Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Danish Court Rules Apple Must Replace Man's iPhone With New Rather Than Refurbished Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I might be wrong but my first guess would be Logitech. Does anyone know if their replacement by mail gives you a refurb or a new device?
[doublepost=1481402883][/doublepost]As mentioned on previous pages, "OUT OF WARRANTY" swap means the person must have paid for the swap, it was not courtesy of Apple otherwise it would've been called differently. So objection dismissed.
Back to Apple University my friend. An "out of warranty" swap means that your warranty is expired, but Apple is going to be generous and let you swap for one at a greatly reduced price. With an expired warranty, the vast majority of businesses in the world are just going to shrug at you, but Apple is often going to try and help you out with a deal. They did it for me when I had something long out of warranty that I didn't want to pay to repair. I was amazed and it was one of the several things that have reinforced why Apple Support is legendarily good and it's a salient point about the phone the repair woman worked on.
The other point I was trying to make about the video is that it was a smear job because she unintentionally revealed the real reason she did it was because she feels "Apple looks down on independent repair shops like hers," so her point was to show a repair job that she thought was subpar. We don't even know if the original refurb/repair was done by an Apple authorized contractor, but let's assume it was, I'm sure there have been tens of millions of phones repaired/refurbished by Apple authorized shops, how representative was this one phone? We don't know and for her to publish a video that is titled "Apple is using water damaged boards in phones" is actually slanderous. T
he other hugely irresponsible thing she did was to make that claim about this phone but not provide any evidence whatsoever that using the board was in any way a problem! In fact, after making that allegation she went on to speculate that not having sufficient underfill beneath the chip caused the subsequent malfunction. Again, something that is wildly speculative since she doesn't know anything about how the phone was handled by the consumer who sent it it other than unidentified claim that his kid "dropped it." LOL.
So again, the entire video was primarily designed as revenge clickbait "Apple is using water damaged boards in your phones!" with no response from Apple or objective evidence as to whether the repair was faulty in any way beyond her admittedly biased speculation about a sample of 1 in tens of millions.
CASE CLOSED
Who cares? The law says it should be otherwise and I’m dead sure that Apple knew that and flouted it anyway. Hope they get kicked in the ‘innovate' for it.
[doublepost=1481490455][/doublepost]
….and they tell you it’s a refurb/exchange.
[doublepost=1481490665][/doublepost]
No. Apple must abide by the law of the countries in which their goods are for sale. In the UK for example, the Sale Of Goods Act says that the unit can be returned for up to 6 years after purchase for faulty workmanship. This far exceeds the warranty offered by Apple.
That's what you think. After six months, the customer must prove, by law, that the defect was present when the phone was purchased. If the customer cannot _prove_ this, and in must cases the customer can't, then the customer can go to court all they want, they will get nothing. The rest of your post (American company, Irish taxes etc). couldn't be more irrelevant.
For a country so involved in reducing waste it's confusing they want Apple to dump the phone that can't be fixed and be replaced with a brand new one. Not to mention the refurb program Apple runs has always made more sense, when I had a samsung laptop that was a month old break, they sent it off to get "repaired" I didn't get it back til half a year later, the refurb system Apple runs usually means I have a like new item to use when I had over my defective one.
No, that's not what the Sale Of Goods Act says. It says the device must work for a reasonable amount of time (which is usually a lot less than six years), and you have six years time to complain. And if it breaks later than six months after the sale, then the customer must prove that the defect was there when the device was sold.
Again, Apple fanboys' "You must be grateful for ..." is simply amazing. Just so you know - refurb (aka priced less than new apriori) iPhone/iPad etc of the previous generation costs exactly the money Apple asks to pay, not more (maybe a little less but we're all accustomed to this with Apple whatev). There is no generosity from the Apple side at all.
Apple sold old refurb device advertised "as new" for the price old refurb device advertised "as new" costs. "as new" turned out to be a hoax. Thank you to this woman from this video who uncovered this.
Since in this very thread you've heard A LOT OF TIMES that people had to exchange 2-3 refurb phones before they got the one as advertised by Apple, I'd say her example was representative. And her title "Apple is using water damaged boards in phones" is factually and technically correct. Had she been a fanboy, of course she would've named it differently - she would've dismissed her claim as something THAT JUST CANNOT BE WITH APPLE, right until there was a class action law suit at Apple campus door - when Apple INSTANTLY change their opinion, start refunding money to people, who suffered for 2-3 years, and offer free repairs, fanboys INSTANTLY change their opinion - acknowledge the issue, dismiss all the gall they spewed on the people who suffered for 2-3 years and start praising Apple for free repairs. YAY.
