brand new, same warranty period, only difference is the resale value since the refurb comes in a different box.

If you cared about this you would already have the original box from the unit that was replaced.

 

[roland.g]

Hey Vicky and Ms. McWrong, I think this falls completely under frivolous. I have an idea. Go buy Pixel or Android and be gone!!

 

[jarman92]

I believe the section of this lawsuit where the plaintiffs define "New" and "Refurbished" is what's going to eat them alive. Apple's wording of "equivalent to new replacements" is what will save them in this lawsuit. Apple's definition of "equivalent to new replacements" means Apple can take a refurbished product, change out all the parts that need replacing with "new parts" and use that product under their definition. This lawsuit is frivolous. The only way I can see this lawsuit carrying any weight is if the products they received as replacements exploded while they were taking selfies next to their Avocado Toast or if Apple refused to fix their replacement product if it was having problems.

Or if the plaintiffs can prove that Apple's replacement devices are significantly less reliable/more likely to fail than "new" devices.
[doublepost=1568778626][/doublepost]

I agree with this. If you're paying an extra, you should get a new phone, not a used one. How much is the phone + AppleCare? $1500 just to get a used device is a rip off in my opinion.

It's not "used." The screen is new. The enclosure is new. The battery is new. The only bits that aren't new are the electronics, which theoretically don't wear out and can't really be considered "used."

It really becomes philosophical...what percentage of a phone has to be replaced for it to be considered a new/different phone?

 

[RumorConsumer]

They are free to sell the refurbs as refurbs.

To take your "disgust" further, note that some companies like IBM used to sell new products with potentially refurbished parts. You should advocate that new products should be banned by the government and laws prohibiting this repealed: everything is a refurb.

Wack argument and you know it. Not wasting my breath on more.
[doublepost=1568779325][/doublepost]

But, I think the more thorough testing means you're more likely to get a failure that 'fell through the cracks' on the new ones, whereas it would probably be caught on the refurb.

Precisely and perfectly stated.

 

[jarman92]

You're cherry picking worst case scenario. How about for customers where the product fails shortly after the 14-day return period in practically new condition in armored case and they're stuck with refurb replacement that could've been previously fished out of a crapper or pee tub? Apple needs to stop playing on words and call it for what it is, 'refurb' or 'new' but not the BS 'equivalent to new'. They can also offer a premium Applecare++ that provides 'new' from the factory replacements for extended coverage but if the product is a lemon within factory warranty it should be replaced with 'new' considering the customer has already paid premium pricing.

This is some next-level germaphobia...the entire outside of the device is completely new. Modern iPhones are water-resistant so no water egress from the "crapper." And I can almost 100% guarantee the phone sitting in your pocket has far more bacteria than a phone that fell in the toilet.

Also, "crapper?" Are you 12?

 

[RumorConsumer]

Hopefully we win t
What is Apple thinking

Oh i don’t know maybe they’re thinking to do the sanest most cost effective thing they can think of that offers an acceptable customer experience and respects the environment as much as possible
[doublepost=1568779588][/doublepost]

This is some next-level germaphobia...the entire outside of the device is completely new. Modern iPhones are water-resistant so no water egress from the "crapper." And I can almost 100% guarantee the phone sitting in your pocket has far more bacteria than a phone that fell in the toilet.

Also, "crapper?" Are you 12?

Plus the units that are beyond economical repair such as liquid damage can’t be reused and get reclaimed as recycled raw materials.

 

[frenchcamp49er]

Come on now, who didn't think this. Been buying Refurb Apple products for years, good as new. Can some one tell me how a refurb is inferior?

 

[ilikewhey]

If you cared about this you would already have the original box from the unit that was replaced.

doesn't match the serial

 

[bushman4]

At the price of AppleCare+ Apple should be replacing the iPhones with new units. Repairing broken units has to be costly and no customer should get a used iPhone that had a problem and has been brought back to life,

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

If refurbs are as good as new models why don't they just sell refurbs off the shelf as a new product? It would tick more arbitrary boxes for them in keynotes too.

 

[Ken Linger]

How this works (if the class action succeeds):

Users: get a $25-50 voucher to be used towards their NEXT iPhone purchase. If you had two or more phones covered by this class action, those vouchers can NOT be combined.

Lawyers: they don't get paid in vouchers. They get cold, hard cash. Plus the benefit of saying "we went up against Apple... and won!"

Heck, in the words of Lionel Hutz, "Even if I lose, I'll be famous!"

 

[Heineken]

apple refurb might as well be brand new, same warranty period, only difference is the resale value since the refurb comes in a different box.

i mean i get where the plaintiff is coming from, but in the spirit of replacement, the refurb functions just as good as brand new.

edit. i don't think i can agree with the plaintiffs here, as much as i have criticism for apple, like cheaping out on storage for 1k phone, this isn't one of them. from a environmental perspective reusing components saves hundreds and thousands from going into the landfill.

[doublepost=1568766384][/doublepost]
i have received refurb iphone replacements, and macs too, i think only under certain condition where the refurb is showing issues would apple give you a new replacement.

