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

[gavroche]

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.

Your first point is a good one.... and a point that i hadn't seen brought up before. As for your second... well... there are many types of damage that cause a phone to stop working properly or altogether. If someone damages the phone to the extent that it damages the connection between sensor and processor... why be surprised if problems occur....

 

[Rogifan]

But isn't the point of this article that some people had their devices repaired at authorised repairers and Apple still locked their devices and considered the work done to be unauthorised. That's not acceptable, that's false advertising.

do we have cases where this happened and Apple refused to do anything about it or swap out the device for a new one?

 

[oneMadRssn]

i'm not saying i disagree with you... but if what you say is true how is it that Apple replaced my screen on my phone.. and it still worked...?

Most likely, the technician carefully removed the fingerprint sensor from your original screen, and installed it on the new screen. Having done this process on both an iPhone 5S and iPhone 6, I can say it is difficult to do but totally do-able.

Most third-party repair should do this. However, the process is easy to mess up - there are some very fragile ribbons in that fingerprint sensor. I don't think the entire phone should be bricked if the repairer messes up. Taking a genuine fingerprint sensor from another phone of the same model should work just fine.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

If Lexus stopped your car from being drivable when you got a third-party remote unlocking fob, despite the fact you still had the original key and could otherwise open the door and start the car this way, yes.

Disable untrusted Touch-ID sensors - fine. Delete all stored fingerprints - fine. Stop the phone being unlocked with the passcode - not fine. There is no reason to brick the phone. Apple will back down.

A more accurate example is Lexus disabling your car from starting when you remove/replace the immobilizer chip in the FOB (which is now typically integrated in the FOB) and that is exactly what happens.

 

[waquzy]

Ah greedy lawyers, how predictable.

lol, only in America, because their justice system is really flawed. Just look at the Steven Avery case, watching "Making A Murderer" makes me glad I don't live in the USA.

 

[jweinraub]

Sorry, first the first time in quite a while, I am backing Apple on this one, this is stupid.

Why? The finger print sensor has zero to do with whats stored on the phone. A replacement sensor will not affect anything at all.

 

[ForkHandles]

I understand Apples logic of this one but can't quite get my head around the error message and the bricking.

Deactivate Touch ID for sure, it's compromised, then ask the user for the last password that they used before the sensor was changed. Stick up an annoying message everyday reminding users that their data is compromised, possibly, and jobs a good un.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Why? The finger print sensor has zero to do with whats stored on the phone. A replacement sensor will not affect anything at all.

Man in the middle attack between the TouchID sensor and the motherboard, it's a security vulnerability.

 

[gavroche]

But isn't the point of this article that some people had their devices repaired at authorised repairers and Apple still locked their devices and considered the work done to be unauthorised. That's not acceptable, that's false advertising.

Am i somehow only getting a portion of the article... because people keep mentioning this, but i can't see a single sentence (apart from the headline) that substantiates this in any way at all. I see no mention of a single authorized repair center in the article.

 

[mariusignorello]

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!

You wouldn't be implying that people should... use common sense??

 

[MH01]

Apple has to come out and state if this is a Valid security risk, and not just a hypothetical.

If Apple states that it has encountered cases of 3rd party sensors leading to access to personal data, they have a valid action. In which case they need to make it clear that there is a security flaw if the sensor is changed.

If this is valid, expect iphone 7 to have a redeigned implementation of touchid.

If THIS IS a real thread, well the government and other agencies have a very nice backdoor into your personal data. So why are iphone 5 not effected?

 

[BlendedFrog]

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?

Nope, you choose to go with aftermarket parts from a non-dealership shop. Lexus is not responsible at all for any problems that would arise from the systems that are connected to those aftermarket parts.

EX: You buy an aftermarket remote engine starter for your 2016 Lexus from your local wal-mart, and have your mechanic install it. Both are aftermarket retailers and neither are authorized by Lexus. 2 weeks from now, your Lexus issued key fob no longer works and the engine doesn't start properly. You take it to Lexus for repair (because it is brand new and under warranty) and they determine it is due to the aftermarket remote starter and improper installation. Thus, Lexus isn't liable for this repair and you are stuck with a rather hefty bill. Same goes for Apple.

 

[gaximus]

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!

Exactly if I take my car to a repair shop and they break my car by putting on the wrong part, I don't expect BMW to be responsible for it not working.

 

[JohnApples]

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

If you read the story, it means that some Apple stores are authorized to repair the phones that have this error. Not that authorized repair stores were causing this error. Poorly worded title for sure.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

I think Apple is in the wrong here. They can make it so they no longer accept any claims to your privacy issues and stuff like that, but they can't just brick your phone.

 

[Rogifan]

Apple's PR has gone downhill. They're doing a really bad job of communicating what is happening. I mean, the whole thing is bad communication - from the cryptic error message to the media coverage.



You see? People don't understand; screen repairs are perfectly fine as the screen itself isn't a secured component.

