Law Firms Consider 'Error 53' Lawsuits Against Apple as Some Stores Authorized for Repairs

[unplugme71]

Because authorized repair shops are required to use authorized parts as part of being authorized.

Even if the repair facility is authorized....how does that guarantee their not skimping out and using 3rd party parts?

[doublepost=1454962540][/doublepost]

This is ludicrous... There are so many security concerns due to this. TouchID basically has direct access to your bank cars and such.

Touch ID does not have access to my bank or my cars.

 

[jayducharme]

If Apple loses this suit, it will be bad news for encrypted devices. The whole idea behind that "secure enclave" is that it's immune to hacking. Allow someone to put a third-party fingerprint sensor in the iPhone, and it's much more likely that the secure data can be accessed. Apple's doing due diligence to protect its customers' data, and now they're being sued because of that.

 

[gavroche]

I understand that Apple could have been concerned about security of Touch ID. But wouldn't a simpler solution be to have the software just disable Touch ID when it detects third party parts, as opposed to bricking the phone?

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

Geez...It says right in the headline that some of the stores were authorized. You didn't even have to read through the entire article to see that...

Sorry about that, I should have clarified that I was speaking about the use of non-authorized centers.

 

[b0fh666]

lol.

i would have no problem with them locking me out of apple pay, its their right. but bricking my device is sabotage, plain and simple, even if i put xiaomi parts in it. its mine, only I have the right to break it.

megabucks, I say.

 

[garotemonkey]

Hey Ford!! I took the ignition out of my Explorer and replaced it with one from Bob's Cheap Ignitions down the street, and now my car won't start! You bastards did this on purpose! I'm lawyering up!

 

[PrayForDeath]

Error 53 should simply disable TouchID. It shouldn't brick the damn phone

 

[temna]

So, the question is, couldn't you disable TouchID, reset the device, change out the home button, re-enable TouchID? Wouldn't this get around that error?
[doublepost=1454962711][/doublepost]

Error 53 should simply disable TouchID. It shouldn't brick the damn phone

Why not?

 

[Number-Six]

Let me ask you this: Should I have my barber fix my car's transmission?




That would be NO! And if I did, I wouldn't expect Honda to fix it when it broke or didn't work...why...because my barber isn't qualified nor is he an authorized mechanic for Honda. The same thing applies here. People take their iPhones to un-authorized retailers to get it fixed and the complain when Apple disables the device?

So, the lesson of the day...take your **** to the right people if you want it to work.

The way I see it, to expand on your example, it's more akin to: Honda is remotely disabling your car because you had it fixed by Toyota

 

[Rigby]

These are security-related items that are being replaced by those from unknown vendors. A very bad idea.

I agree, but the proper response in this case would have been to disable Touch ID (and with it Apple Pay), not to brick the entire phone.

 

[RickInHouston]

I may be incorrect, but I believe that in the terms of use Apple states using unauthorized 3rd party repair shops may void your warranty and lead to unexpected results, even those rendering the device unusable.

Solution? DON'T utilize unauthorized 3rd parties!

Something tells me you did not read the article.

 

[sk1wbw]

If someone stole a lawyer's iPhone and used this exploit to replace the fingerprint sensor to retrieve his information, that lawyer would sue.

Please stop with the lawsuits. It's getting ridiculous.

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

With few exceptions, it is illegal in the US and apparently much of the EU, to require that a consumer use only the manufacturer's parts or service centers.

That's why anyone can add non-Apple memory to their Mac, and why anyone can use a non-Ford battery in their car.

And that's also why the Apple Warranty only says that DAMAGE caused by such activities can void the warranty. So one question is, did the third party part cause the damage. Or was it Apple's OS change.

Perhaps Apple should provide a service to re-link sensors, just like locksmiths have to program automobile key fobs.

Maybe a case of Buyer beware (of service shops). I don't think this warrants a lawsuit, but then again, I'm not affected by a non-working phone. If Apple provided a linking service themselves that might work, but if that info was provided to other parties, I think it could be used nefariously.
[doublepost=1454962799][/doublepost]

Something tells me you did not read the article.

I thought it was building off the one from last week that only mentioned unauthorized facilities. Oops.

 

[RickInHouston]

The way I see it, to expand on your example, it's more akin to: Honda is remotely disabling your car because you had it fixed by Toyota

I see it has repairing the Honda at a Honda certified repair center. Does anyone read the article the thread is about anymore???

