Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Two women from Texas say Apple fails to provide new replacement devices under its extended warranties.
Plaintiffs Vicky Maldonado and Joanne McRight say that under the AppleCare and AppleCare+ extended warranties that cover faulty iPads, iPhones and iPods, customers are entitled to receive a replacement device that is new.
However, Apple has allegedly been replacing these devices with units that are used or refurbished, which the plaintiffs say fail to live up to the warranty’s terms.
According to the plaintiffs, Apple offers AppleCare and AppleCare+ with the purchase of an iPod, iPhone or iPad as extended warranty options for an additional charge.
Under these plans, Apple will replace a device that breaks with another device for an additional fee.
While AppleCare covers only defects in materials and workmanship, AppleCare+ also covers accidental damage.
The plaintiffs take issue with the AppleCare and AppleCare+ terms that say the replacement device will be “equivalent to new in performance and reliability.” They argue that this language requires the replacement device to be truly new, since no refurbished device can be equivalent to new.
Maldonado says that when the screen of her third-generation iPad cracked, she brought it to Apple for service in October 2012. Apple suggested she purchase a replacement iPad for $249 and an AppleCare+ warranty extension for $99. This initial purchase immediately counted as one damage incident against the warranty extension.
Though Maldonado’s sales receipt represented the second iPad was new, she says it was actually used or refurbished. She claims the second iPad did not function properly.
Maldonado says she later purchased another iPad and an AppleCare+ plan in September 2013. When that device began to fail in May 2015, she says it was replaced with a different iPad under her extended warranty coverage. She claims that replacement iPad was also used or refurbished.
McRight says she had a similar experience, going through two iPhone replacements in which she allegedly received replacement iPhones that were used or refurbished.
The two plaintiffs are proposing a nationwide Class consisting of all persons who purchased an iPhone, iPad or iPod with or without an AppleCare or AppleCare+ extended warranty, who have not returned their device or extended warranty for a refund, and who purchased the device for personal or household use.
They also propose four subclasses consisting of those who purchased AppleCare, those who purchased AppleCare+, those whose contemporaneous purchase of a device was counted against the extended warranty they purchased without their being told, and those who received a used or refurbished device either as a warranty replacement or as a contemporary purchased with an extended warranty.
They are seeking an award of reimbursement and damages, including punitive damages, plus court costs and attorneys’ fees. They also seek orders requiring Apple to stop replacing covered devices with used or refurbished units and to cease advertising the contested “equivalent to new” offer for a replacement device under their extended warranties.
Maldonado and McRight are represented by attorneys Renee Kennedy and Peter Kafin.
The Apple Warranty Replacement Class Action Lawsuit is Vicky Maldonado and Joanne McRight v. Apple Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-04067, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
UPDATE: On Sept. 17, 2019, consumers who claimed that Apple uses refurbished parts to replace broken iPhones and iPads under AppleCare or AppleCare+ warranties received Class certification from a California federal judge.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
51 thoughts onApple Class Action Says Replacement Devices Are Refurbished
I worked at apple, I have no proof, but the retail employees notice things. Some iPhones would just stop working. It happened to me, oem apple parts, there is no proof of parts were referbished
I have one better than getting a refurbished model. I got a refurbished (or one that had already been sold and then resold to me as NEW!) when I expected a new phone. It was not wiped clean prior to reselling to me. I knew this by the original owners name being on the phone. Please add me to the class.