toggle

AAPL Stock: 497.67 ( -11.79 )

MacNN News

Class-action iPhone battery lawsuit filed

updated 02:40 pm EDT, Fri July 27, 2007

iPhone suit filed

The first class-action lawsuit related to Apple's iPhone has been filed, with the plaintiff alleging (falsely) that the battery enclosed in the iPhone "can only be charged approximately 300 times before it will be in need of replacement, necessitating a new battery annually for owners of the iPhone." As reported by Gizmodo, the iPhone's battery is actually designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity after 400 full charge and discharge cycles. The suit, filed in OakBrook, Illinois, also makes the claim that Apple sold some 500,000 iPhones in the first week after its launch -- Apple stated in its quarterly earnings report that 270,000 iPhones were actually sold in the first weekend. The suit also alleges that the fact that the iPhone's battery is sealed and not user-replaceable was "undisclosed to the public" prior to the device's release; another falsification.

Apple offers an $86 iPhone battery replacement program.

by MacNN Staff

(21)

TAGS :

Apple

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

jpellino
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 1999

0

07/27, 02:48pm | report spam | close Reply |
as shakespeare said...

about lawyers... well, you know the rest...

MacnTX
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

07/27, 02:53pm | report spam | close Reply |
Yeah

This case will get thrown out rather quickly...

eldarkus
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2004

0

07/27, 02:54pm | report spam | close Reply |
Hmmm..

lets see how quickly this gets tossed into the circular file!

Zaren
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

07/27, 02:57pm | report spam | close Reply |
Nice editorializing MacNN

"...with the plaintiff alleging (falsely)..."

So, your editors moonlight as judges and juries?

FormerNavalPerson
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2005

0

07/27, 03:03pm | report spam | close Reply |
Careful there...

MacNN might be safer not posting its own evaluations of the plaintiff's allegations. In an initial complaint that a plaintiff files, the plaintiff just has to state a claim that, if it's proved true, provides a basis for relief (e.g., compensation). When media outlets - irrespective of size - editorialize about the veracity of a party's claim in the _news_ sections of their sites, this has in the past led to some trouble. (Not to mention thousands of dead journalism professors rolling over in their graves.) Safer just to post the links to Apple's iPhone information pages that contain contradictory claims. Just my two cents.

hayesk
Professional Poster

Joined: Sep 1999

0

07/27, 03:04pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: nice editorializing

Pointing out an error in a quote is perfectly acceptible for a journalist. Although conventional style dictates it should have been in square brackets and not parenthesis.

njfuzzy
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2001

0

07/27, 03:08pm | report spam | close Reply |
Error of fact

It's probably acceptable for a journalst to claim an error of fact. It isn't really a matter of opinion how many iPhones were sold, what the known facts are about the battery life, or that it was public (if not common) knowledge at launch time that the battery isn't user-replaceable.

rvhernandez
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2005

0

07/27, 03:09pm | report spam | close Reply |
Don't buy one then...

Apple posted plenty of info before the launch. If you do not like the fact that there isn't battery access, then don't buy one! F'n lawyers!

hybrid
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

07/27, 03:22pm | report spam | close Reply |
That lawsuit is...

outrageous, egregious, preposterous!

quiviran
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2007

0

07/27, 03:26pm | report spam | close Reply |
Throw enough BS against..

a wall and maybe some of it will stick. Who exactly is the class here, anyone who bought an iPhone the first day, or everyone who may buy one ever? And how were they harmed? It was clear from before day one that the battery was not user replaceable and that it was Li-Ion technology, whose physics determine that you can only recharge it so many times. So was the harm that the plaintant can't read the available data before purchase or that the product obeys the laws of physics. This looks like a stupid lawyer shopping for a stupider judge.

FormerNavalPerson
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2005

0

07/27, 03:41pm | report spam | close Reply |
One or two more thoughts

First, I should say that I'm not and never have been a journalist, so I defer to trained journalists on matters of the appropriate style (i.e., square brackets or parentheses) in which to point out factual discrepancies. My comment is only that it seems at best unwise for a media outlet like MacNN to assert that a legal claim is "false." That is a conclusion, as zaren said, for judges and/or juries. MacNN has every right (and, as an Apple and MacNN loyalist, I would say "responsibility") to point out that Apple's claims for the iPhone's intended battery life contradict the plaintiff's claims about battery life. But it seems inappropriate to, in effect, call the plaintiffs liars at this very early stage of the game. Would any of us deny that there�s AMPLE room for disparity between a piece of electronic equipment�s claims about its performance and its actual performance?

