Other Woman Sues Apple For ‘Hiding’ Notch In iPhone Xs And Xs Max Advertisements

STOCK411

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 15, 2007
255
109
According to a report by the Business Insider, Courtney Davis, a resident of Northern District of California has accused Apple of misleading advertisements that make iPhone Xs and Xs look like they don’t have a notch. When Apple unveiled its two flagship devices this year, it used a black background, which many believe, is to obscure the notch.
As per the woman, she preordered iPhone Xs Max believing that it will not come with a notch as displayed in the advertisements. The complaint read, “Images that disguise the missing pixels on the Products’ screens are prominent on Defendant’s website, as well as in the advertisements of retailers who sell the products.”
In her complaint, the woman also claimed that Apple has displayed false pixel count on its website as the pixels in the rounded corners should not be counted.

Additionally, the complainant said that iPhone 8 Plus is a better and superior device as compared to iPhone X and the latest flagship models. Her claims rest on the ground that iPhone 8 Plus has genuine pixels on its screen and a larger surface area as compared to the latest generation of iPhone.

The lawsuit claims damages from Apple and seeks a class action status. It is highly unlikely that the case will come to court because class action lawsuits usually take a long time to progress.
https://fossbytes.com/woman-sues-apple-for-hiding-notch-in-iphone-xs-xs-max-ad/

What does everybody think of this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
47,509
16,011
Advertising is advertising.

There was somewhat of a rational point there to it all in relation to advertising -- although not in the sense that something illegal has been happening -- until the whole nonsense about trying to splice in that another device is better or superior and how some pixels shouldn't be counted all that. Way to undermine something that at least had some rationale to it with some subjective frivolousness.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: goobot

eyoungren

macrumors Core
Aug 31, 2011
21,178
13,012
ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
She will not have a leg to stand on. Clearly shown on Apple's site and I have seen ads with the notch clearly visible.
It's the same stuff as when Apple was trying to hide the antenna lines and camera bump for the 6/6s. Nobody sued for that.

But even more so, the notch has been there since the X. Unless she's been living in Iran or North Korea for the last year she can't claim ignorance.

I expect her case to be thrown out with prejudice.
 

ftaok

macrumors 603
Jan 23, 2002
6,137
1,162
East Coast
I interested to know what she thinks the damages are. In any lawsuit, you have to show damages, otherwise it should be thrown out.

Had Apple refused to accept a full return because she didn't like the notch, then she'd have a point. But somehow, I'm guessing that this isn't the case here.
 

brofkand

macrumors 6502
Jun 11, 2006
437
818
Not sure how she can prove any damages. I mean she can just return the phone if she doesn't like it, she's not out anything. A minute or two of research before spending a grand on a phone would have saved her a lot of hassle. She's likely expecting a quick settlement. Some people have more time than they have common sense.
 

Newtons Apple

Suspended
Mar 12, 2014
22,764
14,918
Jacksonville, Florida
I interested to know what she thinks the damages are. In any lawsuit, you have to show damages, otherwise it should be thrown out.

Had Apple refused to accept a full return because she didn't like the notch, then she'd have a point. But somehow, I'm guessing that this isn't the case here.
After reading some of the negative posts about the notch, you would think there were damages:rolleyes:
 

JPack

macrumors 601
Mar 27, 2017
4,673
6,996
Notch, hard to win. It's pretty obvious when you unbox and use the device.

Pixel count, much easier to win. It's not something consumers would easily notice within the 14 day return period. But it was clear from day one the iPhone X has a lower true pixel count and was less sharp compared to iPhone 8 Plus. I'm surprised Apple didn't have a disclaimer about the subpixels on their marketing material.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
47,509
16,011
Notch, hard to win. It's pretty obvious when you unbox and use the device.

Pixel count, much easier to win. It's not something consumers would easily notice within the 14 day return period. But it was clear from day one the iPhone X has a lower true pixel count and was less sharp compared to iPhone 8 Plus. I'm surprised Apple didn't have a disclaimer about the subpixels on their marketing material.
Seems like when it comes to pixel count that's not quite the reasoning that was being used in the accusation.
 

JPack

macrumors 601
Mar 27, 2017
4,673
6,996
Seems like when it comes to pixel count that's not quite the reasoning that was being used in the accusation.
It is. If you read the statement of claim, it goes into great detail about subpixels, Pentile, RGB stripe, etc.

https://www.scribd.com/document/395721345/Apple-Lawsuit

"The iPhone X Product is advertised as having 2436×1125 pixels, but in fact does not use true pixels with red, green, and blue subpixels in each pixel. Instead, the Product has only false screen pixels, with just two subpixels per false pixel (2436×1125×2 = 5,481,000 subpixels), and it does not actually have any subpixels at all in the notch at the top of the screen or in the display-area corners. In contrast, the iPhone 8 Plus has a higher quality screen than the Product, with more subpixels than the Product (1920×1080 pixels×3 subpixels per pixel = 6,220,800 subpixels). In contrast to the Product, the iPhone 8 Plus does not have a notch at the top of the screen or rounded corners of the display area."
 

AppleHaterLover

macrumors 68000
Jun 15, 2018
1,898
1,902
Apple has a very generous refund policy. Why couldn’t she just return it?

This is part of what’s wrong with the US. People like this, crying wolf for no reason at all, make the lawsuits that should actually exist be dismissed.

I honestly cannot decide what’s worse - if it’s this lawsuit or the other one where they were trying to blame Apple for some dude FACETIMING WHILE DRIVING.

What’s next? I’ll sue BMW because some dude decided it was OK to do 150mph on the freeway and crashed into me? I’ll sue Whirlpool because someone threw a refrigerator at me on the sidewalk from the 10th floor and clearly they should have imagined someone would do that and prevented it?

Damn.
 

appleoverload

macrumors newbie
Nov 19, 2018
17
6
Apple has a very generous refund policy. Why couldn’t she just return it?

This is part of what’s wrong with the US. People like this, crying wolf for no reason at all, make the lawsuits that should actually exist be dismissed.

I honestly cannot decide what’s worse - if it’s this lawsuit or the other one where they were trying to blame Apple for some dude FACETIMING WHILE DRIVING.

What’s next? I’ll sue BMW because some dude decided it was OK to do 150mph on the freeway and crashed into me? I’ll sue Whirlpool because someone threw a refrigerator at me on the sidewalk from the 10th floor and clearly they should have imagined someone would do that and prevented it?

Damn.

did you hear about the lawsuit regarding dimensional lumber like a 2X4" actually being 1.5X3.5"

that one didn't get very far though at least...
 

that be me

macrumors 6502
Sep 12, 2013
360
205
Playing devil’s advocate. If all she saw was the first ad, and made her choice based on that ad, you can’t see the notch and she’d be right. She could have placed a pre-order with that assumption. Apple would be at fault in that case.

I think the case is still frivolous, but I can see her side.
 

Böhme417

macrumors 6502a
Mar 11, 2009
544
587
While I do have a seething hatred for all the frivolous lawsuits these days and all of these knee-jerk-litigious people, I can see her point. At least attention is being brought to the possibly deceptive advertising. I absolutely believe it was in an effort to minimize the visual impact of the notch and make the device more appealing in marketing. I don't think it was truly deceptive, as anyone spending an additional five seconds researching the phone would see it. If anything, Apple does deserve a slap on the wrist. Monetary damages? No.

As for the pixel count (and even screen size), I completely agree with that.There should be a disclaimer about the reduced pixel count and something about not being a full 5.8/6.1/6.5" viewable area.