Seriously.. how and why can they do this? These phones can be returned up to 30 days with full money back. It has not even been a week yet for most people. Are they just trying to make a quick buck? If you don't like something after trying it out, return it.. that's what a return policy is for. Why do they need to go out of there way and waste time suing about this? This whole thing should be thrown out.
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.
Why and How can someone sue about iPhone 4?
- Thread starter amitdoc2b
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But why? Why don't they just return the phone to Apple for full refund and call it a day?
I guess they feel obligated to be compensated in some way if they waited in line for 10 hours (for those who didn't pre-order) for a phone that they thought would be a good working phone without any problems.
I don't think they will charge a restocking fee if you have a legit issue or concern, and don't want to buy or put a bumper on it. If they have tried to return the phone and are charged a restocking fee due to signal issues, then I can understand the suing nature at hand.
Best Buy, where I got my phone, is still charging the restocking fee - no matter what the reason for the return is.
So if Best Buy does not take full refunds for defective products, is that Apple's fault or Best Buy's? I am not leaning one way or the other, I am just curious how that would be handled. If you bought a Sony TV from Best Buy that didn't work properly, and they didn't give you a full refund, would you sue Sony or Best Buy?
Don't know about your state but California Law requires that mobile phones be given a 30-day full refund. The reason for this law: to make sure people are satisfied with reception.
Like with any Apple product, people would rather bitch about it than return it, because even with its faults, it's typically still far better than anything else on the market.
Unless Apple wants to hand over a refund, they're just as much to blame. It's their product.
I can think of liability, at least, for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability. A merchant, such as Apple, warrants that a particular consumer good, the iPhone 4, is fit for the ordinary purposes for which such good is used. Apple is selling an iPhone that doesn't function as a phone when held in a typical posture or without a bumper or case. There may be other causes of action for misrepresentation, etc.
What some of you are talking about concerns damages. A class of consumers may be able to sue Apple, and may even have a winnable case against Apple. But if the consumer can return the iPhone scott free, or only has to pay a small restocking fee, the eventual payout to compensate the plaintiffs for damages may be very small indeed. (Smaller, in fact, after the attorneys take their cut.)
What some of you are talking about concerns damages. A class of consumers may be able to sue Apple, and may even have a winnable case against Apple. But if the consumer can return the iPhone scott free, or only has to pay a small restocking fee, the eventual payout to compensate the plaintiffs for damages may be very small indeed. (Smaller, in fact, after the attorneys take their cut.)
I guess technically you can sue about anything. Whether or not you can win is a different story.
I don't understanding suing over the iPhone though. If the phone doesn't function the way you want it to, just return it and buy a phone that does. It's not like people are forced to buy the iPhone, or can't easily exchange or return it if it's not working out for them.
I don't understanding suing over the iPhone though. If the phone doesn't function the way you want it to, just return it and buy a phone that does. It's not like people are forced to buy the iPhone, or can't easily exchange or return it if it's not working out for them.
Because it's not customers initiating the process but the attorneys. The attorneys basically solicit people to join in. In the end the attorneys are hopping Apple will settle the case and pay their fees. It means nothing to us and at most we may "win" a free bumper case out of the deal.
Attorney looks at the internet, reads that there are people complaining about X new thing. Decides cherry wood flooring would look sweet in his mansion. End.
Yes, normally they do.. but if you explain the defect and Apple still charges the restocking fee.. then I think this may be a legit reason to be upset. But if you did not even attempt to get your money back without restocking fees, is this suing really necessary?
The suing is hardly necessary, people are just jumping on the bandwagon and blowing things out of proportion. But they have every right to do so if they feel it is of importance to them.