Doesn't make sense, because then everyone would hope their phone breaks after 20 months, so they have a new phone, while everyone whose phone didn't break has a 20 months old phone.
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.
Dutch Court Orders Apple to Replace Customer's Broken iPhone With New, Not Refurbished, Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You may find that Apple will actually start repairing phones instead of replacing them with refurbs.
This is not going to turn into a mega sulk event where we loose our 14 day return rights .....
Well, if the company being sued has been found to serve coffee that is hot enough to cause third degree burns immediately, so they could offer free refills without anyone actually waiting long enough for the coffee to cool down, drinking it, and getting a second coffee, and that same company has been found to have settled SEVEN HUNDRED similar cases out of court, and the company refuses to pay a $25,000 medical bill for treating third degree burns caused by coffee that they knowingly and intentionally serve at temperature not fit for human consumption, then yes, the company should be sued.
Some people did that in China, and they paid the ultimate price.
If you are willing for your phone to be sent to China, taken apart, put together again, and be sent back to your store, that's fine with me. I would _not_ want a phone where parts have been desoldered and soldered together again.
[doublepost=1468397202][/doublepost]
If you are given a refurbished device with blemishes, then you return it straight away. Refurbished is sold "as new". Blemishes are not "as new".
In case you haven't seen there is no law regarding this in NL and this was a LAWSUIT, because she somehow thinks that phone she got was worse than new which is not true.
[doublepost=1468397996][/doublepost]
The internal components in refurbished phones have already been used that's the whole point. They have a new casing and new glass, so they look like new. People have been running "diagnostic test" on those parts much longer.
Sorry incorrect .
http://www.apple.com/uk/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/refurbfaq_popup
Apple never ever states it's "as new" . You will be sold a completely functional unit that they consider to be "refurbished"
When you buy a refurb you can be lucky to get a return, or unlucky to get a machine that has had repairs. A minor scratch or cosmetic issue passes refurb guidelines.
Why do you care about the process if that phone will look like new and perform just like every other device. Seems stupid.
[doublepost=1468398297][/doublepost]
They are.
[doublepost=1468398434][/doublepost]
That's how logical thinking works.
[doublepost=1468399154][/doublepost]
Oh please ... just browsing this forum will reveal hundreds of OCD cases. How many phone are being returned for a little speck of dust under glass or display that is little bit more yellow than usual.
you are seriously selling out your consumer rights if you accept the replacement should be no worse than the actual phone being replaced .
And what about if your new phone that is 3 weeks old is replaced by a refurb that has parts that are over 6 -12 months old, but you think it's brand new due to the casing . You never know what you are getting with a refurb
It's more I think you're just using words you don't fully understand. I've noticed that a lot recently, usually from more conservative characters. It's as if they pick up on a buzzword and just run with it.
Then try again. Your point doesn't work. If something breaks I get a new part for my current machine and that applies for any non-personal equipment. Care to try your point again or is that it now?
What is this? Clueless trump voters talking about things they don't understand? 'murica.
Last edited:
I would tend to agree with you. The refurbs are extensively tested before being shipped. However, I did once go to the genius bar to get a phone replaced, and the replacement's screen out of the box was unresponsive. Not sure if it was new or refurb though.
This story is pretty rubbish, you haven't stated at all what the problem with the phone was or if the customer had Apple Care or if the law of their country means the fault should have been repaired under the 'fit for purpose' ruling, consumer rights things that Europe is fantastic at and America seldom seems to understand.
I would reserve judgement until such information is known, but if she's won in court she will have needed a very good case and argument.
I would reserve judgement until such information is known, but if she's won in court she will have needed a very good case and argument.
Very ignorant statement. People like to point to the McDonald's hot coffee case as a sign that litigation is out of control in the US. But once you know the facts (and are willing to accept them) you will realize that the evidence in that case clearly shows McDonald's was grossly negligent:
https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
We don't take the piss out of this case cause we believe McDonald's was in the right.
