Italy Fines Apple $12 Million for Misleading iPhone Water Resistance Claims

[TracesOfArsenic]

How strange of Apple to be making outlandish marketing claims under unicorn pretenses!

 

[Wando64]

In that vein, even if a disclaimer was on the commercial some people would believe something it's not or misconstrue the intent. And if someone believes something it's not, any damage that would result treating the thing differently than it should be treated, is on the person.

Yes, however, had they put a disclaimer Apple wouldn’t have been fined.
This is really all there is to it.

Note to self: just unfollow this thread.

 

[Grey Area]

In that vein, even if a disclaimer was on the commercial some people would believe something it's not or misconstrue the intent. And if someone believes something it's not, any damage that would result treating the thing differently than it should be treated, is on the person.

No doubt there will always be some people who misunderstand, intentionally or not, even the most sincere disclaimer. Such situations with a spectrum of responses are why courts often rely on the hypothetical "reasonable man", or in this particular case the "average consumer". If the average consumer is likely to honestly misunderstand a disclaimer, then the disclaimer is insufficient.

Apple's disclaimers in this case kept emphasizing depth and duration, e.g. "4 meters for 30 minutes". From this I would argue that it is reasonable for the average consumer to assume that the device in question is suitable for some light snorkeling at the sea shore, for example. Moreover, people are used to finding disclaimers for this and that, and they understand that disclaimers restrict some earlier claim to certain conditions - and when reading the disclaimer "4 meters for 30 minutes" it is intuitive to think that this is the limit, i.e. "aha, so not actually perfectly waterproof, but 4m for 30 mins is still pretty good, I'll be fine".

It is not obvious that this disclaimer basically has a second, more severely restricting disclaimer. "Controlled laboratory conditions", for all the average consumer knows that might mean 42 tests at specific levels of salinity, temperature, and speed, rather than "only in perfectly static fresh water". Apple does not explain, they merely refer to IEC standard 60529, a closed standard not readily accessible to the average consumer.

In summary, Apple's disclaimers in this matter were constructs likely (and maybe intended) to mislead the average consumer into thinking that the iPhone is suitable for e.g. 4m for 30mins in real life, while hiding the information that would invalidate this perception in such manner that Apple could still pretend to have informed the consumer.

 

[whirldy]

In summary, Apple's disclaimers in this matter were constructs likely (and maybe intended) to mislead the average consumer into thinking that the iPhone is suitable for e.g. 4m for 30mins in real life, while hiding the information that would invalidate this perception in such manner that Apple could still pretend to have informed the consumer.

iThink it is very misleading... leaving the ambiguity to the consumer.... advertising an item that boasts liquid “protection”, yet, disqualifying consumers from warranty coverage due to iPhone not having liquid protection coverage -UNLESS YOU BUY APPLECARE+- is dubious!!

 

[laptech]

This 'watergate' issue reminds me of the wifi issue on the iphone where Apple said that owners were holding the phone wrongly (haha). Now they are stating certain models of phone are IP68 rated but if it gets wet by the rain and is subsequently 'liquid damaged', it fails warranty. Is this Apple's latest way of saying 'your using the phone wrongly'

 

[Franjelisco]

This is a proposed fine or does Apple actually have to pay it?

 

[deevey]

The average person does not understand the difference between water resistance and water proof.

And yet for years (even now) if you ever bought a "water-resistant" watch without a specific depth marked on the case, you would never have expected it to survive anything more than a hand wash without damage.

That's quite the leap. Many people with expensive watches, I would think, understand the difference between water resistance and water proof. And while people can believe anything, the reasonable person not believe their personal electronic devices are water proof, imo.

It amazes me that there is this general discrediting of the intelligence of the population. Millions somehow manage to navigate the vagaries of buying a car, determining the model, understanding the operation of the vehicle, but can't figure out that personal electronic devices should be kept away from liquids.

People realised that suing for stupidity is far more satisfying than simply not being stupid. Somehow they believe that their gadget packed with sensitive electronics is less susceptible to damage.

I guess the same peeps that believe there should be safe restrictions on the temperature hot beverages are being served at.

 

[deevey]

iThink it is very misleading... leaving the ambiguity to the consumer.... advertising an item that boasts liquid “protection”, yet, disqualifying consumers from warranty coverage due to iPhone not having liquid protection coverage -UNLESS YOU BUY APPLECARE+- is dubious!!

Applecare+ covers accidental liquid damage regardless if the device is waterproof or not.

