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

[oneMadRssn]

As Wikipedia summarizes:

"In the US, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prevents manufacturers from voiding warranties solely due to tampering. A warranty may be dishonored only if the tampering actually affected the part that has failed, and could have caused the failure."

I have already demonstrated how an incorrectly paired TouchID sensor compromises the Secure Enclave, and how a compromised Secure Enclave compromises the entire phone, regardless of whether TouchID is enabled or not. Therefore, as the summary states, Apple has 100% legal grounds to state that the part caused hardware failure, being that the Secure Enclave is physically on the Apple A series coprocessor, which is a physical part of the phone. The only chance Apple has of losing this battle should it go to the courts is a lack of technological understanding by the judge or jury.

First, just because the system works as designed doesn't make it legal. It is precisely their design that is anti-consumer. Second, if the secure enclave is not physically on the sensor itself, as you say, then it seems this pairing issue can be avoided by a better design.

 

[SusanK]

No it's not. You agreed to these conditions when you bought the device.

Maybe next time you and others will RTFM and the FEULA before you invest in technical products that are important to you.

Whining like cry-babies afterwords is cute but won't stand in court.

Is a company permitted to contract away their liabilities in all jurisdictions?

 

[igorsky]

The sad part is that some people blindly take Apple's word when on it's face this is a very anti-consumer move.

Sadder still is the fact that some people automatically assume that Apple always has some sort of ulterior motive for anything they do.

 

[DevNull0]

that Apple automatically got bashed when believe it or not they have their customers best interest is sad.

Bricking your phone for no reason (when wiping the data is an option if you care that much about security) is in the best interest of the consumer?

It is blatant punishment for daring to not give Apple their tax on a repair.

 

[BaldiMac]

You're just arguing semantics now. What is an "incompatible repair"? I have a screw driver that fits, the parts fit, seems the repair is compatible. It's a straw-man argument to say the third-party repairs don't properly validate the secure pairing because that is precisely the issue here. What I say is an anti-consumer issue, you say it's fine because they meant it to be that way.

Again, not semantics. Just because you don't understand why the parts are securely paired doesn't mean that it is unnecessary.

 

[dk001]

Right because if your Touch ID was in fact hacked by a third party who then went on an Apple Pay shopping spree and spread all your personal dick pics online, you, as the consumer, would only blame yourself and not Apple. Good one.

And thanks for your legal opinion. Apple should just cut a check now instead of proving, through the court of law, how stupid these members of the class action suit, and their attorneys, are.

I'm going to just come out and say: Idiocy.
Show me one instance this has or could take place. It can't. When you reboot your device what does the device ask for? Passcode. Not TouchID. A Passcode.

and btw, this also happens using original brand spanking new OEM parts.
[doublepost=1455040778][/doublepost]

The hardware doesn't work you can't use Touch ID. Therefore to repeat the hardware doesn't work.

Huh? He swapped out the working parts and the devices worked fine. So how is it "not working"? TouchID will work fine until you update the OS.
What am I missing?

 

[DevNull0]

No it's not. You agreed to these conditions when you bought the device.

Maybe next time you and others will RTFM and the FEULA before you invest in technical products that are important to you.

Whining like cry-babies afterwords is cute but won't stand in court.

Maybe you should read the license you're pretending to cite. The users agreed Apple is not responsible for damage caused by the third party repair. There is nothing in there about allowing Apple to maliciously destroy the phone if you do a third party repair.

This is going to stand up in court. I almost wish I had bricked iPhone just to get in on the lawsuit so I can help twist the knife.

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm going to just come out and say: Idiocy.
Show me one instance this has or could take place. It can't. When you reboot your device what does the device ask for? Passcode. Not TouchID. A Passcode.

and btw, this also happens using original brand spanking new OEM parts.

TouchID isn't the only issue. The TouchID sensor assembly is part of the chain of trust that includes the secure enclave. Compromise one part and the whole chain is compromised.

 

[SusanK]

Fact of the matter is... Apple is being freaking greedy, if they want repairs done in house... They need to lower their prices... Period, they have insane margins as it is... Do the right thing and don't Nickle and dime your loyal fan base

That's half the issue, the other issues is the logistics of the repair... Why can't Apple authorize or partner up with these small repair shops/kiosk with OEM parts and a small percentage fee vs opening a store in a unknown region... What's cheaper?

I agree with your assessment that the motivation is greed. I think the primary motivation is to sell more phones although Apple doesn't mind the repair revenue. I really think it's phone sales.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Sadder still is the fact that some people automatically assume that Apple always has some sort of ulterior motive for anything they do.

I agree assumptions are bad, but I try not assume anything! I question everything, I don't assume information I am told is accurate. Critically analyze all statements, especially from governments, corporations, and leaders. Fight and make up often. Question question question! This is the only true way to learn, question everything!

 

[997941]

The problem with this stance from apple is that in encompasses all people weather they use Touch ID or not.
If I do not use apple pay, or store my finger prints and only use the home button to wake my phone, I would suddenly own a bricked phone if I replaced the touch ID sensor with a 3rd party part. How is that fair?

I am all for security measures. I really am. But I am also a consumer and have the right to use non OEM parts. With this policy from apple, I am prevented form doing so. And everyone should be upset by such a measure. If the policy consequence is to brick the phone, because of a non OEM part install that causes a conceived security breach, shouldn't apple supply a resolution to repair the phone that does not require the consumer to practically pay for a new phone?

What happens to the original touch ID sensor that is removed form the phone? Wouldn't this sensor also fail to work in any other device?