On the rest part of your paragraph - it's funny that a non-American (me) defends her right for free speech to you (I'm assuming you're American, sorry if I'm wrong) and not vice versa.
What must have she done? Buy 1000 iPads, remove glue from 500 of them and throw all 1000 of them to the floor and see the difference?
She did the most she could in circumstances she is in. I remember one issue that started with same denial from Apple fanboys. The next thing we knew is Apple engineers visited the guy and confirmed the issue. And fanboys, AGAIN, instantly changed their collective opinion from blaming the victim to praising Apple. Helping the victim got lost somewhere in between, as always.
You don't have this information either so your speculation that it is indeed 1 in tens of millions is as biased as you call her. Still you somehow think you're righteous and she is not. Oh boy.
Indeed it is.
[doublepost=1481496363][/doublepost]
I've done exactly this several times with different electronics. It complicates the things, I agree with you, but still doable in most cases when you're not a nutjob that throws the phone against the wall and then tries to demand a new one from Apple - these laws help them very little so that you know.
Last edited:
Boring. I wont read that. Dude we americans r not the center of the universe anymore. Gus from other places likes 2 read news 2. USA is not the only country u know what i mean??
Wow, you've been reading a lot of fake news--"Apple is selling refurb for same price as new." "Apple is selling refurbished products as new." "Apple is using water damaged boards in phones." Be careful what sources you are relying on.
No, That was not my thought process at all. Why do you assume that I am some type of hateful person?
As you pointed out in your other posts to me, my understanding for the legal system in Denmark was incorrect. I had incorrectly assumed that the manufacturer had the right to attempt to repair the device, before proceeding to the next step, replacement. Since then, I have done quite a bit of reading on consumer cases in Denmark, and better understand what is going on here.
Within my previous assumption, I had thought that Apple having offered a refurbished replacement (like they do here in the States) was good customer service, as the user would get a device as good (or better) than their defective unit immediately. This is as opposed to making the customer wait while a repair is attempted, costing the consumer time and money. Now knowing that the customer is entitled to a brand new replacement, or a repair (their choice) at the time of the first incident, it is clear that Apple is in the wrong.
With regards to the laws themselves, It would be interesting to see those laws attempt to pass our upcoming administration. I have a feeling it would have a hard time passing through with the same clauses, as our country tends to protect corporations a bit more than in the EU, and the upcoming administration has stated that they believe in less regulation. As a general rule I think the laws sound good, though I think the brand new clause is a bit overreaching, especially if a refurbished option could be provided with the same type of warranty reset as in Denmark.
Either way, thanks for your other thoughtful replies, and to the others who are helping to set the records straight in this thread.
Cheers!
Of course Apple must follow the law in each country that it operates. But there's a lot of misunderstanding about the Sale of Goods Act. To begin with, it was replaced in 2015 by the Consumer Rights Act! And no, while it sounds like a wonderful fantasy, you don't get a six year warranty in the UK. The Brits aren't idiots. Products would cost a fortune if you had to warranty them for six years!! No one would want to pay the costs of that. Instead, the Brits simply give folks up to six years if there was a defect in the product.
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act
It's always been a myth that you have a 6 yr warranty in the UK. The new CRA also has a very limited warranty period. Yes, if there is a manufacturing or other defect in the phone that you don't discover, theoretically you have six years to discover it, but this doesn't have anything to do with what most people are imagining, i.e., the "defect" warranty is nothing like the typical warranty Apple or other manufacturers give you where they essentially cover anything that goes wrong with it for a year or two. Here's how one agency explains how it would work with a cell phone.
"Once you've owned your phones for six months the onus is on you as the consumer to prove there was a problem when you received the phone under the Consumer Rights Act, even if it’s taken time for the issue to manifest. This could take the form of an engineer’s report - but you’d have to pay for it first."
So, when you battery dies during the year Apple gives you, you are going to get a new one. When it dies a year after your Apple warranty has expired, you aren't going to get a new phone or a "repair" under the CRA because it isn't a defect if your battery dies after two or three yea. Batteries wear out.
