A second lawsuit relating to the iPhones non-user-replaceable battery has been filed.
This lawsuit was filed on Monday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Sydney Leung. The suit seeks more than $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
Here's a distilled version of Leung's story; Leung buys two iPhone at $599 each the first day they were available, signed up for a two-year AT&T contract and he's now annoyed to find that he wasn't told that the battery wasn't user-replaceable and the replacement process is going to cost him extra dough.
Now, my personal opinion is that I find it hard to believe that anyone who was willing to pay $600 for a new cellphone and sign up for a contract didn't know that the iPhone shipped with a fixed battery - at the very least Leung should become a poster case for doing some research before buying something. But what surprises me more that the fact that someone will pay $1,200 for two cellphones without checking out the spec is the fact Apple is getting a lot of flak for this when all iPod's have shipped with a fixed battery that's at best tricky to replace. My guess is that the iPhone has penetrated a new segment of the market for Apple - a fickle market that's not all that brand-loyal - and tricks that Apple got up to with the iPod just don't wash for the iPhone.
I don't give these lawsuits much of a chance of success, but if Apple does start having to hand cash out to disgruntled customers I wouldn't be surprised to see thee things happening as a result:
- Apple getting hit by iPod battery lawsuits
- Apple investors getting nervous
- iPhone MKII will have a removable battery