08/17/2007, 2:00pm, EDT
Friday, August 17th
Apple faces another class-action suit
Apple is being slapped with another class-action lawsuit over the battery in its iPhone, this time by a Northern California resident who is echoing claims of a similar suit filed in the state of Illinois. Sydney Leung is accusing both Apple and AT&T of fraud because the companies neglected to inform potential iPhone buyers of the costs related to maintaining a working battery for the device over the course of the iPhone's lifespan, according to AppleInsider.
Leung's suit claims that Apple's iPhone battery only lasts 300 complete charges before becoming completely depleted, and says that the battery will need replacing every year which can only be accomplished by Apple technicians without voiding the warranty.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of hundreds of thousands of users who purchased iPhones during the initial launch, before Apple and AT&T announced their battery replacement details. The suit claims that Leung and others who bought iPhones during the product's introductory weekend were uninformed of the time as well as money needed to maintain the phone's battery until after they had signed a two-year contract with AT&T. Leung is seeking the cost of replacing batteries and punitive damages for misleading initial iPhone customers.
Apple has yet to respond publicly to the suit but contradicts claims about the iPhone's battery life, maintaining that the battery offers full charging potential for between 300-400 cycles and will likely hold most of its charge for an extended period afterward.
In late July the New York Consumer Protection Board issued a letter to Apple chief Steve Jobs requesting that the iPhone be slightly more consumer-friendly. The agency cited both replacement procedures as well as costs in its letter, saying that consumers should be able to replace the battery themselves. The board further suggested that Apple review its disclosure practices and restocking fees.
The Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights in late June warned both Apple and AT&T that the companies must agree to new consumer safeguards relating to its iPhone, pointing to two "serious potential problems" with the iPhone launch. FCTR founder Harvey Rosenfield pointed to the fact that iPhone owners cannot replace the battery themselves as well as lofty cancellation fees as potential troubles for the Cupertino-based company.
Filed under: Apple
, 
, 14
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
Top
subscribe to comments
for this article
so therefore common sense says that the consumer really purchased an expensive, complex item without really knowing everything about it. you just HAD to get one the first day, didn't you?!?
so who is really the negligent one here?
GOD, I'm tired of all this crap.
Customers should really have some responsibility in informing themselves of what they are buying. The "unreplaceable" battery wasn't any kind of hidden secret... for the nearly seven months before it launched. *PLUS*... the customer has 14 days to return it after purchasing it. If they didn't like the battery as it was, they could have received a refund.
So, I go buy a Kenworth big rig, but don't have a CDL, and I get busted for driving a semi. Is Kenworth at fault when I say "huh? I didn't know I needed a special license to drive one of these."
Or, I go to the home improvement store, and buy a propane based water heater, but I have a natural gas supply line at my home, and my house blows up. Is it the store's fault that they didn't come out and inspect my line to make sure I was buying the right thing?
Consumers need to take responsibility as well!
Not that I necessarily agree with that, but that's probably the explanation as to why the batteries are not user-replaceable.
Regardless, there is a 14-day return period - these guys don't have a case, and it's just PR for the law firm handling it.