As to the number of phones sold, it seems to me that that�s a simple error. Apple's official sales number was only released after the close of business on 7/25. Unless the lawsuit was filed after that time - the MacNN article doesn't specify - using the 500,000 number (a widely available estimate) in the claim doesn't seem unreasonable. Characterizing it as a "falsification" - a loaded word - seems a little over the top, in my view. At the least, it makes MacNN seem less like a neutral provider of information and more like an advocate for one side. (And if MacNN doesn't mind that, then so be it. It's their site, they can write whatever they like!) But the name of the site is Macintosh _News_ Network, so I tend to blanch when I read phrases like �falsely alleges� and �another falsification.�

As a personal matter, I don�t think the suit has much chance, and I wish I could sit the plaintiffs down and say �Electronics claims don�t always measure up in real world testing. And if you were paying attention, you'd have known some of this stuff before you bought the phone. Now shut up, go home, and stop wasting everyone�s time and money.� (But I�m also not a journalist.)

ZinkDifferent
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

07/27, 04:03pm | report spam | close Reply |
considering...

... How most of Mann's journalistic style is boilerplate regurgitations, I find it refreshing to have an editor add opinionated commentary for once.

I wish we'd see this more frequently.

drole.homme
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2007

0

07/27, 04:12pm | report spam | close Reply |
really?!

Can we say scam? They are sueing Apple for the capacity of batteries (Energizers are the same cycle amounts), wrongly disclaiming the number of phones sold (ok if you hold stock), and the enclosed battery (didn't you idiot use it before you bought it or read anything about it). Sounds like another "5 million dollar pant" lawsuit.

Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN

Joined: Oct 2001

0

07/27, 04:41pm | report spam | close Reply |
I'm suing..

..because a product I have yet to buy has yet to fail and I have yet to be damaged!!

Athens
Addicted to MacNN

Joined: Jan 2003

0

07/27, 05:26pm | report spam | close Reply |
lol

Only in America

CIA
Mac Elite

Joined: Dec 1999

0

07/27, 07:13pm | report spam | close Reply |
YAY MONEY!

SWEET! Where do I sign up? I want to make money!

Flying Meat
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2007

0

07/27, 07:55pm | report spam | close Reply |
alleges falsely

is not an accusation that the person/s filing suit are liars. They may just be misinformed.

The 500,000 number is widely available through reports from who, exactly? Analysts who work for who, exactly? Who did the analysts get the number from?

If Apple said they sold 500,000 iphone, or if AT&T's stores and said they had 500,000 unique activation requests, then one might be correct in using that number.

Neither of the parties involved in the sale of the device indicated 500,000 units sold, did they?

Numbers were put forth for actual sales by Apple and AT&T, right? So is the person/s correct in stating truth by putting the number 500,000 in their filing? No. They would be alleging falsely.

elroth
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2006

0

07/27, 10:49pm | report spam | close Reply |
get ready

The number sold is a minor issue (and it appears that Apple says 270,000 the first two days, and the lawsuit says 500,000 the first week, at least according to the story).

More interesting is the fact they filed a lawsuit over battery failures before any battery failures occurred - I guess they're trying to get a head start on all the other scummy lawyers who are lining up to file lawsuits.

cebritt
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2000

0

07/28, 08:48am | report spam | close Reply |
I applaud MacNN's...

...editorial lead-in to the story. This isn't a "news" site bound by some imaginary code of journalism (report no harm?) but a Mac enthusiasts web site. As such, they are free to do whatever they want.

LouZer
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2000

0

07/28, 07:19pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: error of fact

It's probably acceptable for a journalst to claim an error of fact. It isn't really a matter of opinion how many iPhones were sold, what the known facts are about the battery life, or that it was public (if not common) knowledge at launch time that the battery isn't user-replaceable.

No, its not acceptable. But there's few who would claim MacNN are journalists. However, there are no known 'facts' about battery life. All we know, as the article states, what apple claims. But they haven't been proved or disproved.

FormerNavalPerson
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2005

0

07/28, 10:12pm | report spam | close Reply |
A note, and replies

First, I was wrong to connect the article's use of the word "falsification" with the number of phones sold. The article actually used the word to characterize the plaintiff's claim that "the fact that the iPhone's battery is sealed and not user-replaceable was 'undisclosed to the public' prior to the device's release."