Myth busted
Learn to read please. I have not said first two things you say I did. As for the third thing you've missed one very important part - not just phones, refurbished tablets, and yes, in this case this is factually and technically correct as has been demonstrated by the woman on video.
I'm glad you found nothing to object.
[doublepost=1481511888][/doublepost]
Apple one year warranty won't fix non-manufacturing defect for free as well. If you drop your laptop, it's out of both Apple warranty and warranty provided by law.
So essentially Brits do have 6 year warranty with the same coverage Apple's 1 year warranty (not Apple Care - this is different) gives with one major caveat: after 6 months and Apple warranty expired you will have to prove the defect is not your fault. Talking from experience: this is doable.
[doublepost=1481512289][/doublepost]
Well, duh. It's common sense, lawmakers are not THAT dumb.
If, on the other hand, your MBP late 2011 GPU fails again long after Apple warranty has ended, the law will make Apple fix it for free until approx. the end of 2017 (Apple's repair program ends this year if they don't prolong it further) and proving this is not your fault will be quite simple.
Last edited:
Uuum... I'm not American mate. Anyhow, if you read what I typed you'll see that I agree with your 'USA is not the only country' vibe.
The OP assumes that countries that use the civil law system have 'precedents' (like America's common law system, which is loosely based on the English system... seen in other ex-British colonies). My point is, that's not how most European courts work... so the assumption of the article (that Danish courts work just like US courts) is wrong.
In civil law countries you don't say 'my authority for x is [insert supreme court case]' because a precedent is not law. You MUST say 'my authority is [insert section of the civil code]'...
I just got 'the equivalent' from Apple service for my broken 6+. I asked what it means and they said it's new and not refurbished, but they can't say it's new as it comes without box and accessories.
Exactly.
"Apple disagreed with the Consumer Complaints Board's decision in 2014 and sued Lysgaard, arguing that refurbished iPhones are produced and tested in the same way as new iPhones. Apple also said refurbished iPhones undergo rigorous tests and strict quality control."
Refurbished phones are NOT produced in the same way as new iPhones. They WERE when they too were new, but the refurbishing process does not disassemble all parts and reassemble them.
"Apple also said refurbished iPhones undergo rigorous tests and strict quality control."
These are happy shiny words that comfort the Apple faithful but basically they simply put the refurbished unit through the same tests as new phones and if they pass, they're good to go.
Apple doesn't indicate why a particular unit has been refurbed.
Was it simply a customer return?
Did it suffer water damage and repaired?
Did it short out and then repaired?
I wonder how many of those who "prefer to buy refurbs over new" (there actually are quite a few) would be so willing to do so if Apple listed the reason why that unit was refurbed?
It makes no sense to me since one can easily buy a new Apple product for less than Apple sells refurbs.
What Apple says in their warranty papers is irrelevant since it's Danish law that the court is judging by.
Yes in common law countries even if there is no statute on a matter, a decision of the highest court can 'create' law.
This does NOT happen in civil law countries like Denmark. They always go back to their civil code because a court decision on a matter is not law.
Also, stare decisis (again, only available in common law countries) will be on a principle.
Crux - the author of the article is clearly not a lawyer and they completely messed up their analysis of how courts work.
Last edited:
Stop it already. You're wrong. As explained thoroughly before.
You reiterate same position over and over again without providing new "evidence" and your previous ones (if one can call them that) were shown to be false.
Actually, the law states (at least here in the UK) that it should also last for a reasonable amount of time/be of satisfactory quality. You wouldn't expect a £10 phone to last 13 months, but you could reasonably expect a £700 phone to last 2-3 years providing it was treated right.
The law is ambiguous for a reason - for the protection of both parties. You don't automatically get a "6 year warranty", but retailers can't fob you off with "it's more than 12 months old so go away".
As for what's being argued above, it doesn't "set precedent", but you can, of course, argue in court (again, here in the UK) that in XXX vs YYY XXX was forced by the court to repair YYY's 14 month old iPhone, therefore my 13 month old one should be deemed to have not lasted a reasonable amount of time. Our civil laws are designed to be arguable - not set in stone - you need to *argue* your point. It's not black and white.
That's my point. You also have the burden if it is beyond six months to prove it was a defect. That's not something that is easily done. Certainly, if it is something that based on price or description people would reasonably expect to last that long, you have a better chance, but it's far from the "six year warranty" myth that was more fake news on the web.