Class Action Lawsuit Over Apple Providing Refurbished Replacement Devices Proceeding to Trial in August

[ani4ani]

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.

No I didn't say that; I said, if they want to make a repair to my equipment, because [at their choice not the consumer's] they don't want to give me an equivelant replacement, then I would expect the components to be new, not the latest version or a "better" or a later version; new of the same. Remember this is an issue that is occuring in the warranty period, so new components have to be available. As for Apple care, if there was another example of extortion, it's that. 1/5 of the purchase cost of an Apple product to insure you against a product failure for another 2 years or to reduce the excess if you accidently damage it; basically they are costing this on the basis of 1 in 5 Apple products are going to have an issue. These are supposed to be the highest quality, best engineered, best manufactured products basically available and they can't even offer a warranty beyond 12 months? [except in regions where the law legislates that they do]

By the way, the EU is challenging / investigating the little Fait Accompli terms that have become prevelant, e.g. until I start to use something, I don't see the terms of use, and to continue to use, I have to accept the terms, and if I don't want to accept the terms, I cannot return it becomes the terms reject returns for an item that has been used. Or to see the terms you have to open the box and by the very act of opening the box you have accepted the terms.

 

[ani4ani]

Most warranties and insurances cover for repairs or like for like replacement.
If you have used your device for, say, 6 months, why would you expect a new replacement?

Good luck doing that with your car, bicycle, washing machine, etc...

For the record, at least in Europe, most insurances are new for old, even for cars that are < 12 months old.

 

[Maximara]

No I didn't say that; I said, if they want to make a repair to my equipment, because [at their choice not the consumer's] they don't want to give me an equivelant replacement, then I would expect the components to be new, not the latest version or a "better" or a later version; new of the same. Remember this is an issue that is occuring in the warranty period, so new components have to be available.

Again AFAIK no one in any industry does this. At least Apple is being honest and upfront about is using refurbished parts unlike other industries that hide this from the consumer. Also those replacement won't be new as they were how many years old when Apple ordered them so you are basely where your monitor example was.

As for Apple care, if there was another example of extortion, it's that. 1/5 of the purchase cost of an Apple product to insure you against a product failure for another 2 years or to reduce the excess if you accidently damage it; basically they are costing this on the basis of 1 in 5 Apple products are going to have an issue. These are supposed to be the highest quality, best engineered, best manufactured products basically available and they can't even offer a warranty beyond 12 months?

No AppleCare is no different from the extended warranties Sears, Best Buy, and nearly everybody else tries to sale you.

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

If I buy a new device and it stops working for whatever reason, I expect a new device in return under warranty.

As soon as you turn it on, it’s no longer new.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

As soon as you turn it on, it’s no longer new.

And as soon as it's announced for sale it's outdated, but that doesn't escape the reality that forcing customers to accept refurbished replacements of uncertain origin just sucks. Not all companies have the same high refurbishment standards as Apple.

 

[Neepman]

Should this suit prevail, I'm sure the typical class-action result will follow. The lawyers will get a kajillion dollars, and the class members will get $10 iTunes gift cards.

Which is I why i always opt out of the absurdities. The only beneficiaries are the Trial Lawyers and Gulfstream.

 

[macsareveryinteresting]

See that’s what gets you worried. Apple sometimes gets into lawsuits.

 

[Maximara]

Just watched Parler v. Amazon Dies. Is Reborn! and suggest to watch the part on contract law which IMHO seems to cover warranties. Contract Law - Chapter 22 - Warranties provides a more general in-depth summation.

 

[redpandadev]

I think as soon as Apple provides data on the reliability of refurbished products vs. new products, we'll have the answer. I'd put money on it that the data will show statistically identical or even better results vs. new.

 

[neuropsychguy]

So you would be ok getting a remanufactured device when you pay for a new one.

Yes, absolutely if it’s a warranty replacement. I’m not okay with buying a new device and having a company give me a used one. That’s not the issue this lawsuit is over though.

Apple sells new devices. They also sell refurbished (which is what I normally buy when buying Apple computers). Apple also replaces devices under a warranty repair with either new or refurbished. I’m absolutely supportive of getting a refurbished device for warranty work. I “traded in” a used device and don’t expect to get something new back.

