Apple is being sued by a San Francisco man for $1,383.13, the exact cost of his iPhone 12. He says the company refused to fix the device while it was

[Eric]

Sounds like this guy got a raw deal. It will be interesting to see how far Apple will go with it but this guy just wants his iPhone to work as it should, they should cover it or explain how it was tampered with.

An iPhone user in San Francisco has sued Apple for the exact cost of his iPhone, saying the company refused to repair the device despite it being under warranty.

Theodore A. Kim filed a lawsuit in San Francisco seeking $1,383.13, the original cost of his phone. The claim was filed in small claims court.

"It levels the playing field so that just a simple consumer like me can sue a big company without having to worry about getting lawyers and all that other stuff," Kim told Insider in a phone interview last week. "I feel like at least I want my day in court."

Apple is being sued by a San Francisco man for $1,383.13, the exact cost of his iPhone 12. He says the company refused to fix it while it was under warranty.

"I feel like at least I want my day in court," Theodore A. Kim said, in reference to his fight against Apple over a broken iPhone.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Cmaier]

99% of the time, when you read a plaintiff's complaint, you think "wow, there's something to this!"

But when you read the defendant's answer, your mind is often changed.

I imagine we'll find there's a lot more to this story.

 

[Eric]

99% of the time, when you read a plaintiff's complaint, you think "wow, there's something to this!"

But when you read the defendant's answer, your mind is often changed.

I imagine we'll find there's a lot more to this story.

That could be, his claim is that they said it had been tampered with and that he never tampered with it. So he asked how it was tampered with to understand why and they refused any more information. If that were me (going by this statement) I would want to know the same thing.

 

[Cmaier]

That could be, his claim is that they said it had been tampered with and that he never tampered with it. So he asked how it was tampered with to understand why and they refused any more information. If that were me (going by this statement) I would want to know the same thing.

He says they said they refused any more information. He says it wasn't tampered with.

Maybe.

 

[SuperMatt]

For $1000, I’d imagine Apple just fails to appear, and the judge issues a judgment in the guy’s favor. If I ran a trillion-dollar company, I wouldn’t bother fighting this.

 

[Cmaier]

For $1000, I’d imagine Apple just fails to appear, and the judge issues a judgment in the guy’s favor. If I ran a trillion-dollar company, I wouldn’t bother fighting this.

They may assign it to a junior lawyer who needs some in-court experience

 

[lizkat]

That could be, his claim is that they said it had been tampered with and that he never tampered with it. So he asked how it was tampered with to understand why and they refused any more information. If that were me (going by this statement) I would want to know the same thing.

Me too, but if Apple reveals how it knows a phone has been messed with, maybe that gives a leg up to a tech-savvy scammer hoping to maybe swap a half-revived or completely bricked iPhone of dubious provenance --maybe a phone that was deactivated by intentional action of its rightful owner?-- for a $1300 refund or a replacement. For instance it's illegal to swap an IMEI on a device but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen and also doesn't mean a manufacturer can't detect when it HAS happened.

 

[Eric]

Me too, but if Apple reveals how it knows a phone has been messed with, maybe that gives a leg up to a tech-savvy scammer hoping to maybe swap a half-revived or completely bricked iPhone of dubious provenance --maybe a phone that was deactivated by intentional action of its rightful owner?-- for a $1300 refund or a replacement. For instance it's illegal to swap an IMEI on a device but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen and also doesn't mean a manufacturer can't detect when it HAS happened.

Fair enough on this point. However, if you are a victim and are none the wiser then you're SOL on what you paid, it doesn't seem fair to him but in the end it's his word against theirs. It will be interesting to see if Apple wants to have a public battle over this, although I'm sure they have some pretty ironclad policies.

 

[DT]

"Tampered" is so general, just a touch more clarity, where they could still keep their internal diagnostic processes secret.

i.e., "We cannot/will not perform repairs on this device since it has ..."

- an aftermarket display/digitizer/battery
- a triggered LCI (Liquid Contact Indicator) / has been opened
- a Jailbreak installed
- completely bogus internals and is a knockoff running Android ...

Assuming any of that communication happened as the plaintiff described. He even indicated the SIM tray was in worse shape[?]

Hahaha, I mean, I had a 2015 MBP that was part of the battery replacement recall, swollen top plate, etc., I took it in, and I can't imagine being called, the machine being returned with something like a cracked display and just a "This machine has been tampered with, we're not going to fix it ...".