I wonder what the quickest time between the introduction of a consumer product and the introduction of the consumer fraud class action lawsuit is. Apple’s new iPhone was released on June 29, 2007; last Thursday, the first — as far as I know — class action lawsuit was filed. (I’m sure that this doesn’t qualify as the fastest consumer lawsuit, but I am curious.)
A Chicago-area resident, Jose Trujillo, is suing Apple and AT&T under Illinois’s “consumer fraud” law; the typo-filled complaint claims that the defendants failed to disclose to consumers that the phone’s battery — like that of the iPod — could only be replaced by Apple, and not the user. The suit also alleges that the battery only lasts for 300 charges and will have to be changed annually; given that Mr. Trujillo has had the phone for a maximum of a month, and that each charge lasts for several days, it is unclear how he could possibly know this or have a good faith basis for alleging it.
The suit contains the usual features of bogus consumer fraud litigation, such as claiming “fraud” without identifying any false statements, but instead by alleging a failure to disclose information that was widely known; attempting to represent consumers who are perfectly happy with the product; suing based on hypothetical damages that may or may not be incurred in the future; and claiming to be an unhappy consumer, but failing to act as an ordinary consumer would — e.g., by returning the product for a refund.
Incidentally, I just got a new cell phone (not an iPhone) last week. I checked the box; nowhere does it disclose that the battery won’t last for an infinitely long time, or that I will have to pay for a new one when it does die. Also, I’m pretty sure the car dealership that sold me my SUV never mentioned that it required a substance called “gasoline” to run, and that I would need to keep buying this substance. I wonder if I’ve got a case.
As an addendum, the trial lawyer in this case, Larry Drury, is no stranger to ludicrous “consumer” litigation; he played a leading role in the bogus Million Little Pieces class action suits. (Covered on Overlawyered in many posts). And he once sued Arista Records over the Milli Vanilli “scandal.”
4 Comments
Are you daring to suggest that the laws of physics apply to Apple products too? That could be a very controversial statement!
This could push back the release of the water-powered iCar back at least another decade.
Actually, the 300 charges for the life of the battery and having to charge it almost every day are part of the spec released by Apple itself.
I think Apple certainly did all they could to avoid pointing out that Apple itself needs to change the battery (at $89-$119 a pop I might add). While I’m not sure there is a basis for a lawsuit here, but it was pretty rude.
Ryan, no, it isn’t. Their specs say “A properly maintained iPhone battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 400 full charge and discharge cycles.” Note that they are not saying that it needs to be replaced after 400 charges; they’re saying it will still maintain 80% of its capacity at that. The number “300” was pulled out of thin air by the plaintiff.
As for having to charge it every day, that rather depends on how much one uses it, don’t you think? They tell you how much talk, standby, video, music, and internet use you get per charge.
The charge for replacing it is $79 + $6.95 shipping, although if you want to rent a replacement iPhone for the three days they take, it’s another $29.
And putting aside the question of whether a consumer should do a little research before investing $2000 in an item (that’s phone + contract), it’s not as if it’s free to replace a battery yourself.
Apple may have not been forthright about the fact that only they (and, one presumes, AT&T/Cingular) can change the battery, but this is neither the first nor the last Apple music-player whose batteries are inaccessable to the user without damaging the unit. Most of the iPod batteries are made inaccessible or otherwise not serviceable by the user, and Apple got a bunch of bad press a year or two ago when a customer was massively overcharged for their battery replacement, forcing them to standardize their replacement charges.
Maybe there ought to be a “Due diligence” requirement for plaintiffs, suggesting that if they had properly researched the product and service, they’d know what they were getting into. The plaintiffs would then be obligated to find common sense if they hadn’t had it in the first place.