 

[PJWilkin]

If they are AUTHORISED REPAIR CENTRES then they should be following Apples Guidelines for the repair
it may be some of them have skipped a step to save time (assuming they used Apple Genuine spares, not 3rd party sourced ones)

I assume the pairing of the Touch-ID Sensor and the Processor/Secure Enclave is something that is either done by Apple centrally, or in a diagnostic screen on the phone.

No doubt apple will release guidance for this to Authorised Repair Centres
I also think Apple may release a new version of iOS that enables the phone for use, but disables Touch-ID, Apple Pay etc and constantly nags the user to take back to Apple as suspect parts exist in the phone. Thus avoiding 'You Bricked my Phone' scenarios

 

[gavroche]

And again, read the headline! It clearly says "...Some Stores Authorized For Repairs"

Where does it state what authorized stores had performed such a repair? I see that the article headline has the line you just quoted... but i see nothing at all in the actual article that substantiates that statement. And as someone else already pointed out... one of the qualifications for being an authorized repair center is that you must use genuine replacement parts.

 

[69Mustang]

Who couldn't see this coming from a mile away?
Two things from this situation stand out to me. 1. How is this a security feature if it doesn't trigger without an update? If someone was to do something sinister and steal all the information on the phone, there's not a helluva lot of security to be gotten from Error-53. The guy from the original story had his phone fixed and working for months before he was prompted for a security update. If someone stole his info, Error-53 would have been no help whatsoever.

Imo, the fearmongering stolen data scenario is a false flag. If data is going to be stolen, it will be gone before the update.

2. MR is seriously downplaying the fact that Error-53 happens without unauthorized repairs. One line in the entire article: "Damaged phones also have the potential to give the error." Seemed like an afterthought.

 

[oneMadRssn]

So, according to this logic, if you take your new Lexus to a non-dealership repair shop and they put non-factory aftermarket replacement parts on your car, Lexus is liable when something goes wrong?

Not always liable.

Lexus would be liable if they programmed the car to detect the aftermarket part and then refuse to start or drive at all only because of the fact the part is aftermarket and no other fact.

Lexus would be liable for the rest of your warranty, and cannot deny or void your warranty for an unrelated part of functionality. (i.e., they cannot refuse to fix a defective catalytic converter because you installed an aftermarket radio; they cannot refuse to fix a defective ignition because you installed aftermarket brake pads).

Lexus would not be liable for the aftermarket part itself, or any other damage proximately caused by that aftermarket part.

 

[citysnaps]

hope they win megabucks from this

Right, because we need more ambulance chasing lawyers making even more money.

 

[Nramos33]

My theory:

The iPhone 7 has a finger print sensor built into the display and they are beta testing a screen and touch ID on software with the latest update. That's why when the update was performed and a non-authorized touch ID OR screen you get error 53.

Otherwise, there is no need to brick a device with just a replaced screen.

 

[69Mustang]

Let me ask you this: Should I have my barber fix my car's transmission?




That would be NO! And if I did, I wouldn't expect Honda to fix it when it broke or didn't work...why...because my barber isn't qualified nor is he an authorized mechanic for Honda. The same thing applies here. People take their iPhones to un-authorized retailers to get it fixed and the complain when Apple disables the device?

So, the lesson of the day...take your **** to the right people if you want it to work.

No the lessen for the day is a horrible analogy is horrible. That's analogy is... puppymonkeybaby.

 

[mj1108]

The moment the Error 53 story hit, you could hear lawyers everywhere licking their chops. It's going to be a race to see who can file a class action suit first.

 

[citysnaps]

I understand that Apple could have been concerned about security of Touch ID. But wouldn't a simpler solution be to have the software just disable Touch ID when it detects third party parts, as opposed to bricking the phone?

I believe Apple's goal is to ensure any phone Apple manufactures and services meets all features and specs.

And to not have a dumb down mode that disable's features because a customer decided to go to an unauthorized repair facility that uses unauthorized parts.

 

[CaTOAGU]

Even if the repair facility is authorized....how does that guarantee their not skimping out and using 3rd party parts?

I was thinking that too. I think a lot of the people that have been impacted by this should really be pursuing compensation from the shops that repaired their devices. However I'm not sure why Apple need to brick the entire device instead of disabling the touch ID sensor and secure enclave.

The error message itself is most unhelpful though, kinda out of a 90's Microsoft playbook, albeit without a long hexadecimal address.

 

[LordVic]

I think the important thing is that Apple owns up and starts offering to unbrick peoples phones.

The correct response would have been to block out the functionaltiy that requires the security. Like no more available touchID. No more Apple pay

but to brick the whole phone... at next update? that was over reaching.