 

[redpandadev]

So you would be ok getting a remanufactured device when you pay for a new one.

when you get a repair done or a full replacement is done, you are not paying for a new one.

 

[redpandadev]

Most repairs could be done in an Apple store while you wait, if Apple wouldn't make them so repair unfriendly.

On iOS devices, repairs ARE done in the store while you wait. Mac repairs often get done at a repair center - not because of difficulty of repair but because of availability of parts and labor. The primary reason Mac repairs can't be done while you wait is the shear number of parts that would need to be stocked in-store simply doesn't work out favorably. The store could order any necessary parts (3-5 days), or they could mail it to a place that has all the parts and get it repaired and back to you in 3-5 days. Hmm...

 

[H2SO4]

Because selling refurbished as new is illegal.

If you walked into a shop and saw two devices side by side and one was labelled as new and the other refurbished.
I doubt you or many others would be happy paying the same price for each despite any, “as good as new”, claims from the seller.
That’s the point.

 

[deevey]

If you walked into a shop and saw two devices side by side and one was labelled as new and the other refurbished.
I doubt you or many others would be happy paying the same price for each despite any, “as good as new”, claims from the seller.
That’s the point.

But it's really not as thats not what the lawsuit is about. Apple have never sold a refurb in-store as brand new. Refurbished machines are sold as just that.

Apple is stipulating that their factory refurbished machines / components are just as reliable as brand new. On that I'd have to agree that there would be the same (probably less) failure rate of refurb machines vs factory fresh.

The lawsuit suggests otherwise, however I think those lawyers will have a really hard time proving that fact.

 

[jarman92]

I don't want a device that was owned by the kind of person who opens public toilet door handles with their bare hands.

Frankly, these kind of people shouldn't be allowed to exist.

But at the very least, I should never have to own anything that they've touched.

This must be a joke, right? Do you honestly think Apple just wipes down a phone and hands it off as refurbished? I find it hard to believe anyone could actually believe something so absurd.

Refurbished/remanufactured iPhones are given a brand-new battery, a brand-new screen, and a brand-new outer case. Literally every bit of the phone is new except for the boards.

This lawsuit is ridiculous, and the environmental impact of them winning would be enormous. There is ZERO reason to give brand-new warranty replacements.

 

[jarman92]

If you walked into a shop and saw two devices side by side and one was labelled as new and the other refurbished.
I doubt you or many others would be happy paying the same price for each despite any, “as good as new”, claims from the seller.
That’s the point.

Except that’s a straw man. Nobody is paying the ”new” price for a refurbished device. People who make warranty claims have paid for and received a new device. When they give their broken device to Apple in exchange for a replacement, their device is no longer new; it’s been used for weeks/months/years. Why would anyone expect to be given a brand-new device in exchange for a used device?

 

[H2SO4]

Except that’s a straw man. Nobody is paying the ”new” price for a refurbished device. People who make warranty claims have paid for and received a new device. When they give their broken device to Apple in exchange for a replacement, their device is no longer new; it’s been used for weeks/months/years. Why would anyone expect to be given a brand-new device in exchange for a used device?

We both know that's not what's expected.

 

[H2SO4]

But it's really not as thats not what the lawsuit is about. Apple have never sold a refurb in-store as brand new. Refurbished machines are sold as just that.

Apple is stipulating that their factory refurbished machines / components are just as reliable as brand new. On that I'd have to agree that there would be the same (probably less) failure rate of refurb machines vs factory fresh.

The lawsuit suggests otherwise, however I think those lawyers will have a really hard time proving that fact.

My point is that despite their postulations a refurb is not viewed as equivalent by the general public as a new device would be.
You know that. I know that. Apple knows that The general public knows that.

 

[jarman92]

We both know that's not what's expected.

Then what’s expected?

 

[Maximara]

My point is that despite their postulations a refurb is not viewed as equivalent by the general public as a new device would be.
You know that. I know that. Apple knows that The general public knows that.

