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.
Italy Fines Apple $12 Million for Misleading iPhone Water Resistance Claims
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What exactly is your reasoning? I'm just really curious. Where do you draw the line with advertising claims?
It doesn't appear that you have any grasp of the law in any country, let alone Italy.
Watch the included commercial. It implies that the iPhone 11 Pro will survive being caked in wet food followed by a torrent of water from above, and independent sources have found that to be in no way true. The water resistance seems to be here and there, but the commercials they've marketed, and the use of the term "water resistance" at all. I guess Italy has a law that you can't advertise things that aren't true. I'm sure Apple has carefully weighed covering water damage claims against international fines, and it's decided to err on the side of profit.
I'm lucky in that I never believe a word Apple says (in my experience not a single damn thing they make "just works" anymore, probably because of iCloud) and so I've never gotten my phone wet to test it.
But you'd better believe that if I wanted to re-create one of Apple's commercials (which explicitly imply that the phone is waterproof), and my $1000 phone sustained water damage, I'd have every right to sue them in small claims court for the cost of the phone and would more than likely win.
Also, a "waterproof" claim is in no way the same as an "improved drop protection" claim.
Think of it like a car...crashing your car into a wall is not the same as waterproofing seals failing catastrophically.
aye, aye, aye
It's filled with goddamn sensors, genius. And it doesn't matter. Either they back up their claim or they don't.
They shouldn't mention water resistance at all, until it's fully waterproof. Unless you enjoy being misled.
You could definitely file a lawsuit against them in the US and win, or lobby a prosecutor
Really? You made a statement and I asked a question.
Why not? Water resistance is a feature. If my car has 5 mph doesn't mean if I crash into a wall at 5mph there won't be any damage. Most people will understand that.
Buy Refurbished Galaxy Phones | Samsung Certified Re-Newed | Samsung US
Get the quality and innovative features of Samsung devices, but in a more eco-friendly, affordable option with Samsung's Certified Re-Newed program.
www.samsung.com
My wife had her iPhone 11 Pro in her coat pocket - and got absolutely rain soaked on the way home. The coat was not completely water proof - so phone got damp.
It killed the unlock feature - and stopped the front camera from being able to recalibrate the Face unlock. The camera to this day is blurry and still does not work.
Apple's comment "It was water damaged"
So yes - Italy is completely right about fining apple. But the fine should have been 100x as big so Apple could feel it. And everyone who ever had an iPhone while the Apple "submerged standards" have been advertised - should be given a replacement phone.
So now we are not upgrading our phones every year any longer. We keep them to they absolutely die hoping Apple will at some point make phones that is actually waterproof to some of the real IPX standards and not only the Marketing Hype.
To be honest I do think anyone taking Apple to court in the UK - with a claim regarding water intrusion would have a pretty clear win.
It killed the unlock feature - and stopped the front camera from being able to recalibrate the Face unlock. The camera to this day is blurry and still does not work.
Apple's comment "It was water damaged"
So yes - Italy is completely right about fining apple. But the fine should have been 100x as big so Apple could feel it. And everyone who ever had an iPhone while the Apple "submerged standards" have been advertised - should be given a replacement phone.
So now we are not upgrading our phones every year any longer. We keep them to they absolutely die hoping Apple will at some point make phones that is actually waterproof to some of the real IPX standards and not only the Marketing Hype.
To be honest I do think anyone taking Apple to court in the UK - with a claim regarding water intrusion would have a pretty clear win.
There's nothing anywhere suggesting it's anymore water resistant than Apple says it is. If you want to assume it's waterproof, that's on you.
And it isn't isn't a big deal. I've seen stories of older iPhones being found in lakes and powering on after being down there for years.
Water resistance is not a feature. From what consumers have found it is not water resistant at all.Really? You made a statement and I asked a question.
Why not? Water resistance is a feature. If my car has 5 mph doesn't mean if I crash into a wall at 5mph there won't be any damage. Most people will understand that.
Buy Refurbished Galaxy Phones | Samsung Certified Re-Newed | Samsung US
Get the quality and innovative features of Samsung devices, but in a more eco-friendly, affordable option with Samsung's Certified Re-Newed program.
I don't understand what you are saying...how can a car have 5 miles per hour? That statement doesn't make sense
Apple's ads say that it is completely waterproof. They're claiming that it can survive a downpour from fire sprinkler, which it clearly can't if it got ruined in someone's pocket in a rainstorm.
You are correct, it is kind of a big deal. People who live in the US but don't speak English would have no way of knowing that their new iPhone isn't water resistant because Apple advertises the exact opposite with pictures and videos
As the thread itself shows with its posts, anecdotal evidence of waterproofing is found on both ends of the scale.
I agree it’s not a big deal, it’s just an example for ads not thought through fully.
They should not claim any water resistance that they are not willing to warranty.
If you say the phone is IP68 resistant to water, it should survive IP68 exposure.
If it is only IP68 for the first month of ownership, I wouldn't mention that because the number of people who upgrade their phone every 30 days is statistically insignificant. Apple doesn't even release a new model every 30 days.
If they want to opt out of liquid damage entirely, the commercials should have a disclaimer to the effect "Do not attempt! Exposure to liquids voids Apple warranties." This assumes that local advertising laws permit this.
I love me some Apple, but this one is obvious. You can't brag about how water resistant your phone is, then back out of the warranty because of water.
Imagine if Jeep voided warranties for driving on unpaved roads because "they aren't designed for off road use."
Straight from the iPhone tech specs on Apple's site:
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.
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.
No I understood fine.
Plenty of tests have shown iPhones to be water resistant. CNET soaked the iPhone XS with a couple of beverages like tea and beer (similar to as shown in the commercials) and the iPhone XS still worked fine. They dunked the iPhone XS in a chlorine pool for 32 minutes and it worked fine too. Are you just going to ignore those tests and cherry pick whatever "independent" tests you're saying?
and what sensor would that be? go ahead, tell me.
you can't, because there is no sensor in the iPhone to measure the amount of time submerged in the water. there is only a sensor to check if water made contact with the internals. so how the hell are you going to know if the iPhone was submerged longer than 30 minutes. YOU CAN'T.
do some research on liquid contact indicators before sarcastically calling me a "genius".
I'm not going to continue conversing with someone throwing around stupid insults and getting facts wrong. see ya 👋
Water resistance is a feature. Like stronger glass is a feature. It doesn't mean with stronger glass the glass won't shatter. Some consumers have found the phone to be water resistant. It's something engineered into the phone and should be advertised, same as Samsung.
I'm jaded, but there is nothing wrong with mentioning water resistance, even if it is not warrantied. Apple is not claiming water-proof. As far as the "do not attempt", it reads like a car commercial, where a street car is driven on a closed track with the disclaimer, "do not attempt".
Is there a phone manufacturer that claims water resistance and then honors it? How can one even determine the phone wasn't abused like swimming in the Dead Sea?
As far as Jeep goes, if you break an axle off-road, will Jeep cover it under warranty?
Ever tried claiming a warranty for water damage on an ACTUAL underwater camera ? The same warranty applies as Apple's as waterproof seals can go bad for a number of simple reasons and do need to be maintained.
Only under perfect conditions are waterproof items are actually waterproof in the longterm.
An iPhone that was for example was sat on in someones back pocket on may have the seals broken between the glass and the case due to minor flexing for example.
Personally I do not think Italy should have won.