Class Action Lawsuit Over Apple Providing Refurbished Replacement Devices Proceeding to Trial in August

[MacRumors]

Initially filed in 2016, a class action lawsuit that accuses Apple of violating the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and other U.S. laws by providing customers with refurbished replacement devices is set to proceed to trial August 16, according to a notice this week from law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Apple's repair terms and conditions state that, when servicing a customer's product, the company "may use parts or products that are new or refurbished and equivalent to new in performance and reliability." Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Maldonado v. Apple Inc., allege that refurbished or "remanufactured" devices are not "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" and thus are seeking monetary damages from Apple.

The class includes U.S. residents who purchased an AppleCare+ or AppleCare Protection Plan for an iPhone or iPad on or after July 20, 2012, either directly or through the iPhone Upgrade Program, and later received a "remanufactured" replacement device. Anyone who meets this description will automatically be included as part of the class, unless they opt out by May 3 to retain their right to sue Apple individually over the claims in the lawsuit.

Apple has denied any wrongdoing in this case, but if the court rules against Apple, class members may be entitled to an award of monetary damages. The exact payout, if any, would depend on how many class members submit a claim.

The case will be heard in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, and more details are available on the Replacement Device Lawsuit website.

Article Link: Class Action Lawsuit Over Apple Providing Refurbished Replacement Devices Proceeding to Trial in August

 

[neuropsychguy]

"'remanufactured' devices are not 'equivalent to new in performance and reliability'"

This is true. They are better.

 

[mikeyy00]

JFC, lawyers are at it again.

You buy a new device. It breaks. You hand in your phone, Apple hands you a replacement. Does it work? Yes? Then eff off.

 

[nikhsub1]

"'remanufactured' devices are not 'equivalent to new in performance and reliability'"

This is true. They are better.

Not always. If they are reusing SSD for example, they have a finite lifetime and they should be using new.

 

[WiiDSmoker]

If I buy a new device and it stops working for whatever reason, I expect a new device in return under warranty.

 

[whiteonline]

This is absurd.
A device that is serviced under warranty is in fact used. Receiving a refurbished device is exactly equivalent.

Edit:
I have purchased many refurbished devices from Apple and could never tell them apart from new, aside from packaging.

 

[vinegarshots]

This is absurd.
A device that is serviced under warranty is in fact used. Receiving a refurbished device is exactly equivalent.

If the drive is a SSD, it's only equivalent if Apple matches the read/write cycles of the refurb drive with the old drive. And there's no way they would ever do that.

 

[whiteonline]

If the drive is a SSD, it's only equivalent if Apple matches the read/write cycles of the refurb drive with the old drive. And there's no way they would ever do that.

And Apple would most definitely not give a badly worn drive. Just like they don’t with batteries.

 

[Rochy Bay]

They need to stop the greediness. I received a DOA iPod a month after christmas once. Of course it was past the return period so my christmas gift turned into a refurbished unit. Honestly they don’t even fix your products now, as long as your unit powers on they just ask you to restore. Their once premium quality support degraded completely.

 

[Jerry Fritschle]

Should this suit prevail, I'm sure the typical class-action result will follow. The lawyers will get a kajillion dollars, and the class members will get $10 iTunes gift cards.

 

[Scipster]

If refurbished is as good a new, then why does Apple bother selling certified refurbished products? Just re-package as new and sell for the full price. And technically, it is new because the tech specs are as good/equal to new.

C'mon Apple, I've never known you to leave money on the table (e-books, App Store, etc). Why is refurb any different?

 

[EatinPonies]

Wow I didn't even know this was a thing... I used to work as a tech for a major PC company and this was standard practice: Customer brings in PC with a failing/failed/dead hard drive and we ordered a replacement, which was always a remanufactured one. That's how the default process worked - *UNLESS* we, as the techs, deemed that the PC was so new that it only made sense to order a *new* one as a replacement. We always had the opportunity to intercede in the process a little bit to make sure that we were doing what we felt was right for the customer. Toshiba and IBM had a terrible run of HDDs for some time, so any time one of those came in (and believe me: it seemed like they ALL did) we would specify in the order that it needed to be a Seagate or Western Digital in its place. Even if you were a terrible employee that didn't care about the customer, you still wanted to do it the right way because the incentive was that our repair:return rate was on the line. And, honestly, I came to trust the refurb/reman hard drives a lot more than I trusted something brand new out of the box...

 

[subi257]

If I buy a new device and it stops working for whatever reason, I expect a new device in return under warranty.

