'Error 53' Plaintiffs Criticize Apple's Reimbursement Effort, Aim to Keep Lawsuit Alive

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, May 24, 2016.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    In February, Seattle-based law firm Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala (PCVA) brought a class action lawsuit against Apple over the "Error 53" bug, which bricked iPhone 6 models with select third-party components. Apple quickly responded, confirming the error and issuing an updated version of iOS 9.2.1 to fix the error. Earlier this month, Apple moved to dismiss an amended version of the class action lawsuit. However, PCVA and the plaintiffs have now moved to keep the lawsuit alive, according to AppleInsider.


    Apple argued the lawsuit should be dismissed because the company issued a fix for the error and offered to reimburse customers who had paid to have their devices replaced or repaired. However, the plaintiffs are now arguing that Apple failed to properly alert users to the reimbursement program. They argue the "vague" announcement on Apple's website and a support document published in April isn't sufficient enough to inform affected customers.

    The plaintiffs also claim having trouble in getting touch with Apple about reimbursement, with one plaintiff claiming they were never sent a reimbursement notice and another saying they were disconnected from Apple support twice when trying to contact the Cupertino company about the program.

    The controversy first started in February, when users who had their iPhone 6 models repaired by third-party technicians were seeing the mysterious "Error 53" that bricked their phones. The error showed up when devices had parts replaced with components not sourced from the original device, with the not-matching components affecting the Touch ID fingerprint sensor and causing iOS to fail Touch ID validation checks.

    Several law firms considered suits against Apple, but PCVA brought its forward. The parties will meet in a motion hearing on June 16.

    Article Link: 'Error 53' Plaintiffs Criticize Apple's Reimbursement Effort, Aim to Keep Lawsuit Alive
  2. AppleFan91 macrumors 65816


    Sep 11, 2012
    Indy, US
  3. Mac Fly (film) macrumors 65816

    Mac Fly (film)

    Feb 12, 2006
    Lawyers want to keep a lawsuit alive? Never!
  4. Fishcake21 macrumors member

    Feb 25, 2011
  5. Chatter macrumors 6502a

    Jun 10, 2013
    Uphill from Downtown
    I'm with these guys. Tim Cook should have personally come to my house and given me the reimbursement. Now I'm not affected by this but still...its the principle.
  6. NickD73 macrumors regular


    Jan 21, 2013
    This house of cards is going to collapse soon. Shares will be in the $50s by this time next year.
  7. theheadguy macrumors 65816

    Apr 26, 2005
    I follow Apple pretty closely and the reimbursement is news to me. The average customer screwed out of money wouldn't have a clue about the reimbursement.
  8. C DM macrumors Sandy Bridge

    Oct 17, 2011
    Apple is just in a continuous state of being doomed since at least the 90s!
  9. thelonelylimo macrumors 6502


    Oct 23, 2010
    Columbus, Ohio
    I'm going to screenshot this and we can review it a year from today.
  10. rp2011 macrumors 65816


    Oct 12, 2010
    When you got deep pockets, everyone is gunning for you.
  11. thisisnotmyname macrumors 68000


    Oct 22, 2014
    known but velocity indeterminate
    so they patched the system to cure the "problem" and offered to reimburse the affected users. Yep, better keep this lawsuit alive, think of the children.
  12. Nramos33 macrumors newbie

    Aug 16, 2014
    They were disconnected after multiple attempts?

    How much do you want to bet they were dicks about it?

    Here's how I imagine it happening.

    "I was charged $129 to replace my screen and it was ********. You should never have charged me...blah blah blah"

    "I understand sir, do you mind if you give me a second to...(interrupted)"

    "I do mind, I want the fixed now!!!"

    "I understand that, it will just take take me a second to review this. Do you mind if I put you on a short hold."

    Lots of arguing by customer...

  13. omihek macrumors 6502


    May 3, 2014
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Um... am I missing something? Why are they suing Apple? If they really feel the need to sue someone shouldn't they be suing the "third-party technicians" for installing faulty parts? So confused...
  14. smacrumon, May 24, 2016
    Last edited: May 24, 2016

    smacrumon macrumors 68030


    Jan 15, 2016
    This could've been all avoided if Apple just ensured that it's software release was suitable and fit for purpose. It clearly wasn't and now Apple is enduring the consequences of broken software pushed out to users. One would think that Apple would have learnt from this experience but clearly it hasn't with its most recent releases.

    This is why I'm completely reluctant to install any new software from Apple.

    Apple charges customers a premium as if it is industry perfection, but it clearly isn't through experience.

    Pay compensation properly Apple and move on to your next big project. Customers are everything Apple, treat them properly, be completely proactive by helping customers.

    Can you imagine if Apple pushed a software update that was buggy to one of its future automobiles? Something mission-critical like that with some software that bricks when driving. It could be catastrophic. That's why Apple needs to get this quality up to par and learn these lessons now.
    --- Post Merged, May 24, 2016 ---
    It's the software that's rendering the products useless.
  15. Col4bin macrumors 68000


    Oct 2, 2011
    El Segundo
    See, all the more reason to lose that outdated home button. (Semi-serious). Because without it, none of these shenanigans would be possible. (Sarcasm).
  16. C DM macrumors Sandy Bridge

    Oct 17, 2011
    Essentially no such thing as bug-free software, in particular on the level of an OS.
  17. smacrumon macrumors 68030


    Jan 15, 2016
    Well not really. I can write an app that is completed free of bugs. The chance of bugs being introduced as the app gets larger does increase. However we are not just talking about a simple little bug here we are talking about a complete catastrophic failure of an OS rendering a device completely failed.
  18. Pakaku macrumors 68020


    Aug 29, 2009
    I honestly think we're getting closer and closer to that point.
  19. m4rc macrumors 6502

    Sep 15, 2003
    Apple is doomed, the end is nigh! Blah blah blah for the bast 20 years.......

    I'm going back to sleep, poke me when you have something original to say.
  20. I7guy macrumors P6


    Nov 30, 2013
    Gotta be in it to win it
    Never had a BSOD or got your boot sector borked?
  21. SMIDG3T Suspended


    Apr 29, 2012
    They patched the bug AND offered replacements. That's great service by Apple in my opinion but, of course, all they want is money.
  22. Napalm Doctor macrumors newbie

    Napalm Doctor

    Oct 16, 2015
    No, the iPhones fixed by third party should be bricked when parts are replaced with not approved ones. The best example is that case. By putting an inferior Touch ID sensor, the third party repair is lowering the security of the phone there opening a huge hole in security. It is mostly for security reason and I agree with a concept trying to protect my infos.
  23. jonnysods macrumors 603


    Sep 20, 2006
    There & Back Again
    You know Apple probably gave 5 lawsuits a day right?
  24. 69Mustang macrumors 603


    Jan 7, 2014
    In between a rock and a hard place
    The parts weren't faulty. The software was. That's why Apple was able to patch in a fix. As for the lawsuit, it's just lawyers being lawyers. They see a potential payday slipping through their fingers and they're grasping a little more tightly to see if they can get something for nothing.
  25. ZipZap macrumors 603

    Dec 14, 2007
    Lets be clear, Apple did not respond quickly and did not try to resolve this matter before the lawsuit forced the issue. In fact, Apple denied then tried to claim error 53 was to protect customers.

Share This Page