AAPL Stock: 118.03 ( -0.85 )

Printed from

Court dismisses iPhone battery lawsuit

updated 12:15 pm EDT, Fri September 26, 2008

iPhone battery suit nixed

An Illinois district judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Apple without trial, according to Bloomberg. The plaintiff, Jose Trujillo, initially filed suit against Apple in July of 2007, accusing the company of consumer fraud. Apple did not properly inform the public of the limited life on iPhone batteries, Trujillo said, or the $86 charge in case a replacement is needed. Trujillo sought to gain class-action status; Apple eventually had the suit moved from state to federal court.

In his ruling, US District Judge Matthew Kennelly sides with Apple, claiming that the iPhone's packaging does indeed carry a warning. The battery has "limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by Apple service provider [sic]," according to a disclaimer. "Under the circumstances," Kennelly comments, "no reasonable jury could find that deception occurred."

The dismissal comes after the denial of a motion by AT&T, which looked to force arbitration, allegedly necessary due to the terms of a service agreement. Kennelly notes that when Trujillo bought his iPhone, he did not have a paper copy of any documents referring to terms of service, namely anything mandating arbitration.

by MacNN Staff



  1. TomSawyer

    Joined: Dec 1969


    I wonder...

    how much more consumers pay for things they buy on a daily basis due to the need for companies to retain the army of high priced lawyers they need to defend themselves from baseless lawsuits filed in the name of "helpless victims" by other high priced lawyers?

    Comment buried. Show
  1. TheSnarkmeister

    Joined: Dec 1969



    How much less do consumers pay for things because lawyers force companies to make good on exaggerated marketing and empty warrantees? It's a balance that is a crucial part of a free enterprise system -- and you can be sure corporations get the better end of it since they can more easily afford the lawyers.

    Comment buried. Show
  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Re: Duh!

    Well, that might be true of MOST companies, we all know Apple would never try to s**** the consumer.

    But I can't believe the judge here. So what if, on the box, it clearly states the battery is limited in lifespan and may need replacing by a certified tech. That isn't enough warning for standard consumer in the US. Every company selling any product should have to produce a document of limitations and known issues, have the customer read every item on the document and initial their consent to each item, then sign the document (notarized, as well, we're not heathens!), all before being allowed to make the purchase.

    Sure, it might slow down the purchase of Big Gulps or lunch at the deli, but we'd all be better for it...

  1. titanium76

    Joined: Dec 1969



    Jose Trujillo is an idiot.

    Obviously he's out to make a buck. Too bad Apple can't sue him for their costs. I'd love to see that laws change to include squashing idiots who try and scam/s**** the public and business with stupid lawsuits.

    Batteries don't recharge forever? Since when? IDIOT!

    Hey Jose, we hate you!

Login Here

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


Network Headlines

Follow us on Facebook


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Ultimate Ears Megaboom Bluetooth Speaker

Ultimate Ears (now owned by Logitech) has found great success in the marketplace with its "Boom" series of Bluetooth speakers, a mod ...

Kinivo URBN Premium Bluetooth Headphones

We love music, and we're willing to bet that you do, too. If you're like us, you probably spend a good portion of your time wearing ...

Jamstik+ MIDI Controller

For a long time the MIDI world has been dominated by keyboard-inspired controllers. Times are changing however, and we are slowly star ...


Most Commented