We take the piss cause she got nearly $3 million dollars. Heck she only wanted $20 000.
No idea what story you read but it sure wasn't the one in the first post of this topic.
Europe has got nothing to do with it. Europe is a continent, no more and no less. This is something to do with consumer laws in a specific European country, namely The Netherlands. This country is a kingdom, not a state.
The consumer law of The Netherlands takes some of the EU (European Union, not to be confused with either the European Community or Europe!) regulations because they have to as a EU member. That same EU also gives them a certain amount of freedom in what and how to implement those regulations. This has led to a consumer law that at parts is quite different from the EU regulations. This applies to all EU members and thus one should not use EU regulations but use local law instead.
The consumer law does not say anything about warranty (in Dutch: garantie) at all because we use a completely different point of view: product lifetime. A product has to last for a certain amount of time and you get warranty for the entire (expected) lifetime. This is a huge deviation from EU regulations. The Dutch law simply states that a consumer is entitled to a fully working product (in simple English: a product that does what it says it does and without manufacturer issues/mistakes) for the expected lifetime (in Dutch this is called "non-conformiteit").The amount of warranty you get from the manufacturer influences this: if you have a 1 year warranty that is extendible to 3 (AppleCare) then the product should last for at least 3 years). For a notebook the expected lifetime would be 3 years and for a washing machine this is 10 years. The EU regulation speaks of 2 years in both cases. In the first 6 months after purchase the seller has to proof that the product is fully working, after 6 months the consumer has to proof the product does not and the manufacturer/seller is to blame (within reason). This is the same as in the EU regulations. Part of that law also states when you are entitled to a new product, a refund and when the product may be repaired (in all cases this is entirely free for the customer).
The reason for the consumer laws is quite simple: there have been many lawsuits concerning consumer rights and downright criminal acts from certain sellers (scams) as well as misleading commercials. Going to court in The Netherlands is not easy and very costly. Not to mention that it adds more cases to already very busy courts. So what the consumer laws do is lay out the rules for buying and selling products and services in order to prevent silly and/or complex lawsuits concerning products/services. It has rules for manufacturers, sellers AND consumers. To give an example: consumers have to do their homework. They have to get themselves informed about the product/service before buying. Something similar also applies to the seller: they have to inform the consumer about the product/service. As you can see it is trying to create a certain balance. Consumers don't have the big financial funds like companies (it's basically David vs Goliath) have so they get a bit more protection.
I hope people do realise that not every company uses the same definition of "refurbished". Some companies take in the broken devices, look at what is broken and fix it. Others do a complete overhaul of the device and replace other components just in case (think of things like seals, o-rings, etc.). It's more like a combination of refurbishment and a revision. The biggest difference is in testing. Most only test the repairs, not the entire device; others do some simple quick tests and some (like the ones doing the complete overhaul) really do extensive tests to make sure the device really is as good as new. Due to economics most do very simple tests and thus most refurbished products aren't free of defects. This is specially the case for products with water damage. Too often the defects occur only months after the damage was inflicted. That means that any testing will not pick it up and thus the device is falsely labeled "as good as new".
In The Netherlands there is hardly a culture of refurbished products like in the USA. A refurbished products is considered the same as a repaired product as that is what usually happens to those products in The Netherlands. There still is a risk of other defects. The biggest issue with refurbished products is the warranty. The warranty is much lower than for a new product. If you're lucky you get 1 year but all to often it will be no more than 3 months. On a new product you get the 2 year warranty (per EU regulation) or more (per Dutch consumer law). That's why it is better to buy new than to buy refurbishment and also the reason why refurbished is cheaper than new.
As for the ruling: the court looked at the consumer laws and in some cases they ask the European Court of Justice (ECJ) because they want to know how to interpret the EU regulations (for this ruling to looked at a previous statement by the ECJ in a case against the German company called Quelle; this is a well known and often referred to case). In this case the law stated that the consumer was entitled to a new product, not refurbished one. The court does not look and may not look at how sensible a law/regulation is because that is a task for the government (the Dutch system is based on trias politica). They also do not look at what the rule says but also at the reasoning behind the rule. This allows for a thief to be convicted even though the stolen goods have been returned by him.
