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

[bsolar]

A new product cannot have that thorough a testing...because if it did it would not be new but be used! QED.

A refurbished product needs more rigorous testing because Apple cannot trust a returned device the same degree it can trust a brand-new device straight out of manufacturing which never left Apple's manufacturing chain.

A brand-new product never left Apple's control, direct or indirect, so it doesn't need such testing in the first place, unless the defect rate is so high that there is a significant probability of getting two defective products in a row, which basically means either an underlying design or manufacturing issue is at play.

 

[Hieveryone]

I'm all for the people, but I personally do not expect a brand new device if I need a replacement- just one that works well and looks "like new"

Again, I am for the people, but this just seems like people are expecting too much. This is just my simple opinion.

 

[deevey]

A refurbished product needs more rigorous testing because Apple cannot trust a returned device the same degree it can trust a brand-new device straight out of manufacturing which never left Apple's manufacturing chain.

A brand-new product never left Apple's control, direct or indirect, so it doesn't need such testing in the first place, unless the defect rate is so high that there is a significant probability of getting two defective products in a row, which basically means either an underlying design or manufacturing issue is at play.

Components fail - new or old.

The chances of a solid state electronic component failing that has not failed while in use the first time round is very low unless it's a moving part or other part which has a finite lifespan e.g. moving switch, rotating hard drive, and to SOME degree SSD's and Backlights (if they are extremely old to begin with).

If an Apple device e.g. iPhone is sent back to base with a faulty screen after a couple of months use, there is nothing to suggest that the logic board, screen or camera of that unit is any less reliable than a brand new unit.

If anything, more reliable as its been though months of testing already rather than just a quick diagnostic prior to shipping.

At the end of the day its going to be on the lawyers who are presenting this case against Apple to prove otherwise. And I think its going to be a hard battle.

 

[Maximara]

A refurbished product needs more rigorous testing because Apple cannot trust a returned device the same degree it can trust a brand-new device straight out of manufacturing which never left Apple's manufacturing chain.

A brand-new product never left Apple's control, direct or indirect, so it doesn't need such testing in the first place, unless the defect rate is so high that there is a significant probability of getting two defective products in a row, which basically means either an underlying design or manufacturing issue is at play.

This avoids the part that followed the sentence quoted:

No product is 100% free of defects which is that the warranty is designed to protect against. A new part is just as likely to fail as the part it is replacing. A refurbished part by comparison is tested making the odds that it is defective less.

In fact an incident with my father's car proves this. The alternator went out and was replaced with a new one and a month later that alternator went bad. It was replaced with a refurbished one (guaranteed via testing) which ran for well the 12 more years my father had the car.

Funny how that part was avoided like the plague.

This lawsuit is much like the whole Trump had the election stolen from him nonsense in that people don't understand how things work in the world and twist things into their own preconceived notions. The Conquistadors search for El Dorado - the idea that the native weren't using gold as a currency never entered their minds

 

[H2SO4]

You’ve made literally no argument for your position that refurbished isn’t equivalent to new; you just posit it as if it’s a fact. Refurbished Apple devices have a brand-new battery, a brand-new screen, and a brand-new outer case. Literally every user-facing piece is new. Apple also tests every single refurb to make sure it works, unlike new ones.

You may think I'm splitting hairs. But if that computer has not had EVERY SINGLE PART replaced it is not equivalent to new. That's a fact.
Can you please provide a citation for the test regime for both new and refurb devices so that I ca compare?

 

[Steve Adams]

I am on the flip side of this total joke of a lawsuit. My son had an iphone 6s, he was at a party in University and someone sat on his phone bending it and shattering the screen. He never had apple care. We called Apple and they said give us a second, came back and said we are sending a box, put the phone in the box, send it to us and we will send a replacement free of charge to you. When they received the phone, I got a call from the person I was dealing with at apple. He said, we mistakenly thought you had apple care on your phone, the repair would cost 169 dollars, but since it was our mistake, we will do it for free. We were very thankful. Apple C/S is very very good IMO. We received a refurb phone because the scratches in the back of my son's phone were now gone.

 

[Steve Adams]

You may think I'm splitting hairs. But if that computer has not had EVERY SINGLE PART replaced it is not equivalent to new. That's a fact.
Can you please provide a citation for the test regime for both new and refurb devices so that I ca compare?

Was your device BRAND NEW when it was sent in for repairs and never used?

