A judge in Amsterdam has
ruled in favor of a Dutch woman [
Google Translate] who sued
Apple for refusing to
Replace her
Broken iPhone 6 Plus
With a new model, and instead offering her a refurbished model as per its standard policy.
The
Court nullified the purchase agreement and ordered
Apple to refund the woman the full ?799 that she paid for the iPhone, which was purchased in December 2014 and stopped functioning nine months later in August 2015.
Apple being ordered to refund the purchase price plus interest and pay all of the woman's legal fees was specific to this case, but it is the precedent that could be set in the Netherlands and possibly elsewhere that is more important.
Apple's
standard one-year limited warranty and
extended AppleCare+ policies for
iPhone in both the Netherlands and the U.S., and most other countries, explicitly state that repairs or exchanges may involve devices or parts that are either new or "equivalent to new in performance and reliability," otherwise k**wn as refurbished.
It is common practice for
Apple to
Replace defective iPhones
With a refurbished model consisting of both new and recycled parts, and only rarely does the company provide a brand new replacement on a case-by-case situation. The court's decision in Amsterdam, however, could force
Apple to change its policies.
The
Court filing in the Netherlands does **t indicate if
Apple plans to appeal the decision, but it would **t be unprecedented for the company to exhaust all avenues in an effort to overturn the ruling.
Apple has **t publicly commented on the matter.
In 2011, facing
pressure from regulators,
Apple revised its warranty replacement policy for iPhones sold in South Korea, offering customers returning their defective phones within the first month of ownership the option of receiving a brand new replacement rather than refurbished units as had been standard policy.
(Thanks, Coen and Jasper!)
Tags:
lawsuit,
AppleCare,
warranty
Discuss this article in our forums
أكثر...