Um, yeah actually. That's how this usually works. The ruling almost certainly sets a precedent for other devices. And probably not just phones and tablets, but consumer goods in general.
In fact, there's a good chance that's where the reasoning for the ruling came from. Like, somewhere in Dutch legal history someone tried to pass off a used washing machine as a warranty replacement and 'boom' a judge has to now apply that reasoning to Apple.
It is far more complicated. In general the above does not work in The Netherlands, every case is different and thus treated like that. However, if it looks like it is similar to another case then yes, a judge may use that case to base his decision upon. It requires more than 1 case for it to set a precedent though. The use of other cases and precedents isn't always necessary because the case and the law are quite clear. What we are talking about here is the consumer law which applies to consumer goods in general.
The product and the manufacturer are the least important in these cases (manufacturer is of no importance and the only thing important with a good is whether or not it falls under the consumer law). Judges look at all the other stuff. When the product was bought for example (in the first 6 months the seller has to proof the product isn't at fault, after that 6 months the buyer has to proof the product is at fault). That alone can make quite a difference. This was the case here (the iPad failed after 4 months which is within that 6 month period).
In this case the iPad couldn't be repaired. The consumer law is very clear in that case and we've seen it before in another case that made the frontpage here. In that particular case the judge ruled that Apple wasn't allowed to give a refurbished one. In this case Apple tried it with a remanufactured one and the judge has ruled that this also isn't allowed (it shows you can't fool a judge by naming it differently). The plaintiff has pointed this out to the judge (it's in the verdict, point 1.5). In both cases the plaintiff made a case that a refurbished/remanufactured isn't the same as a new device because Apple sells them for a lower price than new devices.
Another important thing to know and understand is that in both cases they referred to the famous Quelle case in which the EU court was asked to give a judgement about repair of a product. They based it upon the EU regulation and since members have to implement that regulation it also means that this judgement has to be taken into account. It is this judgement that has let to the verdict in the other case as well as this case.
So to summarise: in other words 2 different judges ruled the same in 2 cases that were nearly identical which is what you'd expect and also what you want because that means that this law trustworthy as there is no double standard.
This will lead to Apple repairing far more devices rather than simply swapping them out. Enjoy having them tell you "We're going to need to send it in.
The point in this case was the fact that the device wasn't repairable at all. In that case the manufacturer has to hand out a new one. Giving a refurbished isn't allowed (the first case), doing the same but naming it remanufactured (this case) isn't allowed either.
Should take about 2 weeks." rather than sending you with a refurbished replacement on the spot.
They have more new ones in store than refurbished so it probably is quicker and easier for Apple to simply hand out a new one. And mind you, this isn't only a Dutch law at play, this is EU regulation at play too (see the Quelle case...it's a German case btw, not Dutch). And again, in this case the device was deemed irreparable by Apple themselves.
The court applies the law as given. There is nothing stopping Apple from offering a refurbished device in exchange for a rebate, if the buyers agrees.
Yes there is, that would be called "The Law" and it is the very reason why we have these 2 verdicts. There are only 2 options: new device or full refund (actually you are undoing the buy so you hand in the broken device and you get your money back).
However, Apple pretends that new and refurbished devices are equal, but the law assumes that if your product is irreparable, then the consumer never received a decent product as advertised to begin with and is entitled to start over with a new device.
Something like that. In this case it was pointed out that refurbished/remanufactured are not equal to new because Apple is selling new for a higher price.
Apples next solution will be to repair only. No exchanges on any items. Only repairs. So my 30 minutes in the apple store just turned into 2 weeks coming back.
News for you: this is already the case in the EU due to the regulation; just about every manufacturer does this. The entire point in the previous and the current case is the fact that Apple tried it and came to the conclusion that they CANNOT repair it. That's what irreparable means. The only option they have then is the give a full refund or a new device.
Completely false, unless Dutch law forbids repairs. What she's entitled to is her device being repaired, period. Anything above that is a courtesy. She's only "entitled to a new replacement" if Apple chooses not to repair, or can't repair, the existing one.
Yes you are indeed completely false. As stated above Apple has deemed the device irreparable so no repair possible. The law gives you 2 options: full refund or new device. Now if the device was reparable then Apple is allowed to do that. Since it is in its first 6 months after buying they are not allowed to charge money for such a repair (see the Quelle case).
The ruling, as given here, doesn't speak to repairs.
You didn't read any of it did you?
The ruling DOES speak of repairs, see point 1.3 of the ruling which clearly states she went to Apple for repairs first and Apple said it couldn't repair it.
