Date: Thursday, July 21st, 2016, 08:29
Category: AppleCare, Hardware, Legal, News
Well, this is kind of a mess.
On Thursday, Apple was hit with yet another class action lawsuit, the suit alleging that the company has been replacing damaged devices under AppleCare+ with refurbished units. This isn’t the first suit of its kind in this regard and similar suits have been filed in the past.
This lawsuit, filed today in California, accuses Apple of not holding true to the AppleCare+ contract, which states that devices replaced as part of the program are the “equivalent to new in performance and reliability.” The lawsuit was initiated by Vicky Maldonado and Joanne McRight.
Both Maldonado and McRight allege that they had damaged devices replaced via AppleCare, but were given refurbished devices as opposed to new devices. The two claim that they were not told of this when they signed up for AppleCare. Maldonado also noted that her replacement device did not perform as expected, thus making it not “equivalent to new in performance and reliability”.
The core argument here is that the plaintiffs’ definition of “refurbished” and Apple’s does not match. Maldonado and McRight argue that the word “refurbished” is synonymous with “reconditioned,” implying that it is a “secondhand unit that has been modified to be new for all purposes relevant to this litigation.”
The two have stated that a “new” unit should not have been previously sold, modified and should consist of all new parts.
AppleCare+ customers are generally given the option of waiting for a repair to take place on their original device or to be given a replacement device, with most choosing the latter of the two options. It’s unclear, at least by the initial filing, however, if Maldonado and McRight were given the option of an in-store repair. The two argue that by having their devices replaced by a refurb, they are deprived of the “use and value” of their original devices.
The suit basically accuses Apple of breach of both contract and warranty as well as the concealment of information from the public as well as fraud, false advertising, and the violation of secondhand merchandise labeling laws. The plaintiffs are seeking an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, pre- and post-judgement interest on any amounts awarded, and any other relief deemed just and appropriate by the ruling.
If you’ve seen this practice on your end, please let us know in the comments.