It's an insurance policy, not a warranty. A lot of the stuff it covers is in many cases already be covered under home-owner insurance.

 

[laptech]

I could just imagine the fall out if car manufactureres tried this, 'your car's paint is only covered against damage in certain conditions (unbeknown to the customer, it be laboratory conditions). If the car paint is affected by rain water then it's not covered as it comes under liquid damage

 

[I7guy]

Yes, however, had they put a disclaimer Apple wouldn’t have been fined.
This is really all there is to it.

Note to self: just unfollow this thread.

Which gets back to the thought this is just a money grab.

No doubt there will always be some people who misunderstand, intentionally or not, even the most sincere disclaimer. Such situations with a spectrum of responses are why courts often rely on the hypothetical "reasonable man", or in this particular case the "average consumer". If the average consumer is likely to honestly misunderstand a disclaimer, then the disclaimer is insufficient.

Apple's disclaimers in this case kept emphasizing depth and duration, e.g. "4 meters for 30 minutes". From this I would argue that it is reasonable for the average consumer to assume that the device in question is suitable for some light snorkeling at the sea shore, for example. Moreover, people are used to finding disclaimers for this and that, and they understand that disclaimers restrict some earlier claim to certain conditions - and when reading the disclaimer "4 meters for 30 minutes" it is intuitive to think that this is the limit, i.e. "aha, so not actually perfectly waterproof, but 4m for 30 mins is still pretty good, I'll be fine".

It is not obvious that this disclaimer basically has a second, more severely restricting disclaimer. "Controlled laboratory conditions", for all the average consumer knows that might mean 42 tests at specific levels of salinity, temperature, and speed, rather than "only in perfectly static fresh water". Apple does not explain, they merely refer to IEC standard 60529, a closed standard not readily accessible to the average consumer.

In summary, Apple's disclaimers in this matter were constructs likely (and maybe intended) to mislead the average consumer into thinking that the iPhone is suitable for e.g. 4m for 30mins in real life, while hiding the information that would invalidate this perception in such manner that Apple could still pretend to have informed the consumer.

Below is the notation on apple.com. It seems clear to me exactly what is being said..."controlled laboratory conditions". It's reasonable the average person would expect the iphone 12 to withstand a splash of clear water, subject to the caveat of age and damage from physical abuse, heat and cold. We may have different versions in our heads of what constitutes a reasonable person...unless a device is marketed as waterproof under warranty from liquid damage reasonable people/average consumers that I know treat the product accordingly.

Which gets back to this is a money grab more than some mischievous misleading by Apple.

1. iPhone 12 Pro and iPhone 12 Pro Max are splash, water, and dust resistant and were tested under controlled laboratory conditions with a rating of IP68 under IEC standard 60529 (maximum depth of 6 meters up to 30 minutes). Splash, water, and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. Do not attempt to charge a wet iPhone; refer to the user guide for cleaning and drying instructions. Liquid damage not covered under warranty.

 

[cocky jeremy]

What about this, for example:

View attachment 1683819

lol. You don't think the ad says the same thing or similar to what I posted? Oooookay.

 

[ericwn]

lol. You don't think the ad says the same thing or similar to what I posted? Oooookay.

To quote the article:

“Specifically, Apple is being charged for misleading claims in promotional messages about how deep and how long iPhones can be submerged in water without being damaged.

In marketing materials related to iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone XR, iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 11 Pro Max, Apple said its iPhones were water resistant at a depth of between one and four meters for up to 30 minutes, depending on the model.

However, according to the country's competition regulator, the messages did not clarify that the claims are only true under specific conditions, for example during controlled laboratory tests with the use of static and pure water, and not in the normal conditions of use by consumers.”

That’s what the regulating authority took issue with.

 

[cocky jeremy]

To quote the article:

“Specifically, Apple is being charged for misleading claims in promotional messages about how deep and how long iPhones can be submerged in water without being damaged.

In marketing materials related to iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone XR, iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 11 Pro Max, Apple said its iPhones were water resistant at a depth of between one and four meters for up to 30 minutes, depending on the model.

However, according to the country's competition regulator, the messages did not clarify that the claims are only true under specific conditions, for example during controlled laboratory tests with the use of static and pure water, and not in the normal conditions of use by consumers.”

That’s what the regulating authority took issue with.

Up to 4 meters and 30 minutes. UP TO. That doesn't imply it will hold up that long. Exactly the opposite of that.