 

[H2SO4]

I am on the flip side of this total joke of a lawsuit. My son had an iphone 6s, he was at a party in University and someone sat on his phone bending it and shattering the screen. He never had apple care. We called Apple and they said give us a second, came back and said we are sending a box, put the phone in the box, send it to us and we will send a replacement free of charge to you. When they received the phone, I got a call from the person I was dealing with at apple. He said, we mistakenly thought you had apple care on your phone, the repair would cost 169 dollars, but since it was our mistake, we will do it for free. We were very thankful. Apple C/S is very very good IMO. We received a refurb phone because the scratches in the back of my son's phone were now gone.

On the flip side of that;

Cracked screen MacBook Pro with Touch Bar - Apple Community

discussions.apple.com

Why I owned a Macbook Pro for a day — and what it says to me about the future of Apple | HackerNoon

<strong>On Saturday I bought a new Macbook Pro with touch bar. And on Sunday I returned it.</strong>

hackernoon.com

That's an anecdote that counters your claim.

 

[H2SO4]

Was your device BRAND NEW when it was sent in for repairs and never used?

My device has not been sent in for repair. Next question.

 

[shacky]

If successful, what this lawsuit will likely result in, is that Apple will repair almost all warranty claims rather than replace. This will result in longer waits for the consumer.

 

[Maximara]

You may think I'm splitting hairs.

You are.

But if that computer has not had EVERY SINGLE PART replaced it is not equivalent to new.

That is not what the warranty claims.

Can you please provide a citation for the test regime for both new and refurb devices so that I ca compare?

The burden of proof in US court is on the plaintiff not the defendant. So far no mention of such a study (which the plaintiff would have to provide to have a case) has been mentioned.

 

[Maximara]

On the flip side of that;

Cracked screen MacBook Pro with Touch Bar - Apple Community

discussions.apple.com

Why I owned a Macbook Pro for a day — and what it says to me about the future of Apple | HackerNoon

<strong>On Saturday I bought a new Macbook Pro with touch bar. And on Sunday I returned it.</strong>

hackernoon.com

That's an anecdote that counters your claim.

Both of these example cover stuff specifically NOT in the warranty.

The first states: "You see, I never intended to keep this computer. I basically ‘abused’ their return policy whilst they repaired the second broken MBP I’ve had in a few months."

It reminds me of the situation when the hotel chain my boss had worked for had this 100% satisfaction guaranteed or you money back promotion. The hotel chain they literally watched this couple abuse this heck out of this possibly from one side of the country to the other.

I have no sympathy for someone who abuses a polity or warranty like this. Neither did Frank Farrington in either his 1914 "Successful Salesmanship: Is the Customer Always Right?" (Mill Supplies. Vol. 4 no. 9. pp. 45–47) or his 1915 Merck Report article "Is the Customer Always Right?". Vol. 24. pp. 134–135. His concussion on in the first report "If the customer is made perfectly to understand what it means for him to be right, what right on his part is, then he can be depended on to be right if he is honest, and if he is dishonest, a little effort should result in catching him at it."

The second (damage though possible misuse) is not covered by the warranty either.

The example given clearly states that Apple had thought the people had apple care on the phone and given information based on that misinformation given by Apple. When Apple found out they messed up instead of charging the $169 they were lawfully due (remember NOT under warranty) they admitted the mess up was on their end and did it for free.

 

[gnasher729]

JFC, lawyers are at it again.

You buy a new device. It breaks. You hand in your phone, Apple hands you a replacement. Does it work? Yes? Then eff off.

I think there is a difference if you buy a brand new device and it immediately doesn't work. You bought a new device, you want a new device. If I wanted a refurbished device, I could have bought one and saved some money. But if it is say 6 months old, you have a used device. You can't reasonably demand a new device for your used device. Newer than two weeks and older than 6 it's clear to me. In between there's a gray zone.

 

[gnasher729]

No, but you would expect them to replace the broken part with a brand new one and not one they took from another 3 year old car.

What did you pay for? If your car is repaired, and you paid for a new part, then you should get a new part. If you pay for a refurbished part then you should get a refurbished part. If a two year old part is replaced under warranty, why do you think you have a right to a new part?

 

[gnasher729]

What gives you the idea it's only in case of catastrophic failure? If you bring in an iPhone under warranty or with AC+ with a issue they won't always replace the part, they'll give you a new or refurbished iPhone instead. They don't replace an iPad screen for example but exchange the device. But instead of a new device you get a used one.

If they replaced the screen, you would get your old device back, which is also a used one.

 

[gnasher729]

I agree with this. If I’m getting my device entirely replaced I want an actual brand new replacement not used parts.

Well, guess what: Apple doesn't care what you want. If you want an actual brand new replacement, you can buy one and leave your old phone for credit.

