iPhone Class Action Lawsuit

July 27th, 2007 at 3:41 pm

sounds like he’s hispanic…he’s probably one of those illegal immigrants that are the cause of all our problems, foreign and domestic

July 27th, 2007 at 3:44 pm

@gilltots,

You’re out of line with that comment. Please respect that TC likely has multiethnic readers who don’t appreciate racist comments. Be respectful with your thoughts and opinions.

July 27th, 2007 at 3:44 pm

this is exactly the type of frivolous lawsuit that ruins our legal system. If the judge allows this to see any daylight, he should be fired/disbarred.

July 27th, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Doesn’t this idiot realize that the iPod is the same way? Did he look at the phone when he bought it? Another BS lawsuit. Idiots like that shouldn’t be allowed to own iPhones. People are IDIOTS.

July 27th, 2007 at 3:52 pm

@ kent

That would be insulting morons

July 27th, 2007 at 4:29 pm

It really does not take a genius to see that the battery is sealed, but it should definitely show some kind of labeling to inform phone owners that you are not able to remove battery yourself. Most phones can be manually taken out by the phone owner so it would not seem unusual for someone to automatically try to remove battery to replace. Your Success, http://www.houseofhancock.com

July 27th, 2007 at 4:57 pm

That’s a completely lost case. All the analysts were talking about for weeks before the iPhone came out was the fact that the battery was sealed.

-Chris
http://www.nerdcouncil.com

July 27th, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Yay for crippling America’s screwed up non-criminal legal system even more with worthless class action lawsuits!

Class action lawsuits should be done away with, since those are the big cash cows for most of the frivolous ambulance/deep pockets chasers. We did fine without them for ~200 years until Lyndon Johnson opened the doors in the 60s.

July 27th, 2007 at 6:35 pm

The suit would appear to have little credibility; the sealed battery issue was reported extensively prior to the iPhone being launched and was certainly never kept as a secret.

Was the issue reported before the launch?? I thought it was during/after the launch of iPhone. People were mad about the phone, nobody really cared about the battery or other specs. Well, suit buddy is not going to win the case because he simply assumed that Apple hardware is going to be friendlier or he never had an iPod. As long as it is written on the documentation, Judge is going to dismiss the case in minutes.

July 27th, 2007 at 8:27 pm

As if they did not have enough problems figuring out how to stay ahead of hackers. Apple is unique and a first mover, I sure they will resolve the hackers and other issues as the come up.

July 27th, 2007 at 8:43 pm

I think that it was a bad idea to make the battery non-removable, but on the other hand - why doesn’t he just return the iPhone if he doesn’t like it?

July 27th, 2007 at 10:40 pm

Trust me, if people can afford an iPhone and AT&T’s two-year contract, they can afford a new battery when the original one eventually goes to the big cell in the sky.

July 28th, 2007 at 3:57 am

The Apple site says full cycle recharges, not putting in the cradle 300 times. And that leaves it at 80 percent capacity, hardly unusable.

July 28th, 2007 at 7:42 am

@Dano

Your average buyer isn’t required to read information about the iPhone before buying one, but this guy is suing because he claims Apple never released any information regarding the sealed battery. Just because he didn’t know about it doesn’t mean Apple didn’t tell people about it. This lawsuit is complete bullshit and out of line.

July 28th, 2007 at 11:07 am

Okay everybody, take a deep breath and relax. Here’s a little truth for you to cut through all the hazy fog and battery FUD.

No iPhone battery will die in a year and a half. The iPhone battery will not even fall to 80% of its original charge capacity until it has reached 400 full charge cycles. That does not mean every time you stick your iPhone in the dock, that means a full charge cycle. If your iPhone is only down 50% when you dock it and charge, than it will only take a half charge cycle. Even someone who uses the crap out of their iPhone every day will still only require four full charge cycles per week at the most, which transates to 2 years of heavy use. After this period, the battery will not be dead. It will still retain 80% of its original charge capacity (that’s only a 20% loss after two years of heavy use). Again, this is for very heavy usage.

Even if someone did somehow manage to use a full charge cycle every single day, including weekends, it would still be impossible to kill an iPhone battery within 1.5 years. It would still have 80% capacity at that point.

You may now return to your uninformed babbling. Thank you.

July 28th, 2007 at 11:29 am

Don’t blame the legal system just because any fool can file a frivolous class action suit. This guy just want publicity and he’s achieved his purpose. The suit will be tossed, but the plaintiff has already garnered his 15 minutes of fame.

How can I be so sure the suit will be tossed? If he was unhappy with the phone he could have returned it for a full refund. End of story.

July 28th, 2007 at 12:28 pm

@ Aaronontheweb (AjaxNinja)
Re: “We did fine without them for ~200 years until Lyndon Johnson opened the doors in the 60s.”

Possible replies:
5. Um, not a history major, are we?
4. Practicing history without a license again, I see.
3. Well, we know what class YOU had right after lunch, eh?
2. Yep, before the sixties only certain classes could file lawsuits. Kept that meddlesome riff-raff out.
1. History is written by those who didn’t live through it.

July 28th, 2007 at 1:26 pm

@Chris:

Well, at least this dude had the opportunity to return his iPhone for a refund once he found he couldn’t replace the battery. You (and me, I’m in the same boat), however, are tough ship outta luck, since we most likely slept on the mattress before finding out about the non-user-replaceable springs, which rendered it non-returnable. Furthermore, I went ahead and ripped off the mattress tags, which could subject me to criminal prosecution under the DMTA.

