Oh no, you're thinking, yet another cookie pop-up. Well, sorry, it's the law. We measure how many people read us, and ensure you see relevant ads, by storing cookies on your device. If you're cool with that, hit “Accept all Cookies”. For more info and to customize your settings, hit “Customize Settings”.

Review and manage your consent

Here's an overview of our use of cookies, similar technologies and how to manage them. You can also change your choices at any time, by hitting the “Your Consent Options” link on the site's footer.

Manage Cookie Preferences
  • These cookies are strictly necessary so that you can navigate the site as normal and use all features. Without these cookies we cannot provide you with the service that you expect.

  • These cookies are used to make advertising messages more relevant to you. They perform functions like preventing the same ad from continuously reappearing, ensuring that ads are properly displayed for advertisers, and in some cases selecting advertisements that are based on your interests.

  • These cookies collect information in aggregate form to help us understand how our websites are being used. They allow us to count visits and traffic sources so that we can measure and improve the performance of our sites. If people say no to these cookies, we do not know how many people have visited and we cannot monitor performance.

See also our Cookie policy and Privacy policy.

This article is more than 1 year old

Class-action sueball over refurbed iThings will ask Apple what 'as good as new' means

Remanufactured kit never as reliable, complainants claim

A judge in California has OK'd a class-action lawsuit against Apple for alleged breaches of its AppleCare warranty schemes.

The case (PDF) was brought by Vicky Maldonado and Justin Carter, who complained that remanufactured replacement iPhones or iPads "are not 'equivalent to new in performance and reliability' as promised under the contract. Instead, the presence of non-new parts means remanufactured devices can never be as reliable as new ones."

Apple insists it tests remanufactured devices to ensure they meet the same standards as its shiny new phones.

Carter bought an iPhone 6 Plus and paid $99 for AppleCare+. After a year, the phone began suffering shorter battery life and he booked a repair appointment. In July 2016, he cancelled the appointment and asked for a new phone. He received a remanufactured phone the next day but months later again had battery problems. So he lawyered up.

He also spoke to Apple, which sent him another remanufactured device in October that year. Carter then bought a new iPhone, which his lawyer paid for. In November, Apple sent him a third replacement, this time a new phone.

Maldonado's problems back in 2013 concerned a fourth-gen iPad and its subsequent replacement with a remanufactured fondleslab.

Apple tried to have the case dismissed on grounds that the warranty contract clearly states replacements will either be new or as good as new. But the judge found that the plaintiffs' case rested not on them receiving new devices, but on proving that their refurbed hardware was not in fact as good as new devices.

The iGiant attempted to get Carter's complaint dismissed on the basis that he got someone to open his replacement devices to see if they contained reused parts without an Apple engineer being present.

But Judge William H Orrick gave the class-action the go-ahead.

The case covers "all individuals who purchased AppleCare or AppleCare+, either directly or through the iPhone Upgrade Program, on or after July 20, 2012, and received a remanufactured replacement Device." ®

Similar topics

TIP US OFF

Send us news


Other stories you might like