 

[ATechGuyNamedSteve]

So many of the products I've ever gotten from them as a replacement are always laden with issues and is why I refuse to ever buy apple care. Would rather dump the tech and move on than deal with the idiot bar.

If it’s “always” happening to you then the chances are it’s the user not the device.

 

[ericwn]

They need to stop the greediness. I received a DOA iPod a month after christmas once. Of course it was past the return period so my christmas gift turned into a refurbished unit. Honestly they don’t even fix your products now, as long as your unit powers on they just ask you to restore. Their once premium quality support degraded completely.

Luckily they have had extended return periods over Christmas for a long time now.
And if you can resolve a hardware problem with a restore, you don’t have a hardware problem. That’s exactly why restores are applied in troubleshooting. Anywhere.

 

[gnasher729]

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 let's look at it a different way. If your iPhone is a year old, works fine, you're happy with it, if you could go into the store and replace it with a brand new one, would you be willing to pay for that? Now if you go into a store with a one year old phone where part X is broken, if they repair it on the spot you get a one year old repaired phone back. Why would you have a right to a brand new phone?

 

[ani4ani]

Both of these example cover stuff specifically NOT in the warranty.

The first states: "You see, I never intended to keep this computer. I basically ‘abused’ their return policy whilst they repaired the second broken MBP I’ve had in a few months."

Perhaps you should read the entire article before jumping to conclusions and understand why he purchased the computer for a day..and how two brand new laptops failed miserably before he "purchased" a third and how they wanted to palm him off with repairs

 

[Maximara]

Perhaps you should read the entire article before jumping to conclusions and understand why he purchased the computer for a day..and how two brand new laptops failed miserably before he "purchased" a third and how they wanted to palm him off with repairs

And if you had read the article you would see it involved the Touch Bar - something that even Apple "fanboys" say should stand along side the butterfly keyboard as really really stupid ideas by Apple that in hind sight should have never seen the light of day. IMHO only the LC II tops this in terms of stupid things Apple has done - replace the CPU with a 68030 and the soldered on RAM to 4 MB but leave the old ROM chip that could see only 10 MB in even though the machine has to be upgraded to 12 to even see that 10.

More over as pointed out before the example which prompted your counterexamples clearly states that Apple had thought the people had apple care on the phone and given information based on that misinformation given by Apple. When Apple found out they messed up instead of charging the $169 they were lawfully due (remember NOT under warranty) they admitted the mess up was on their end and did it for free. Your counter examples are at best non sequiturs.

 

[subi257]

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.

To be honest, I.....and I am sure 99.9999% of the people buying Apple Care have not read the "fine print", I know that I have not. It must spell out what you get, does it say you get a brand new device? I'm sure that parts are new, I can't imagine that they are putting used screens or used batteries, RAM, I will assume that they will be using a refurbed logic board as those can be repairable most of the time.

 

[Maximara]

To be honest, I.....and I am sure 99.9999% of the people buying Apple Care have not read the "fine print", I know that I have not. It must spell out what you get, does it say you get a brand new device? I'm sure that parts are new, I can't imagine that they are putting used screens or used batteries, RAM, I will assume that they will be using a refurbed logic board as those can be repairable most of the time.

The basic warranty and the Apple Care extension are easily available online. I might add that in Law unless the contract shocks the conscience (too one sided or too vague) or involves something illegal it is valid regardless of you reading it and a warranty is regarded as a contract.

 

[subi257]

The basic warranty and the Apple Care extension are easily available online. I might add that in Law unless the contract shocks the conscience (too one sided or too vague) or involves something illegal it is valid regardless of you reading it and a warranty is regarded as a contract.

That sounds like a legalese way of saying what I just did. The point is nobody reads it...just like, nobody ever....except maybe you, reads the EULA on software either and that too, is a legal contract that you the end user agreed to when you installed and used the software.

 

[ani4ani]

And if you had read the article you would see it involved the Touch Bar - something that even Apple "fanboys" say should stand along side the butterfly keyboard as really really stupid ideas by Apple that in hind sight should have never seen the light of day. IMHO only the LC II tops this in terms of stupid things Apple has done - replace the CPU with a 68030 and the soldered on RAM to 4 MB but leave the old ROM chip that could see only 10 MB in even though the machine has to be upgraded to 12 to even see that 10.

More over as pointed out before the example which prompted your counterexamples clearly states that Apple had thought the people had apple care on the phone and given information based on that misinformation given by Apple. When Apple found out they messed up instead of charging the $169 they were lawfully due (remember NOT under warranty) they admitted the mess up was on their end and did it for free. Your counter examples are at best non sequiturs.

They're not my counter examples? I never posted them