 

[nikaru]

Have no idea. Do you? It’s not me that is assuming that this Italian organization is corrupt. Don’t you see a pattern on this forum? If any European organization, local or global, fines of finds Apple in non compliance either its because they are bunch of money grabbers and the situation needs to be analyzed and cross referenced with blogs on the subject as well having a deep look on their historical practices. This coming from common American people I suppose.

I personally find this what seams to be a recurrent posture exposed in this forum, dangerous even. It may expose a on going American distrust over anything foreign, including allied countries. Its baseless, if not for the recent Trump propaganda, heck even Canada was in the grab? Let’s be serious people.

Apple should appeal this local decision as well as any decision that don’t fit their goals. I’m sure that any European country is able to judge and deal with this impartially as well as they are familiar and practice western values. Much like I suppose any foreign company would be treated in the US ...

For instance Spotifly just before the IPO was sued in the US over $1.6B over Copy Right violations ... Apple too not long time ago. Every year Apple one way or another is sued in the US, it must be Monet grabbing too?

It’s just business as usual. In Italy, US or any other other country. No one has the moral ground to pass judgement without all the facts in their hand and even than you need to be equipped to interpret them. That is for experts to do.

I see you are bit senstivie on this topic...nobody has said that this Italian organization is corrupt. What I have suggested (and others) is that the Italian authority seems to apply double-standard when it comes to Apple and other Silicon Valley tech companies. I'm not american, I'm Spanish and it is clear that there is a strong political agenda in Europe to exercise pressure on foreign multinational companies, especially if they are from the tech sector. This is nothing new. The European Commission has been fighting with Apple for years now saying that it did not paid its taxes in Ireland, and the funny thing is that even the Irish government is on Apple' said on this saying that Apple has paid all it is tax due in compliance with the Irish tax laws. Acting as offended does not help and cant hide the undelrying truth which is that all these fines, regulations and taxes are put only to grab some money from Apple and other tech giants. False advertising? Give me a break. Just switch on the television and see some ordinary commercials from women pads absoring gallons of liquids to detergents that can clean by way of a magic, there is false advertising all around us and yet, we are fining 10 million Apple because they say that the iPhone has some water resistence. Dont worry, Apple for sure is fighting this in courts and if does not win, the government would just change the law, apply a new fine, and then win in courts. This is how politics works in Europe and also in the US.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Which gets back to the thought this is just a money grab.

It’s interesting that you mention water resistant / proof watches. Because the warranty of any respectable brand does cover water related damages within period of 2 years provided some conditions are met. Examples of conditions: glass, crown, back, crown ... aren’t damaged. This is a long way from Apple stance, basically its says that its water resistant IP whatever, and does not cover the feature in any shape or form (use our feature at your own risk).

On the matter of your opinion, not being a political opinion but just an opinion. It’s a funny one. Because you seam to be inclined to simply conclude in this case without any facts that the Italian regulators are a bunch of money grabbers which implies corruption and lies. Its funny. In my my mind a political opinion is still an opinion, so it must be of other kind, not technical neither scientific that is for sure.

You see, Politics is not confined to political parties or ideals of social organization. Indeed, in sum are activities that are related to protecting or empowering a person, group of persons, an organization up to entire countries interests over or with others. It seams to be the case that you are inclined in protecting Apple interests, join this with a none technical opinion with no facts to back it up is indeed a political opinion.

We have 4 facts here:

- Italian regulators found that the water resistance feature does not work as the marketing suggests.
- Apple warranty does not cover the water resistance feature in any shape or form.
- Usually water resistant goods are protected by warranty, in case of damages driven by exposure to water. Case in case, examples of water proof / resistant watch‘s.
- iPhone and Apple Watch are IP67 certified.

Now, personally I have no opinion on the regulators decision because I have no data about the test done by the regulators. Neither my position is politically motivated considering I have no interest in either party. I’m just a consumer. As a consumer it‘s nevertheless odd that the manufacturer does not provide any form of warranty over an advertised feature. Still even if the regulators stance has merit, it does not mean that Apple is lying regarding their IP whatever certification, or that it was done badly. Because what is in question by the regulators, is not so much the certification, but how Apple is dealing with it in terms of customer support and its marketing.

Now you may taint your opinion the way you want, acuse the organization without any facts to it back up, or think that who ever thinks different on this matter is against Apple. Worst a bunch of money grabbers, corrupt or whatever. Still these 4 facts remain and have no direct correlation with the politically motivated qualifiers of your choice. Even if the core of your political activity is motivated simply by something as mundane as of protecting the interests and policies of a company that you have grown fond of, your approach to your own opinion making process is very much political.

