iPhone lawsuit doesn't stand a chance

iPhone lawsuit doesn't stand a chance

Summary: An iPhone customer who's not happy that the battery isn't user-replacable has filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple.

SHARE:
26

An iPhone customer who's not happy that the battery isn't user-replaceable has filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple.

The lawsuit, filed by Jose Trujillo, claims that:

Unknown to the Plaintiff, and undisclosed to the public, prior to purchase, the iPhone is a sealed unit with its battery soldered on the inside of the device so that it cannot be changed by the owner.

I'm trying this figure out how he managed to avoid all the iPhone coverage in the press and media.  I'm pretty sure that there's bacteria on Mars that know the iPhone's battery isn't user-replaceable.

The lawsuit also contains some serious inaccuracies:

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.

According to Apple, the iPhone's battery will retain  80% capacity after 400 charge cycles.

I give this lawsuit about the same chance and an ice cube in hell.

Topics: Legal, Hardware, iPhone, Mobility

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

26 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Thats your take, not the courts

    That's your take. Now lets see what a real judge has to say. Apple was negligent in NOT at any point telling customers that a NORMALLY user replaceable items such as the battery was sealed inside the device. Let me say that again in another way. Anyone who purchases a phone would expect to be able to change the battery out, and be able to carry a spare. At least anyone who has purchased a phone in this century. Since when are consumers required to search for product information such as this in the media? You are completely off base with our proApple stance. Do you get paid by them? It sure sounds that way. For $500 or $600 I expect to be able to change the damn battery at least. To have to take it somewhere and have that done by a technician is absurd. What the hell was Jobs thinking! Just another way he gets to control his customers. What a fool. Of course anyone that bought this AFTER reading the reviews is a fool too, so maybe he is at fault for not reading more.
    LostViking
    • Wow...

      Any consumer that is going to go out and spend $500 or $600 on a product should maybe look into it a little. Apple never tried to hide any of the details about its products. Should a consumer who purchases a new diesel truck be shocked that he cannot fill it up with regular gas? All of the other trucks on the lot take unleaded gas. Just because something is different and you did not do your part as an informed consumer does not mean that the manufacture was at fault. There is only so much you can do to protect against the idiot users.

      As far as Steve Jobs being a fool for not allowing users to replace their own batteries. I think he has done ok so far with the iPod, and that has never had a user replaceable battery. BTW, when was the last time you took a company from being virtually bankrupt to being worth over a hundred billion dollars. There are a lot of words that describe Steve Jobs, "fool" is not one of them.

      All this guy is trying to do is present a nuisance case in the hopes that Apple will give him some money to shutup. Odds are that he will not see a dime and will probably loose money on layer bills. He needs to find a hobby.
      meeyanpeat
      • Seconded, saved me typing.

        I wonder which law firm the original poster works for, lol. :D

        TripleII
        TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
    • Have you ever heard the phrase...

      [i]caveat emptor[/i] ? [b]let the buyer beware[/b]
      1. the principle that the seller of a product cannot be held responsible for its quality unless it is guaranteed in a warranty.
      2. The axiom or principle in commerce that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying.
      3. a principle in commercial transactions: without a warranty the buyer takes the risk as to the condition of the property or goods

      If that buyer walked in and plunked down cash and walked out of the store without ever asking to examine a demo model (which I'm sure there was at least one at every store), then he has nobody to blame but himself. He'd be better off paying the $50 restocking fee and calling it a day instead of the amount he's probably going to pay a lawyer. No lawyer is going to take a case like that on contingency. I have no doubt that the court will say "No way, Jose." ;-)

      MGP
      MGP2
    • APPLE VS LOSTVIKING - NO BUTTONS ON MY PHONE WORE MY FINGER TIPS

      Now we only have to wait for some genius to go to court because he expected butons, or even best telling apple wont replace a defective iphone that came witout buttons...
      hes1
    • They announced the battery details ...

      Er, it was known for months that the battery was not swappable ...
      msanto00
    • i love it...

      I love how you start out with "that's your take, not the courts," [sic], as if Adrian's opinion is somehow invalid because he's not a judge, and then proceed to lay out your own judgment. Have you heard the one about the pot and the kettle?
      lostarchitect
    • Battery not user-replaceable

      How about these: Treo 600, BMW cars, Chrysler Sebring, Chrysler 300, all Apple
      iPods? Did Apple also tell him that the iPhone wasn't for dip-@%@$#'s?
      Withan
    • Ummm

      He'll lose because he could have just returned the phone. Simple isn't it?
      SquishyParts
    • This is a case where public opinion matters

      I would do something similar to the lawyers against the IBM case for the trademark of the "Personal Computer." Bring some one in off the street and ask them if the battery of the iPhone is replacable. Nine out of 10 people would probably respond in a way favorable to Apple.

      I know I am being harsh, but I don't really think there should be a defense for stupidity.

      Lawyers should be able to blow this one out of the water.
      nucrash
    • Who didn't know???

      I'm no Apple fanboy. I'm the furthest from it. I can't stand Apple & you couldn't pay me to use any of the crap electronics they're pushing on a very uninformed public.

      But even I knew that the phone didn't have a user-changable battery. With a company like Apple, I wouldn't even expect it. I'd be happy to see Apple go down in a ball of flames, but I don't think this guy has a leg to stand on.
      Mad Maximus
  • do your research

    This plaintiff should have done the smart consumer thing and actually did some research before buying. Of course our "stupid-supporting" courts could see things differently.
    russguill
    • I don't own an iPhone but even I knew that I couldn't change the battery .

      I am NoneZealot you hear ! NoneZealot ! Don't you forget it either . I am NoneZealot .


      "I crave the attention and I like to lie a lot , I am NoneZealot,,,"
      None_Zealot
      • He IS None_Zealot...

        ...not to be confused with NonZealot, who his obviously trying to impersonate.
        MGP2
        • Thanks a lot, Captain Obvious. (n/m)

          n/m
          lostarchitect
          • Sorry. Did I expose your alter ego?

            nt
            MGP2
          • Nah,

            My regular ego's big enought, I don't need another!
            lostarchitect
  • It's not about winning

    It's about getting a settlement because it's cheaper for Apple.

    Loser pays tort reform was tried in the Gingrich congress. The Lawyer lobby killed it.
    frgough
    • It's about whining

      Sheesh!
      Userama
  • Chinese Laundry

    I think the Chinese laundry that got sued for 57(?) million of r pants should give this
    idiot that guy's pants. That's as good as it's going to get for him. (Notice proper use
    of "it's.")
    Withan