Second, though I personally think the discussion of MacNN�s choice of words and tone is more interesting than plaintiff's specific claims (as I said, based solely on their complaint, I have a vague feeling of contempt for the plaintiffs), upon re-reading the article I noticed one detail I didn't catch the first time through: The plaintiffs have claimed that Apple sold 500,000 iPhones during the device's first _week_ of sale, while the 270,000 number that Apple released on Wednesday of this past week refers to the first _weekend's_ sales (i.e., "first 30 hours of availability�). Thus, the two are not necessarily incompatible estimates as the article implies they are.

And it hasn't been explained before in so many words, but in a class-action or product liability claim, very often the only entity who knows or even might know the precise size of the potentially affected class is the defendant. Plaintiffs seldom have a specific, accurate number to work from. Part of the reason plaintiffs file class-action suits is to get "discovery" (i.e., information) from the other side, as the law requires that both sides give each other the relevant facts ahead of trial. (This massive sharing of information is a big part of the reason that the overwhelming majority of civil suits settle out of court - it often becomes clear only during pre-trial discovery whether there's a good case to be made or not.) Thus, it seems like at best a waste of time and at worst misleading to highlight a numerical discrepancy between the plaintiff�s estimate of a number of phones sold during the first week and Apple�s report of the actual number of phones sold in the first thirty hours. The plaintiff�s number is just an estimate, and that�s perfectly normal for a class-action suit of this kind.

And cebritt, if your point is that the writers and editors of MacNN are free to write whatever they like, I agree with you. And I said so in my last post. But I can't agree that "this isn't a 'news' site bound by some imaginary code of journalism." First, the name Mac NEWS Network seems to suggest otherwise. So does the site's "About MacNN" section, which uses the word "news" at least three times to describe the site's purpose, activities and and reputation. And last, I don't think it's fair to say that journalism's code is "imaginary." "Unwritten," perhaps, and "not universal across contexts," maybe, but by no means imaginary. As I've noted before, I'm not a trained journalist, so I'll leave that particular argument to those who are.

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

02/15	Apple upgrades iBookstore with screenshots...
02/15	Congress asks Apple to answer questions...
02/15	FLA head describes Foxconn plants as...
02/15	Apple asks to sue bankrupt Kodak in...
02/15	Apple voluntarily pulls iPads from...

Show All

02/15	Congress asks Apple to answer questions...
02/15	FLA head describes Foxconn plants as...
02/15	Apple asks to sue bankrupt Kodak in...
02/15	Apple voluntarily pulls iPads from...
02/15	Gartner: Apple No 1 vendor in Q4, but...

Show All

02/15	Apple upgrades iBookstore with screenshots...
02/15	Congress asks Apple to answer questions...
02/14	Apple attempting to disrupt Siri hacks...
02/14	Readability iOS app delayed, Android...
02/13	Apple launches 2012 back-to-school...

Show All

02/15	Monster iCarPlay Wireless FM Transmitter...
02/14	Refurb. 16GB iPhone 4, now only $259...
02/13	Refurb. Flip UltraHD Pocket Digital...
02/10	$380 off refurbished 2.8GHz Mac Pro...
02/09	iHome Dual Alarm Clock for Apple iPod...

Show All

toggle

Class-action iPhone battery lawsuit filed

updated 02:40 pm EDT, Fri July 27, 2007

iPhone suit filed

as shakespeare said...

Yeah

Hmmm..

Nice editorializing MacNN

Careful there...

Re: nice editorializing

Error of fact

Don't buy one then...

That lawsuit is...

Throw enough BS against..

One or two more thoughts

considering...

really?!

I'm suing..

lol

YAY MONEY!

alleges falsely

get ready

I applaud MacNN's...

Re: error of fact

A note, and replies

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace

Class-action iPhone battery lawsuit filed

updated 02:40 pm EDT, Fri July 27, 2007

iPhone suit filed

Related Articles

Recent Articles

as shakespeare said...

Yeah

Hmmm..

Nice editorializing MacNN

Careful there...

Re: nice editorializing

Error of fact

Don't buy one then...

That lawsuit is...

Throw enough BS against..

One or two more thoughts

considering...

really?!

I'm suing..

lol

YAY MONEY!

alleges falsely

get ready

I applaud MacNN's...

Re: error of fact

A note, and replies

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace