Third Class Action Suit Emerges Over iPhone Battery Replacements

Posted by:
Date: Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 07:52
Category: Legal

iphone3.jpg
A third class action law suit regarding the iPhone battery has emerged. The new case, filed by a Mr. and Mrs. Stiener, cite that the battery in the iPhone will only last for 300 cycles before being completely exhausting. According to the complain, the battery would cost US$115 to replace as well as the time necessary to wait for a replacement.
The couple alleges that by not placing a warning about this apparent limitation in or on its packing materials, Apple and wireless carrier AT&T have violated both good faith and the California Commercial code, which demands that manufacturers in the state honestly reflect how their products will perform in real-world conditions. The Stieners have gone on record to state that the two companies responsible for the iPhone and its service meant to defraud customers.
According to The iPodObserver, the nine-page argument that the case is using as its central core is being written by the Hoffman and Lazear as well as Folkenflik and McGerity law firms. Both of these firms handled a similar suit regarding the iPhone battery in mid-August. If found guilty, Apple and AT&T would be forced to pay restitution to any affected customer in the state of California.
If you have any ideas or feedback on this, let us know in the comments or forums.


iphone3.jpg
A third class action law suit regarding the iPhone battery has emerged. The new case, filed by a Mr. and Mrs. Stiener, cite that the battery in the iPhone will only last for 300 cycles before being completely exhausting. According to the complain, the battery would cost US$115 to replace as well as the time necessary to wait for a replacement.
The couple alleges that by not placing a warning about this apparent limitation in or on its packing materials, Apple and wireless carrier AT&T have violated both good faith and the California Commercial code, which demands that manufacturers in the state honestly reflect how their products will perform in real-world conditions. The Stieners have gone on record to state that the two companies responsible for the iPhone and its service meant to defraud customers.
According to The iPodObserver, the nine-page argument that the case is using as its central core is being written by the Hoffman and Lazear as well as Folkenflik and McGerity law firms. Both of these firms handled a similar suit regarding the iPhone battery in mid-August. If found guilty, Apple and AT&T would be forced to pay restitution to any affected customer in the state of California.
If you have any ideas or feedback on this, let us know in the comments or forums.

Recent Posts