If a dishonest retailer does install a malware injected new touch ID sensor, couldn't the new part have its firmware wiped, and reinstalled by apple? Of course firmware wipes are not always a resolution since the malware could be embedded there. Point is, shouldn't there be a plan B for this?

 

[DevNull0]

I bet you'd also like people to sue Apple if you could tamper with the touch-Id system on a stolen phone and start using someone else's Appek Pay method?

I bet you actually think bricking the phone has anything at all to do with securing the touch-ID system. They can make he data inaccessible and wipe the phone.

This is 100% about screwing the customer and trying to make an extra buck.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Again, not semantics. Just because you don't understand why the parts are securely paired doesn't mean that it is unnecessary.

I have both the degree and the technical experience to understand it just fine. If I don't understand it, it's because the explanations have been lacking.

 

[BaldiMac]

I bet you actually think bricking the phone has anything at all to do with securing the touch-ID system. They can make he data inaccessible and wipe the phone.

This is 100% about screwing the customer and trying to make an extra buck.

Yeah, you got to be crazy to accept an explanation from Apple that is verified by a third-party and supported by documentation. Absolutely bonkers. All for a negligible amount of repair revenue.

 

[igorsky]

I agree with your assessment that the motivation is greed. I think the primary motivation is to sell more phones although Apple doesn't mind the repair revenue. I really think it's phone sales.

So you're saying that this is some sort scheme by Apple to brick people's phones so that they're forced into buying new ones? Is this really the logic that we're resorting to now?

Great stuff. You'd think Apple should change their name to EvilCorp and hire Lex Luthor as CEO, if you follow some of the commentary in this thread.

 

[BaldiMac]

I have both the degree and the technical experience to understand it just fine. If I don't understand it, it's because the explanations have been lacking.

Evidently not, if you think that the secure pairing is unnecessary.

 

[techwhiz]

Is a company permitted to contract away their liabilities in all jurisdictions?

At least in the U.S. a company cannot circumvent the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act by an EULA.
It's against public policy and if manufacturers could void the act they would.
It a nutshell it states that a company cannot require only their parts be used unless they provide those parts. Also replacement parts or modifications can only void the warranty for those parts. A manufacturer must prove the non-OEM part caused the related failure.

BMW, Mercedes and others have tried to void complete car warranties for changing the shocks, etc.
Apple has no leg to stand on. Completely bricking a device is inexcusable.

 

[DevNull0]

Evidently not, if you think that the secure pairing is unnecessary.

Yeah, I'll trust my degree and my professors a bit more than Apple's marketing fud.

 

[dk001]

The warranty act is a red herring in this discussion. It doesn't require Apple to support incompatible third-party repairs. It doesn't require Apple to teach third-parties how to securely pair the hardware.

Do us all a favor and read. You can use a salvaged TouchID button from another phone and have this occur. You can internally damage your phone and have this occur (no hardware repair ever done). Currently there is no check until now and only on specific devices for any kind of "hardware match". Then we come to Error 53. It's not listed on any accessible Apple document, repair centers are not aware of it (they are now most likely), even Apple Stores had no clue what Error 53 was.

Stop focusing on a portion of the detail: 3rd party. It is beyond that.

 

[garylapointe]

Egg Freckles did a nice article on this, some history (repair, Apple third party parts and device testing) and then the current issue. It's a pretty short article, check it out http://eggfreckles.net/notes/error53/

I'm surprised at the levels that Apple checks their iPhones for when repairing/replacing an iPhone. They've pulled my iPhone apart to check the screen and other components before replacing it for me, I asked and they said "you'd be surprised" at what parts get replaced in the devices (I pried but they didn't want to share more).

Gary

 

[BaldiMac]

Yeah, I'll trust my degree and my professors a bit more than Apple's marketing fud.

You have a degree and professors that have explained how secure hardware pairing is useless? I'm impressed by your vague and unverifiable claim!

 

[techwhiz]

Egg Freckles did a nice article on this, some history(repair, Apple third party parts and device) and then the current issue.

It's a pretty short article, check it out http://eggfreckles.net/notes/error53/

The problem is that for Apple to require the use f their parts and ONLY their parts violates the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

From the act itself:
"Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty. This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions, and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives."

Bricking a device for using a non-Apple component will cause them issues.
Redress is $50K per individual violation.

 

[dk001]

Would you also get upset if your car wouldn't start because you have the wrong key?

Huh? you are making no sense. TouchID is not the key to your device, your passcode is.
[doublepost=1455042847][/doublepost]

Yes and this is not illegal.

Actually it is as it is being applied irrespective of the warranty status and in effect destroying, stealing, or holding for ransom your personal data.

 

[garylapointe]

You're just arguing semantics now. What is an "incompatible repair"? I have a screw driver that fits, the parts fit, seems the repair is compatible. It's a straw-man argument to say the third-party repairs don't properly validate the secure pairing because that is precisely the issue here. What I say is an anti-consumer issue, you say it's fine because they meant it to be that way.

It "seems the repair is compatible".... It's nice that it "seems" that way... But it's not done right, right?

If it was done the "right way" people wouldn't be having this problem.

Semantics is important sometimes.

Gary

 

[dk001]

Well, I suppose you can continue to ignore the security aspect until you get a personal explanation from someone that you trust that has inside knowledge of iPhone security. Maybe Apple can walk you and your trusted security expert through all of the security ramifications of the secure enclave and touch ID sensor.

What security aspect? That is the part I am not hearing. There are a lot of folks including Apple saying security however if this is how security is enacted in an iPhone someone need to be seriously retrained. I swap my sensor out, continue to use my device for months, do an OS update and get an error 53. Where, will someone tell me, is the security in that?