07/27/2007, 2:40pm, EDT

Friday, July 27th

Class-action iPhone battery lawsuit 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.

Filed under: Apple

, 22

22 comments

Reader Reactions (Please use <i></i> for italic text)

subscribe to comments
for this article

Expand All

Global Settings

jpellino

as shakespeare said...

07/27, 2:48pm, EDT

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

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Oct 1999

User is offline

MacnTX

Yeah

07/27, 2:53pm, EDT

This case will get thrown out rather quickly...

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Apr 2004

User is offline

eldarkus

Hmmm..

07/27, 2:54pm, EDT

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

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Feb 2004

User is offline

Zaren

Nice editorializing MacNN

07/27, 2:57pm, EDT

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

So, your editors moonlight as judges and juries?

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Aug 2001

User is offline

FormerNavalPerson

Careful there...

07/27, 3:03pm, EDT

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.

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Jan 2007

User is offline

hayesk

Re: nice editorializing

07/27, 3:04pm, EDT

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.

Professional Poster

Joined Sep 1999

User is offline

njfuzzy

Error of fact

07/27, 3:08pm, EDT

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.

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Apr 2001

User is offline

rvhernandez

Don't buy one then...

07/27, 3:09pm, EDT

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!

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Apr 2005

User is offline

hybrid

That lawsuit is...

07/27, 3:22pm, EDT

outrageous, egregious, preposterous!

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Apr 2004

User is offline

quiviran

Throw enough BS against..

07/27, 3:26pm, EDT

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.

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined Jan 2007

User is offline

additional comments:..1..2..3..Next

Your Comments

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

Default Comment View
External Page Links
Comment Threading View