Apple Wins Dismissal of AppleCare+ Class Action Lawsuit

A class action lawsuit alleging Apple misled consumers with its AppleCare+ extended warranty plan was dismissed by a California federal judge on Wednesday.

The proposed class action claimed that Apple routinely sent customers refurbished, or used, iPhones as replacements even though the AppleCare+ program promises new replacement phones.

AppleCare+ is an extended service plan that was first offered by Apple in October of 2011. Apple customers can purchase AppleCare+ for $99 when they purchase Apple products, such as iPhones, iPods, and iPads.

The terms of the AppleCare+ state that Apple would repair or replace defective or broken products (but replacement of accidentally broken devices costs an additional fee).

The AppleCare+ misleading warranty class action lawsuit claimed that Apple did not replace customers’ products with new devices, but with refurbished devices. Apparently Apple provided evidence that the Class’ claim was correct.

The order signed by U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick states that AppleCare and AppleCare+ do use new, “remanufactured,” and “reclaimed” iPhones when providing replacements to customers.

Judge Orrick goes on to explain that “remanufactured” phones are similar to new, but “could contain both new parts and recovered parts that have been extensively tested.” The information on “reclaimed” phones was redacted from the public complaint, presumably because it contains trade secret information for Apple.

Even though it is apparent that Apple does use non-new iPhones as replacements under its AppleCare+ program, Judge Orrick still granted Apple’s motion to dismiss.

The court’s ruling relies primarily on the basis that the only named plaintiff in this case, Fabrienne English, had actually received two new iPhones from the AppleCare+ plan.

English claimed in the complaint that each replacement iPhone she received was refurbished, and started having problems soon after she started using each one.

In a separate motion, English requested additional time to test her iPhone and prove that it was not new when she received it. But the court denied that motion.

Judge Orrick determined that no amount of testing today could establish whether or not English’s iPhone was new when she received it back in July of 2013.

In addition, Judge Orrick was not convinced that a visual inspection of the phone and its internal components would be able to prove any of English’s class action claims.

Ultimately, “[t]he evidence in this case shows that English received only new iPhones as replacement devices, not remanufactured or reclaimed iPhones,” Judge Orrick ruled. Therefore, English was not injured by Apple, and because she was the only plaintiff left in the lawsuit, the case was dismissed.

However, this is not the end of litigation for Apple over its AppleCare+ warranty program. A separate class action lawsuit was filed in August against Apple alleging very similar claims. That lawsuit takes issue with AppleCare’s promise that the replacement device will be “equivalent to new in performance and reliability.”

That lawsuit argues that only new devices should be provided by Apple, since refurbished products are not “equivalent” to new.

English is represented by Peter D. Kafin and Renee F. Kennedy.

The AppleCare+ Misleading Warranty Class Action Lawsuit is Fabrienne English, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01619, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.