That is true...to a point. If it stopped working after 1 year and you bring it in...it's no longer a new device. I agree that if it dies after only a couple of months you should get a new one....but it is not only Apple that does that. I had that with a $5K HP Mobile Workstation laptop....It was almost dead out of the box and they just kept throwing parts at it until I had to send it in to their repair depot! That was f'd up. They refused to replace it, so I got a refurb for brand new price...from day one.

 

[whiteonline]

Another thought.
Most device replacements are done in the interest of the customer. It is much faster than having your specific device repaired. I like that over waiting weeks for my specific device repair (which is what most warranty work from other corporations entails)

 

[BarrettF77]

So many of the products I've ever gotten from them as a replacement are always laden with issues and is why I refuse to ever buy apple care. Would rather dump the tech and move on than deal with the idiot bar.

 

[JPack]

And Apple would most definitely not give a badly worn drive. Just like they don’t with batteries.

Apple definitely does. Plenty of evidence Apple uses reworked logic boards, some of which show clear evidence of liquid damage.

Flash memory costs somewhere between $50 to $150. A battery pack is $10 to $20. Of course batteries are replaced but not so for silicon.

 

[whiteonline]

If refurbished is as good a new, then why does Apple bother selling certified refurbished products? Just re-package as new and sell for the full price. And technically, it is new because the tech specs are as good/equal to new.

C'mon Apple, I've never known you to leave money on the table (e-books, App Store, etc). Why is refurb any different?

Because selling refurbished as new is illegal.

 

[NightFox]

Seriously, you guys are happy that the phone (or whatever) you paid over £1000 on and that you've treated with the utmost care for 3 months, keeping it in a case, avoiding rapid-charging the battery, doing everything you can to keep it in pristine condition, breaks and Apple replace it with some random customer return that passes their minimum standard to be sold as a refurb?

Are you happy that you've got a brown box refurb, which you paid brand new price for?

 

[Scipster]

Because selling refurbished as new is illegal.

But it's the same as new according to Apple. So isn't selling new products as new products legal?

 

[bluespark]

If refurbished is as good a new, then why does Apple bother selling certified refurbished products? Just re-package as new and sell for the full price. And technically, it is new because the tech specs are as good/equal to new.

C'mon Apple, I've never known you to leave money on the table (e-books, App Store, etc). Why is refurb any different?

Apple didn't say they are "as good as" new; they said they are equivalent "in performance and reliability." Also, this statement refers specifically to warranty replacement products, not refurbs generally.

As to the pricing, they aren't leaving money on the table because most people are willing to pay more for new products.

 

[erniefairchild1]

If I buy a new device and it stops working for whatever reason, I expect a new device in return under warranty.

After the moment you use it, it is no longer new. Someone uses a device for whatever period of time, why should they expect a “new” device in exchange for a used one?

 

[bluespark]

Seriously, you guys are happy that the phone (or whatever) you paid over £1000 on and that you've treated with the utmost care for 3 months, keeping it in a case, avoiding rapid-charging the battery, doing everything you can to keep it in pristine condition, breaks and Apple replace it with some random customer return that passes their minimum standard to be sold as a refurb?

Yes. After those three months, your phone isn't new, either.

 

[blazerunner]

Seriously, you guys are happy that the phone (or whatever) you paid over £1000 on and that you've treated with the utmost care for 3 months, keeping it in a case, avoiding rapid-charging the battery, doing everything you can to keep it in pristine condition, breaks and Apple replace it with some random customer return that passes their minimum standard to be sold as a refurb?

Are you happy that you've got a brown box refurb, which you paid brand new price for?

I'd be pissed. My girlfriends phone bricked on it's own just outside the 15 day return period.... is she getting some dodgy used phone? I would hope not.

 

[alexjholland]

I don't want a device that was owned by the kind of person who opens public toilet door handles with their bare hands.

Frankly, these kind of people shouldn't be allowed to exist.

But at the very least, I should never have to own anything that they've touched.

 

[neuropsychguy]

Not always. If they are reusing SSD for example, they have a finite lifetime and they should be using new.

I understand that but Apple’s refurbished go through at least or a more robust QA than their new products. If there was an issue, it was fixed. For 98% of people a used SSD isn’t going to cause problems or be a reliability liability in the lifespan of the computer. It will have many years of use left, possibly decades. It’s also possible Apple replaces SSDs with what they deem as too many write cycles as part of their refurbishment process.