I received a replacement and it has top part of the back glass bulging out so much that I can feel it with my nail.

 

[gavroche]

I agree with this. If you're paying an extra, you should get a new phone, not a used one. How much is the phone + AppleCare? $1500 just to get a used device is a rip off in my opinion.

What does overall price of device and warranty have to do with it? By that logic, if I spend $100,000 on a new car, and the alternator goes out... the dealer should be forced to give me an entirely new car... right?
[doublepost=1568782238][/doublepost]Religions differ on the concept of heaven and hell, but do they not all agree that there is a special hell for lawyers?

 

[Gasu E.]

Not all the time. Ive received replacements with scratched screens, former iCloud still logged in bc they never wiped the old phone.

That's not Apple policy, and that wouldn't meet the terms of your warranty agreement. So, you should have complained. Clearly such a phone never went through the QC process for refurbs, and should not have been offered to you as a warranty replacement.

 

[konqerror]

Wack argument and you know it. Not wasting my breath on more.

 

[Gasu E.]

How about for customers where the product fails shortly after the 14-day return period in practically new condition in armored case and they're stuck with refurb replacement that could've been previously fished out of a crapper or pee tub? .

I actually laughed out loud. Just one question: is there indoor plumbing where you live?

 

[apolloa]

I believe the section of this lawsuit where the plaintiffs define "New" and "Refurbished" is what's going to eat them alive. Apple's wording of "equivalent to new replacements" is what will save them in this lawsuit. Apple's definition of "equivalent to new replacements" means Apple can take a refurbished product, change out all the parts that need replacing with "new parts" and use that product under their definition. This lawsuit is frivolous. The only way I can see this lawsuit carrying any weight is if the products they received as replacements exploded while they were taking selfies next to their Avocado Toast or if Apple refused to fix their replacement product if it was having problems.

I’d have to agree with you here, the wordings very clever but it doesn’t state ‘brand new’, and that’s the key thing. But the case seems to have got pretty far so far so who knows?

 

[Mutepointer]

I thought Apple always gave an Apple Replacement unit under AppleCare, not a refurbished one. You can confirm whether it’s refurbished or an Apple Replacement by looking at the model number. Apple Replacements are brand new.

When you ask the "geniuses", they ellaborate; the replacements are reused parts from other devices; meaning not new.
It's high time for apple to be clear to the public before taking up the replacement offer.

 

[mi7chy]

I actually laughed out loud. Just one question: is there indoor plumbing where you live?

Ever been to bars? Some of the older established ones have pee tubs.

 

[kingax1]

They certainly have the option to repair it. If it’s not something they can do in-house they can send it out to a repair center. I’ve had this done. Also, if you really did receive a replacement that had noticeable wear, tell them about it so they can replace it again. That isn’t normal or expected. You’d have a tough case if you left the store with it, however. They want to help you, and may even believe you, but it’s a rather unbelievable when they’ve replaced hundreds of phone a week for years and years and never seen a single one with cosmetic damage out of the box. Unless we’re talking slate gray iPhone 5 in which case just about all of them (including literally new) have scratches out of the box.

I called, they sent me a box to ship it really fast and then I got a different one. I thought they were going to fix it, no way was I informed they were going to "replace it" so I was surprised. They didnt tell me they gave me a replacement, they just claim on the invoice the repairs...even though all I had was a camera issue they claim they "repaired" 7-8 different things but they didnt repair anything, it was absolutely a different phone with different serial #.

Im ok, the phone and service are great just wish I had a option or was better informed as to how they will handle the phone. All I had was a tiny spot in my photos, so all it needed was a camera module.

 

[UK-MacAddict]

I thought Apple always gave an Apple Replacement unit under AppleCare, not a refurbished one. You can confirm whether it’s refurbished or an Apple Replacement by looking at the model number. Apple Replacements are brand new.

They’re not brand new. They have had the battery and outer shell replaced. So in essence it is new but not new new.

If it was new I’d expect them to take back the whole retail box with accessories and give me a new unopened factory sealed unit like you would get from an a Apple store.

But I can’t fault Apples service when something does go wrong. Just recently I had my mums iPhone 6 battery replaced but when they had the phone in they noticed the screen had issues and replaced it free of charge.

Also on two occasions I have received brand new iMacs. They even gave me the updated model to replace my older model.

 

[H2SO4]

Product and component failures follow what's called a "bathtub curve." Over a large population of devices there are statistically the most failures at the beginning and at the end of life period - think a graph shaped like a bathtub. In between these periods of high failure rates, failures are at their lowest frequency and are mostly random.

Refurb units should be a bit further past their early bathtub curve failures, so one could make the argument that a refurbished product is actually more reliable than a new product.

.........but will then fail sooner?

No. Apple, (and any other company), need to go out of their way to make it obvious. When you get your device replaced in the Apple Store, (or by mail in), the 'Genius' should tell you that he is replacing the device it and exactly what he is replacing it with.
They go out of their way to tell you the customer is the most important but post an overly lengthy and complex EULA and warranty policy that protects them.