Initially filed in 2016, a class action lawsuit that accuses Apple of violating the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and other U.S. laws by providing customers with refurbished replacement devices is set to proceed to trial August 16, according to a notice this week from law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
And when class members try to use the gift cards, they will find out the lawyers sold the ID numbers, someone already used the numbers, and the gift cards are longer any good.
Agreed, and notice how Apple has lately been developing more methods to just repair certain parts of iPhones vs. replacing them via their express swap method. In the past if you had a cracked screen, but also had some other cosmetic blemishes elsewhere you would get a whole replacement phone that was perfect and like new... now you will just get a screen replaced.
It’s people like you who are killing this planet. If a company can do a refurbishment job and make the product as good as new take it and be happy.
As a repair tech, if someone brought me their computer with a dead/failing hard drive, I'd price a new one, have them pay me to buy it, install it, and then send them on their way. Installing refurb./remanuf. (which is second-rate stuff, in my opinion) stuff just seems wrong, in my book. Corporate greed knows no bounds. What they can get away with, they will. But, if you're going to play in THEIR pool, you have to play by THEIR rules.
And again Apple is quite clear about this in is warranty. Why is this case still going on?! The judge should have read the warranty, pointed out the "refurbished" part, and thrown the case out. This is so non issue that even fi they do get verdict odds are it will be thrown out on appeal.
What worship? We read the terms of the warranty ie "may use parts or products that are new or refurbished and equivalent to new in performance and reliability." and from that this case should not be happening.
Because Apple spells out in their warranty exactly what they are doing and besides the practice of using refurbished part to repair stuff is endemic to many things from car to PC repair.
Why hate Apple for taking the steps to make their product better?
This is not devil's contract where the wording is twisted but a clear declaration in the warranty what will be done.
“for whatever reason” - What a ridiculous thing to say! Threw my iPhone at the wall, ran my iPad over with the car, dropped my iPhone in the toilet, my child jumped on my iPad, ...
Then, one would question is that term fair for both parties, and if Apple has properly honoured the Term they have laid out. For example, how to define “equivalent to new”? And how “Exactly what they are doing” is.
Yeah of course “whatever reason” does not include user damage or deliberate device destruction. But I guess assuming that based on that wording alone is kind of a stretch.
Well first and foremost, just because Apple writes it, doesn’t mean it’s right or fair (that is what the challenge is). Is it it right that only one part of the agreement (between Apple and the customer) is established by Apple; only they decide what is equivalent to new.
Ok, but in this situation people are paying extra, and a lot extra for the apple care. This isnt someone coming in months after buying a device and that device still under warranty and wanting new. That I get. This is people who paid above and beyond are were told "you will get a new device is this breaks" So that's it, done, end of story. you dont hand them a device that broke and you "refurbished" and are now calling it the same as new. No way.
Apple Care does two things, it extends the support and warranty and it covers actual customer caused damage for a deductible.
That has been the case for years in the industry. Those little cards that said you couldn't make more then one copy of software except for archival purposes is just one example. AFAIK that required blind acceptance of of these one-sided contracts was never successfully challenged on the point you were effectively forced to agree to them because odds were the store you bought them from didn't except returns despite what the shrinkwrap license may have said. (I personally ran into this several times so don't say it didn't happen)
So you are basically saying if you bought a 2019 (Intel) Macmini and two years later it needed the motherboard replaced you would be entitled to an M1 motherboard because the MacMini Intel motherboards wouldn't be "new" (Remember you can get AppleCare for three years). How does that make a lick of sense?!?
No one in any industry does this.