The ruling does explicitly state that Apple deemed the iPhone unrepairable. Something that is unrepairable is also not able to be refurbished (refurbished requires repairs which is impossible). Furthermore Apple stated that the iPhone falls under its warranty regulation and not the so called "non-conformiteit" (the entitlement for a fully working product) because you have to look at when the iPhone was sold and if it functioned properly at that time which it did.
Hopefully this gives a better understanding of both Dutch consumer law, how it relates to the EU (not Europe!) and the issue plus ruling in this case. I tried to explain it as simple as I could, there will be things left out and the wording can be too simplistic.
Last edited:
You're missing the point once again. All I'm saying is your getting a brand new replacement as required by law is going to cost you (as the customer) more in the end, as opposed to countries where replacement units are acceptable. Apple will jack up the price on you in the form of retail price and guess what, you're not really getting better services because replacement iPhones have been shown to be indistinguishable from new.
[doublepost=1468418668][/doublepost]
Huh? If the law says brand new unit as opposed to replacement unit is required, then it doesn't matter what the culprit is.
Next on the list of policies. Apple voids the warranty of any phone with physical damage which includes, drops, shattered screens, water damage, etc etc etc.
MR was just being misleading by posting a photo of a shattered screen. It actually doesn't say what the culprit is, but that's besides the point because the issue is really brand new vs. remanufactured.
Then you're not very good at making a point. You said that other companies don't give you new fridges and washing machines, they don't, they also don't do what Apple does (which I assume is the point you're trying to make?). You can easily just try a new example.
I take it you're aware that Apple's 14 day return policy simply results in the product being recycled? The US has that, does that mean prices in the US went up? Or could it be simply a case of absorbing that cost due to the already high prices and high profits? Because to me it seems the latter. A top-end Apple laptop still costs £2k, a medium entry laptop costs £1k, the same as it did when I bought my first Apple laptop 14 years ago.
Maybe, but take this into thought. How often do you drop your phone? What if that simple drop, though not damaging the phone, was used to void replacement of the phone entirely?
Actually the culprit is what determines if it is warranty or not and thus if they have to give brand new or refurbished but I do agree that the picture in the article is misleading as the issue was not the display but the iPhone suddenly not powering on any more.
The problem is Apples own research. The found that the iPhone didn't turn on for no apparent reason, that the consumer was not to blame and that the iPhone could not be repaired. The question was whether this was under Apples warranty policy (which allows a refurbished unit) or the "non-conformiteit" in the Dutch consumer law. The fact that standard warranty is 1 year means that you can expect it to work without problems for at least 1 year; that didn't happen here and thus it falls under "non-conformiteit". The problem with that is the law not being very clear on whether a refurbished unit would also be enough so they looked at a previous ruling from the ECJ (the aforementioned Quelle ruling) and concluded that it was not. Apple had to give a refund or a new unit.
If this were about a dropped iPhone we'd had a completely different ruling because then the fault lies with the consumer and the claim would have been denied.
The problem is Apples own research. The found that the iPhone didn't turn on for no apparent reason, that the consumer was not to blame and that the iPhone could not be repaired. The question was whether this was under Apples warranty policy (which allows a refurbished unit) or the "non-conformiteit" in the Dutch consumer law. The fact that standard warranty is 1 year means that you can expect it to work without problems for at least 1 year; that didn't happen here and thus it falls under "non-conformiteit". The problem with that is the law not being very clear on whether a refurbished unit would also be enough so they looked at a previous ruling from the ECJ (the aforementioned Quelle ruling) and concluded that it was not. Apple had to give a refund or a new unit.
If this were about a dropped iPhone we'd had a completely different ruling because then the fault lies with the consumer and the claim would have been denied.