The one thing I don't understand is why the components are only verified when you install an OS update. That's concerning to me - does it mean somebody could install a compromised TouchID chip and go accessing my phone, as long as they don't install any updates? It should verify the secure components on every boot, and give a descriptive message explaining not that the hardware security has been compromised.

Then you don't get this mess.

I do agree with this. What the heck does Error 53 mean? And Apple PR should be out there more explaining this, getting ahead of the story.

 

[MikhailT]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act

> Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[7] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions,[8] and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives.

> The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.

In US, it is illegal to force a customer to use authorized repairs or use authentic parts but it is not illegal to deny services if the cause of the damage was due to unauthorized parts/services. Huge differences here, Apple has the right to deny services free of charge to customers who did not use authorized services.

 

[citysnaps]

Correct, and none of the press on this matter has actually said the parts used were either fake/bogus or unauthorized. The comments here and in the previous article are the ones assuming that the parts used were "non-apple". The touch ID sensor is highly specialized, most likely the same factory that make the original is the one supplying the spares. The pairing is the issue, and that's the secret sauce that Apple was witholding, and retroactively punishing users for when they had the part replaced.

If the vendor who is supplying parts designed for Apple out the backdoor to other entities then those are not authorized parts. I doubt that has happened.

 

[2010mini]

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

if you used an authorized repair facility and they bricked your phone. Then the issue is with that repair facility. They are responsible to perform repairs with original parts and with the proper technique.

With touchID being responsible for so many sensitive functions and apps. Do you really want to risk your iPhone stolen, Touch ID replaced and all your credentials stolen???

Dunno about you, but my passwords being safe is worth more than my iPhone.

 

[gavroche]

Actually it does make sense, some apple stores are authorized to repair the error. As in, Apple is rolling out authorization to repair it as we speak....but it's the last paragraph you have to read for the headline to make sense

No, i t doesn't make sense. Not one sentence in the whole article mentions a single authorized store that made such a repair.
And the last sentence... has nothing to do with the repairs that occurred prior to the problem. It's mentioning stores that have been given the ok to unbrick the phones, and undo the prior unauthorized repair.

 

[JimmyHook]

Not only should Apple refuse service to those who were dumb enough to trust their iPhone repair to some random guy at some random shop, they should also withdraw from any country that tries to damage consumer identity safety by forcing Apple to undo those basic security checks. They should close the Apple stores in the offending countries and fire the workers, also, tell the workers whose fault it is on the way out.

 

[npmacuser5]

I would rather Apple protect its products but understand why those who choose 3rd party hardware are upset. However, if 3rd party hardware allows a virus to compromise Apple products then the purchasers and developers of such products should be sued. Goes both ways.

 

[Michael Goff]

No, i t doesn't make sense. Not one sentence in the whole article mentions a single authorized store that made such a repair.
And the last sentence... has nothing to do with the repairs that occurred prior to the problem. It's mentioning stores that have been given the ok to unbrick the phones, and undo the prior unauthorized repair.

And that's all the poorly worded title says

 

[LordVic]

If some of the stores were authorized then Apple should cover. But if they weren't and a consumer just wanted to save a buck by using a service that is not authorized then Apple should not. This isn't just a cracked screen repair issue. It's a Touch ID issue. Which becomes a very important security issue considering what Touch ID and secure enclave presides over. In this case, anyone with half a brain would understand what's up here. And that's why this won't get any traction in a court of law.

Honestly. Just because you don't like being told when you do something the wrong way doesn't mean Apple is at fault when they lay it out clearly.

If anything, Apple will do what it always does and partner with its customers. Because that's what Apple does. Even the dumb ones who screw up and then cry about it.

Except that Law trumps EULA's and a companies desires in this case.

In many countries, Incuding the USA, it is illegal for a company to void your warranty or refuse further servcie by using 3rd party repair locations.

This was done because most places find it unfair advantage to restrict you open market rights to choose your own repair centres. in the US, (trying to remember the name of the law, that was enacted years ago), You only need 100 people who have been prevented from using 3rd party repair people to have valid class action lawsuit.

Apple is running the risk here of violating this law. And at the end of the day, it is irrelevant what Apple puts in their EULA, as said before. Law > EULA agreements, as any contract cannot ask you to agree to violation of law.

 

[RoyalElephant]

if you used an authorized repair facility and they bricked your phone. Then the issue is with that repair facility. They are responsible to perform repairs with original parts and with the proper technique.

With touchID being responsible for so many sensitive functions and apps. Do you really want to risk your iPhone stolen, Touch ID replaced and all your credentials stolen???

Dunno about you, but my passwords being safe is worth more than my iPhone.

Why couldn't Apple have simply disabled Touch ID with devices with fake Touch ID sensors? That's what I'm not getting here. Just lock all the Touch ID features off if it's a fake. What would that take like a whole ONE line of code somewhere?