The law doesn't care about what the public believes but what can be proven. Going back to the original 2016 post about this suit we have this:

"Filed by Vicky Maldonado and Joanne McRight, the lawsuit, first shared by Cult of Mac, accuses Apple of failing to provide replacement devices that are "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" as stated in the company's terms and conditions.

Both plaintiffs purchased replacement devices under AppleCare protection plans and were given refurbished devices rather than new devices, which they claim is a violation of the aforementioned line in the AppleCare Terms and Conditions."

Here is the off the wall insane position of the ones bringing this nonsense of a lawsuit:
'"New" means a Device that has never been utilized or previously sold and consists of all new parts. The word "refurbished" appears only once in the AppleCare+ terms and conditions even though the printed booklet is 33 pages long.'

As one of the commenters states "The terms mean "good as new" not "new." Stupid, frivolous lawsuit by wasteful idiots who want to pretend like there's a functional difference. Also, they want Apple to issue a refund NOT for devices that are defective, but also that consumers break?! Ridiculous." Sums up my view as well.

 

[H2SO4]

Then what’s expected?

When you take your knackered device in for replacement usually what do you reckon?
Come on let's be frank.

 

[H2SO4]

The law doesn't care about what the public believes but what can be proven. Going back to the original post about this suit we have this:

"Filed by Vicky Maldonado and Joanne McRight, the lawsuit, first shared by Cult of Mac, accuses Apple of failing to provide replacement devices that are "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" as stated in the company's terms and conditions.

Both plaintiffs purchased replacement devices under AppleCare protection plans and were given refurbished devices rather than new devices, which they claim is a violation of the aforementioned line in the AppleCare Terms and Conditions."

Here is the off the wall insane position of the ones bringing this nonsense of a lawsuit:
'"New" means a Device that has never been utilized or previously sold and consists of all new parts. The word "refurbished" appears only once in the AppleCare+ terms and conditions even though the printed booklet is 33 pages long.'

As one of the commenters states "The terms mean "good as new" not "new." Stupid, frivolous lawsuit by wasteful idiots who want to pretend like there's a functional difference. Also, they want Apple to issue a refund NOT for devices that are defective, but also that consumers break?! Ridiculous." Sums up my view as well.

That's fine. The letter of the law is certainly usually definitive but be honest. You take in old and broken due to their negligence, you expect knew.

 

[Maximara]

That's fine. The letter of the law is certainly usually definitive but be honest. You take in old and broken due to their negligence, you expect knew.

No you can read the warranty before you even look at product and if you actually paid attention it clearly states:

"If a defect arises during the Warranty Period, Apple, at its option and to the extent permitted by law will (1) repair the product at no charge using new parts or parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability, (2) exchange the product with a functionally equivalent product that is new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability, or (3) refund the original purchase price. This warranty excludes damage resulting from abuse, accident, modifications or other causes that are not defects in materials and workmanship."

This lawsuit is why you see car sun shields with that little disclaimer to not drive with this in the windshield. I wish I was kidding.

 

[H2SO4]

No you can read the warranty before you even look at product and if you actually paid attention it clearly states:

"If a defect arises during the Warranty Period, Apple, at its option and to the extent permitted by law will (1) repair the product at no charge using new parts or parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability, (2) exchange the product with a functionally equivalent product that is new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability, or (3) refund the original purchase price. This warranty excludes damage resulting from abuse, accident, modifications or other causes that are not defects in materials and workmanship."

This lawsuit is why you see car sun shields with that little disclaimer to not drive with this in the windshield. I wish I was kidding.

Know what I find funny about all of this.

I worked, (sub contract), in an Apple data centre development, we had a pretty bing operation going there. Anyhow, one of the pieces of hardware failed a test regime and we could have easily repaired and warranted it.
Apple insisted on a new one. Ironic isn't it?

 

[Maximara]

Know what I find funny about all of this.

I worked, (sub contract), in an Apple data centre development, we had a pretty bing operation going there. Anyhow, one of the pieces of hardware failed a test regime and we could have easily repaired and warranted it.
Apple insisted on a new one. Ironic isn't it?

Apple or somebody between you and them? I have seen people get away with nonsense by saying the parent company required this and in reality it was some intermediate making the demand not the parent company.