Years ago, my mom bought two refurbished iPod nano (3rd gen)s from Apple, on my recommendation. They both had faulty click wheels. They scrolled erratically, which often meant a little touch would shoot the volume up or down drastically. My mom never noticed, she thought she wasn't touching it right (why would she think otherwise, it's Apple after all). By the time I got to use it it was well outside of the warranty.
I think sometimes companies get faulty products back, give them new exteriors and batteries, and then just sell them back and count on most people not returning them. The argument is it works well enough (remember when LCD monitors could have up to 3 stuck pixels?). Just take it back and sell it to someone who cares less. When you can sell a slightly less-than-advertised product at 90% of full price - the cost of refurbishing, why wouldn't you? Two reasons: 1) You don't have an excellent marketing team that can outweigh any harsh criticism (see store.apple.com reviews for any cable Apple sells). Or 2) The government says it's wrong to sell "refurbished" products without disclosing exactly why they were returned, and makes a law against it. How many defective products has Apple sold that needed a lawsuit for them to admit it?
Neither of those rules applies to Apple. They are a company like any other. Yes I love their products but I wouldn't trust them to put "me the consumer" before their shareholders. After all, people who own stock in Apple have families to feed too. /s
[doublepost=1468421082][/doublepost]If refurbished products were worth the same as new, Apple wouldn't be selling them for a discount online. Apple makes products that look shiny when new but are designed to lose their luster after a few weeks. They give you a shiny refurbished phone so you don't complain that you have subpar used components inside. It's deceitful.
I think sometimes companies get faulty products back, give them new exteriors and batteries, and then just sell them back and count on most people not returning them. The argument is it works well enough (remember when LCD monitors could have up to 3 stuck pixels?). Just take it back and sell it to someone who cares less. When you can sell a slightly less-than-advertised product at 90% of full price - the cost of refurbishing, why wouldn't you? Two reasons: 1) You don't have an excellent marketing team that can outweigh any harsh criticism (see store.apple.com reviews for any cable Apple sells). Or 2) The government says it's wrong to sell "refurbished" products without disclosing exactly why they were returned, and makes a law against it. How many defective products has Apple sold that needed a lawsuit for them to admit it?
Neither of those rules applies to Apple. They are a company like any other. Yes I love their products but I wouldn't trust them to put "me the consumer" before their shareholders. After all, people who own stock in Apple have families to feed too. /s
[doublepost=1468421082][/doublepost]If refurbished products were worth the same as new, Apple wouldn't be selling them for a discount online. Apple makes products that look shiny when new but are designed to lose their luster after a few weeks. They give you a shiny refurbished phone so you don't complain that you have subpar used components inside. It's deceitful.
My point is more like if you make it a law that manufacturers have to give you a brand new washer and fridge when they break down, then you can look forward to them jacking up the retail prices as a result. All costs are passed to the customer.
It's already built into the prices. I.e., they would be lower if they didn't have the 14-day return policy.
Do you now have a law that requires Apple to provide you a brand new Apple laptop rather than repair it when it croaks? If not, then it won't make any difference.
The point all along is Apple will eventually jack up the prices across the board if they're forced to start giving out brand new units rather than remanufactured.
[doublepost=1468421940][/doublepost]
I'm no expert, but don't we already have the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act that prohibits this?
Last edited:
Apple won't jack up the prices because they already accounted for it in their pricing. The iPhone broke within the manufacturer warranty period of 1 year. We currently have a similar discussion going on about fines. Many people believe that companies will jack up the prices so consumers pay the fine. Research shows that this in general has never happened and is not likely to be happening either. From a bookkeeping perspective this is just a one off cost (mind you, there are strict regulations for bookkeeping, especially in the USA after the Enron thing so any creative bookkeeping is more likely to be put under investigation and deemed fraud). It just fits along all those other things you write off.
Besides, if anyone dares to do something like that be assured that the authorities will put it under investigation. The risk of being fined is not worth jacking up the prices.
Besides, if anyone dares to do something like that be assured that the authorities will put it under investigation. The risk of being fined is not worth jacking up the prices.