Cheers.

 

[ericwn]

Up to 4 meters and 30 minutes. UP TO. That doesn't imply it will hold up that long. Exactly the opposite of that.

And which second of the video clarifies this to make sure it’s not misleading?
Whatever it is, it wasn’t enough to convince the authorities. Idiotic marketing, nothing else.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I see you are bit senstivie on this topic...nobody has said that this Italian organization is corrupt. What I have suggested (and others) is that the Italian authority seems to apply double-standard when it comes to Apple and other Silicon Valley tech companies.

Hi. Nope, I’m not sensitive on this topic general. I’m just against a specific line of argumentation and presented some clear examples of it. I’m sensitive to this because I think we live in a world and its increasingly complex in many matters that does not need the kind of negative charge that I’ve been arguing against. The qualifiers used were entirely unwarranted case in case. Unfortunately is something that I’ve been observing across multiple subject matters across the web ... I think its counter productive. My goal is only call ones attention to this before we proceed with these kinds of conclusions without evidence.

As for double standards. I don’t like them regardless of organization practicing them. But still, it seams to be a not so ocasional phenomena ... unfortunately. So much so that in practice I prefer not to get stuck on this issue, considering that I have yet to find an organization that has entirely avoided them in practice. Bias is a b*. Has Apple knows, enforcing a policy is not a simple task and mistakes will be made. The important thing is that decisions are being made towards protecting both companies and consumers interests the best way found.

Honestly, 12 million it‘s slap in wrist considering Apple global revenue and Italy GDP. A country with 2.08 Trillion, a 12 million fine does not for sure move a needle ....

Has far as I’m concerned, being a customer, my opinion on the subject based on the evidence on the web, “folklorine” aside, both Apple position and the Italian regulators position seam each to have its merits.

EDIT: I have an Apple Watch IP67 certified. Been swimming with it in chlorine full waters (swiming pool) as well as the sea (surfing in salt waters). Had no problem with it (I wash it after with ”clean” water). As for to iPhone, don‘t take it to these situations, so have no idea how it behaves in such conditions. Even though I feel tempted in using it to take some light underwater shots of my kinds in the pool and sea (submerged less that 1.5 meters). But I always remember that Apple does backs up its claims with their warranty, so don’t use it that way.

 

[rawCpoppa]

And which second of the video clarifies this to make sure it’s not misleading?
Whatever it is, it wasn’t enough to convince the authorities. Idiotic marketing, nothing else.

When using my iPhone X near water I based my usage on Apple keynote saying it had an ip67 rating. I thought I was safe because I wasn’t dunking my X in one meter of water. Only after it was damaged I was directed to the fine print on Apple’s website.

 

[Wando64]

lol. You don't think the ad says the same thing or similar to what I posted? Oooookay.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

If you really want to understand what is going on get someone to translate for you the charges document linked here:

https://www.agcm.it/dotcmsdoc/allegati-news/PS11578_provv%20chiusura.pdf

When you have finished, get back to me and we can have an informed chat.

(BTW, I am Italian and I don’t need translating)

 

[Wando64]

Up to 4 meters and 30 minutes. UP TO. That doesn't imply it will hold up that long. Exactly the opposite of that.

And by the way, this information displayed on the video was added after the charges were levied.
If that disclaimed had been there in the first place, very likely nothing would have happened.

Check the original English ad for comparison.

 

[Wando64]

Up to 4 meters and 30 minutes. UP TO. That doesn't imply it will hold up that long. Exactly the opposite of that.

...and, sorry for piling up, but I am certain your understanding of the expression "up to", as used in this context, is flawed.
The statement used by Apple implies that it has been tested for resistance up to 4 meters and 30 minutes. i.e. not to exceed that amount.
It does NOT say that it might, or it might not, resist up to 4 meters and 30 minutes depending on your luck on the day.

Consumer rights and advertisements watchdogs are there to protect us. You and me and everyone else.
They are not a dirty word. Companies must be held to account.

It doesn't diminish the quality of Apple's products. All it does is improving advertisement.
What's not to like?

 

[Ori]

No doubt there will always be some people who misunderstand, intentionally or not, even the most sincere disclaimer. Such situations with a spectrum of responses are why courts often rely on the hypothetical "reasonable man", or in this particular case the "average consumer". If the average consumer is likely to honestly misunderstand a disclaimer, then the disclaimer is insufficient.

