Bloomberg is reporting that Apple won't face a lawsuit claiming that the company didn't immediately tell customers about the limited life of batteries for its iPhone or their $86 replacement cost (including delivery). A U.S. District Judge in Chicago granted Apple's request that he dismiss the lawsuit on the evidence and the law without a trial, or what's known as "summary judgment"
"Apple disclosed on the outside of the iPhone package that the battery has 'limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by Apple service provider,' " the judge wrote in his opinion, quoting the packaging. "Under the circumstances, no reasonable jury could find that deception occurred."
If you recall, Jose Trujillo sued Apple in Illinois state court in July 2007, accusing the company of consumer fraud and seeking class-action status. Apple had the case moved to federal court.
(More on the lawsuit can be found in ZDNet Government blogger Richard Koman's latest post.)
While I don't know if I agree that such a problem requires a class-action lawsuit, I do think it's a real shame that Apple couldn't just handle the problem with aplomb. Clearly, there's a documented problem, as fellow Toybox-er Josh Taylor wrote in his hands-on review, in which he said:
"When friends and family have asked me whether or not I thought they should get an iPhone, I’ve been unable to say yes for one reason: the ridiculously poor battery life."
...going on to explain how the only way he could get through the day was by turning off 3G and location services and by checking his e-mail less frequently.
Considering that today's headlines also brought news that Apple plans to build 14 million to 15 million iPhone 3Gs for 2008, I ask: why face a PR disaster?
What do you think? How should Apple have handled this issue? Tell us in TalkBack.