There’s nothing illegal about Apple settling warranty claims with refurbished devices. It’s how it still works.
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.
Second Payment Emails for Refurbished Apple Device Class Action Lawsuit Going Out Tomorrow
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The $92.17 figure was for "batterygate." The AppleCare refurbished device claim is $26.18.
So two different settlements, two different amounts. Something still doesn't add up here with batterygate though. People are reporting strange amounts across the forums.
I guessing they made the terms more clear that you will get a refurbished replacement the in plans.
Do we know whether refurbished Apple devices have actually been used before or not? I know other companies where 'refurbished' is often just excess new stock that didn't sell at full retail, so they discount them and call them 'refurbished', rather than have to have an actual sale and devalue the brand.
I somehow missed this whole thing.
Personally, I don't have a problem with receiving a refurbished device directly from Apple. But I would never trust receiving one from a 3rd party like Best Buy.
That being said, I can completely understand why anyone would be upset by this practice in general. Especially when you are paying a premium for a brand new device that should be working correctly out of the box.
Personally, I don't have a problem with receiving a refurbished device directly from Apple. But I would never trust receiving one from a 3rd party like Best Buy.
That being said, I can completely understand why anyone would be upset by this practice in general. Especially when you are paying a premium for a brand new device that should be working correctly out of the box.
Individuals and especially companies may have multiple qualifying claims/devices and therefore would be eligible for multiples of the $92.17 for "batterygate." A company with 1,000 qualifying devices, for example, would be one claimant but get $92,170. Someone with just one qualifying device would be one claimant and get only $92.17.
Yay, you got $5 for your ten year old device. Anyone notice batteries lasting longer? It's almost as if Apple put software your phone to prolong the battery life?
Wow....$92.17.....I get a free tank of gas or my bread, eggs, and milk covered for the week.
Well, the plaintiffs seem to have made a case that there is some material difference between a new replacement device and a refurbished replacement device.
I myself don't agree with that based on my anecdotal experience with Apple's refurbished products, but nonetheless here we are.
I know how multiplication works, I did make it past 3rd grade. Some people have reported deposits like this, showing different amounts that are not multiples of either settlement:
Would not the repaired device now be a used and repaired device? The phone may have been purchased new, but once it has been repaired it is now the same status as a refurbished device. There is really no difference.
Yes, but going through the sixth grade twice is not a 12 year education.
Hint: Don’t take it personal, it is not against you, it is just a joke.
Thank you! With all the normal wear and tear from daily use, people expect to be given a BRAND NEW replacement when service is needed? And the irony is that in many or most cases, the “refurbished” items from Apple is possibly in BETTER shape than if their original device was just repaired as opposed to replaced.
People are so simple-minded.
Not enough of a case for Apple to admit they did anything wrong or change how Apple operates.
Well, congratulations. I couldn't tell you had actually made it to fourth grade.
As far as the $46 figures go, perhaps instead of giving the full $92.17 on one device they provided portions if more than one claim was made e.g., if the same person made two claims on one device, they received $46.08 and $46.09 instead of $92.17.
The warranty stated people would receive a replacement that was "new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability" and the complaint was that refurbished is not "equivalent to new" in performance and reliability.
Yeah because the way the American legal system works, defendants have to pay their own legal fees so companies have to balance whether it would be cheaper to continue fighting the case or settle. Either way the company is going to have to pay large sums of money. That’s why no has found Apple guilty of anything or made Apple change their behaviour; the case never got that far.
It’s the threat of having company policy legally scrutinised that leads to these settlements.
Last edited:
I don't think thats what the warranty says. I think it says something like functionally equivalent.