Apple's disclaimers in this case kept emphasizing depth and duration, e.g. "4 meters for 30 minutes". From this I would argue that it is reasonable for the average consumer to assume that the device in question is suitable for some light snorkeling at the sea shore, for example. Moreover, people are used to finding disclaimers for this and that, and they understand that disclaimers restrict some earlier claim to certain conditions - and when reading the disclaimer "4 meters for 30 minutes" it is intuitive to think that this is the limit, i.e. "aha, so not actually perfectly waterproof, but 4m for 30 mins is still pretty good, I'll be fine".

It is not obvious that this disclaimer basically has a second, more severely restricting disclaimer. "Controlled laboratory conditions", for all the average consumer knows that might mean 42 tests at specific levels of salinity, temperature, and speed, rather than "only in perfectly static fresh water". Apple does not explain, they merely refer to IEC standard 60529, a closed standard not readily accessible to the average consumer.

In summary, Apple's disclaimers in this matter were constructs likely (and maybe intended) to mislead the average consumer into thinking that the iPhone is suitable for e.g. 4m for 30mins in real life, while hiding the information that would invalidate this perception in such manner that Apple could still pretend to have informed the consumer.

That is spot on. You can’t have an advert claiming 4 meters for 30 mins and then claim any water damage isn’t covered. You have made a claim and you must honour it.

I have had mixed results with water.
my iPhone X had this claim that it is water resistant. On a summer holiday it got wet around the pool and faceid stopped working.
luckily I had insurance, but Apple refused to honour the warrantee.
Last summer my iPhone 11 was in my pocket and I went into the pool for 30 mins when I realised it was in my pocket. Phone was fine. No issues at all.

I’ve got a 12 pro now and if I was to take it underwater it would be with a bag as additional protection as I don’t want my phone to die on holiday and I don’t trust Apple to honour the repair of something went wrong. If I didn’t have insurance through my bank, I would proper for to small claims court.

 

[Banich2]

That's quite the leap. Many people with expensive watches, I would think, understand the difference between water resistance and water proof. And while people can believe anything, the reasonable person not believe their personal electronic devices are water proof, imo.

It amazes me that there is this general discrediting of the intelligence of the population. Millions somehow manage to navigate the vagaries of buying a car, determining the model, understanding the operation of the vehicle, but can't figure out that personal electronic devices should be kept away from liquids.

I don't know about that. I thought waterproof cameras were truly waterproof until I read through this thread. I have an Apple Watch 5 that, until this thread, I believed to be waterproof because they show people swimming with it. You have to think about the entire population...I'm getting my master's degree in social work at a really competitive school, and you'd be surprised how many educated people are clueless when it comes to things like electronics. Honestly, after November we have proof that half of the voters in this country will fall for anything they're told. Also, no one is reading the disclaimer on Apple's website but us, honestly. Half of the people in this country are fully and completely stupid and will even believe the Earth is flat because they watched a video on YouTube. Don't even get me started with teenagers who eat soap because they saw it on a video

 

[Banich2]

No doubt there will always be some people who misunderstand, intentionally or not, even the most sincere disclaimer. Such situations with a spectrum of responses are why courts often rely on the hypothetical "reasonable man", or in this particular case the "average consumer". If the average consumer is likely to honestly misunderstand a disclaimer, then the disclaimer is insufficient.

Apple's disclaimers in this case kept emphasizing depth and duration, e.g. "4 meters for 30 minutes". From this I would argue that it is reasonable for the average consumer to assume that the device in question is suitable for some light snorkeling at the sea shore, for example. Moreover, people are used to finding disclaimers for this and that, and they understand that disclaimers restrict some earlier claim to certain conditions - and when reading the disclaimer "4 meters for 30 minutes" it is intuitive to think that this is the limit, i.e. "aha, so not actually perfectly waterproof, but 4m for 30 mins is still pretty good, I'll be fine".

It is not obvious that this disclaimer basically has a second, more severely restricting disclaimer. "Controlled laboratory conditions", for all the average consumer knows that might mean 42 tests at specific levels of salinity, temperature, and speed, rather than "only in perfectly static fresh water". Apple does not explain, they merely refer to IEC standard 60529, a closed standard not readily accessible to the average consumer.

In summary, Apple's disclaimers in this matter were constructs likely (and maybe intended) to mislead the average consumer into thinking that the iPhone is suitable for e.g. 4m for 30mins in real life, while hiding the information that would invalidate this perception in such manner that Apple could still pretend to have informed the consumer.

I agree with you, but who couldn't? In my personal opinion, the sole purpose of that commercial was to demonstrate to consumers that the phone is waterproof/water resistant. The disclaimer should say "Not actually waterproof", but even that wouldn't be enough seeing how many people need lasses and use captions on their tv that might cover such a message. Honestly, they should stop promoting half-baked features and focus on the positives of the phone, like privacy, materials, design, et cetera.

 

[I7guy]

It’s interesting that you mention water resistant / proof watches. Because the warranty of any respectable brand does cover water related damages within period of 2 years provided some conditions are met. Examples of conditions: glass, crown, back, crown ... aren’t damaged. This is a long way from Apple stance, basically its says that its water resistant IP whatever, and does not cover the feature in any shape or form (use our feature at your own risk).

Samsung has the same type of "warranty" with it's ip68 rated phones such as the Note. As far as watches:

Water in Rolex Watch: Will Water Damage My Rolex? How Do I Fix It?

Most customers are a bit annoyed that their rolex watch has now failed them, since it is an expensive watch and supposed to be able to go in the water.

blog.watchdoctor.biz

On the matter of your opinion, not being a political opinion but just an opinion. It’s a funny one. Because you seam to be inclined to simply conclude in this case without any facts that the Italian regulators are a bunch of money grabbers which implies corruption and lies. Its funny. In my my mind a political opinion is still an opinion, so it must be of other kind, not technical neither scientific that is for sure.

Sure, that is the exact definition of an opinion.

You see, Politics is not confined to political parties or ideals of social organization. Indeed, in sum are activities that are related to protecting or empowering a person, group of persons, an organization up to entire countries interests over or with others. It seams to be the case that you are inclined in protecting Apple interests, join this with a none technical opinion with no facts to back it up is indeed a political opinion.

I'm as inclined to protect Apple interests are you are inclined for a "guilty until proven innocent."

We have 4 facts here:

- Italian regulators found that the water resistance feature does not work as the marketing suggests.
- Apple warranty does not cover the water resistance feature in any shape or form.
- Usually water resistant goods are protected by warranty, in case of damages driven by exposure to water. Case in case, examples of water proof / resistant watch‘s.
- iPhone and Apple Watch are IP67 certified.

Actually, the fact is, from Apple's website (Samsung's website is similar):

1. iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini are splash, water, and dust resistant and were tested under controlled laboratory conditions with a rating of IP68 under IEC standard 60529 (maximum depth of 6 meters up to 30 minutes). Splash, water, and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. Do not attempt to charge a wet iPhone; refer to the user guide for cleaning and drying instructions. Liquid damage not covered under warranty.

The above is the a fact. And because Italian regulators have an anecdotal case of a phone not working the way the marketing suggests, it seems to be a money grab. And I just posted two examples of water resistant goods that aren't warrantied for liquid damage.

Now, personally I have no opinion on the regulators decision because I have no data about the test done by the regulators. Neither my position is politically motivated considering I have no interest in either party. I’m just a consumer. As a consumer it‘s nevertheless odd that the manufacturer does not provide any form of warranty over an advertised feature. Still even if the regulators stance has merit, it does not mean that Apple is lying regarding their IP whatever certification, or that it was done badly. Because what is in question by the regulators, is not so much the certification, but how Apple is dealing with it in terms of customer support and its marketing.

Apple probably should have had a disclaimer, the least of which was to review the website for relevant information, but that doesn't mean the iphone 12 is not IP68 resistant. As a consumer of Apple products (and other electronic devices), I'm glad my iphone can withstand some water damage, but I wouldn't bet the farm by going swimming with my iphone. I totally understand why Apple (Samsung) does not warrant water damage. As an extra credit assignment can you name one manufacturer that claims water resistance that covers liquid damage?

Now you may taint your opinion the way you want, acuse the organization without any facts to it back up, or think that who ever thinks different on this matter is against Apple. Worst a bunch of money grabbers, corrupt or whatever. Still these 4 facts remain and have no direct correlation with the politically motivated qualifiers of your choice. Even if the core of your political activity is motivated simply by something as mundane as of protecting the interests and policies of a company that you have grown fond of, your approach to your own opinion making process is very much political.

Cheers.

There does seem to be much cognitive dissonance on this particular subject...I wonder why? As far as "accusing" an organization of a money grab without any facts to back it up, seems the facts speak for themselves. The iphone is ip68 rated, that doesn't mean water resistance lasts forever or works 100% of the time, based on abuse, heat or cold. Even if I don't have all of the facts, neither do you and you can't rule out this being a money-grab either.