Anyway, I’m looking into the Furniture Software Foundation (FSF). Apparently they have a new furniture public license (FPL) that prevents the Sertaization of software, i.e., if a mattress manufacturer tries to lock the user in to their box springs, the manufacturer cannot use FPL v3 software (mattress stuffing released under the FPL v3). I’m also thinking of developing a pillow and releasing it under the FPL.

July 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pm

@fogcitydave (30)

It seems that your numbers are based on assumption. Actually breaking down numbers assuming the product works the way its supposed to is very pro-Apple/Corporation. This also means that you and Jose T are thinking along the same lines. He assumed that after the associated costs and technological advancements, that a consumer would be able to replace the battery on his/her own. I honestly ASSUME that if the battery lasted longer, that Jose would not have really made it an issue.

The fact remains that Apple has had bad battery charge epxeriences in the past. Remember the iPods, if they held 50% of the charge it claimed, that Apple will not be responsible for the device, is very irresponsible.

Apples track records and its premium costs justifies why a consumer would have expected much more. Jose may actually be the genius here. Corporations like Apple should put in a bit more effort when it comes to fair expectations.

And to those smashing Jose…remember, his a consumer first, and I credit him for not just accepting something just because it is the way it is. Average consumers dont read fine print, and they probably have better things to do in real life. Yes legally, Apple did state the battery was soldered, but just because a coproration states somethings, doesent mean the corporation is playing fair. We all sound like snobs saying he should have known better lada lada. Come on people, grow up.

July 28th, 2007 at 4:23 pm

@Tony

Quite true, but understand that there is such a thing as ‘consumer responsibility’… do you blindly fork over $400-$500 without checking the merchandise first? This guy IS NOT a victim, he is an extortionist and/or opportunist. period. I will smash Jose BECAUSE I read the argument he presented, it was pretending to be informative and at the same time, misleading.

Not everyone has the money to throw at things without at least getting useable details about it, especially an IT gadget that DOES require some obvious thought before any purchase is done. If the phone was like under $75, then maybe your argument would be stronger.

July 28th, 2007 at 6:14 pm

You might want to clarify that the “300 charges” claim is bogus and was based on a poorly sourced article that was debunked almost three weeks ago. As noted in comments already, Apple stated that the battery would retain 80% capacity after 400 complete cycles. This crap keeps going around and it’s just completely wrong.

I sourced the original appearance of this from CNET to Gizmodo to MSNBC, with links to actual battery info from Apple:

http://joemaller.com/2007/07/2.....e-round-2/

July 28th, 2007 at 9:13 pm

My first-generation Treo 600 didn’t have a user-replaceable battery. I don’t remember hearing of any lawsuits against Palm back then, but it was launched with nothing near the fanfare of the iPhone. The suit is clearly speculative on the part of the plaintiff (and whomever fly by night counsel he convinced to take the case), and wouldn’t happen if it weren’t against deep pockets like Apple and AT&T.

I hope they hit him with both barrels. Lawsuits like these make everything we buy more expensive, tie up our legal system and take the place of interesting posts on Techcrunch.

July 29th, 2007 at 4:57 am

Half the fun of a cellular device is cracking it open and taking out the battery.

July 29th, 2007 at 11:28 am

I am suing Apple, because I put my iPhone in a microwave oven and it went dead.

I wasn’t warned that I shouldn’t put it in a microwave oven. No sticker, no little pictogram in the user guide.

Anybody wants to join me?

July 29th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Oh why oh why do people do those things are there not other stuff to do on this earth, go for a work in the nature.

July 29th, 2007 at 7:03 pm

The battery issue is a minor one. so are the lawsuits. The real danger for Apple is already on the market : new phones offering better services, interface or functionnalities. Apple’s interface is gorgeous but the device has some severe drawbacks

July 30th, 2007 at 9:21 am

Better mp3 devices from other companies doesn’t stop the iPod from selling like hotcakes.

With Apple, it seems only aesthetics count.

July 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Lets see the iphone has been out for not even 4 weeks. Why in the world would this moron being trying to change a battery?

July 31st, 2007 at 9:19 am

@41 Fog City Dave

Seeing your comment that they are a publicly traded company and must be responsilbe destroyed any type of credibility you had in making an argument. To think that someone like you actually reads Techcrunch is an insult. I understand the arguments for both sides. Apples, legally, and Jose’s frustration as a consumer. All I see on these comments is people bashing Jose for suing a corporation that has had previous Battery life issues on their devices. Had Jose’s name been Arrington, im sure posters would reason and see his perspecvtcive and make some type of intellectual conclusion that yes, maybe it is unfair, or just give their two cents in a more aceptable manner. People here have posted about his ethnicity, his last name etc., so there is no denying that his name had influenced some readers.

It is quite humanly possible for someone to want to sue because a corporation as big and “responsible” as Apple (who by the way bashes MS foe being square, sells people on Apple being different, more artistic, more subjective) doesent allow for the image they are trying to portray to the masses.

Arguments can be made for both consumer and coproration…..so be easy fellas.

July 28th, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Tony, please… “assuming the product works the way it is supposed to is very pro Apple/Corporation”. Save your lefty anti-consumer corporate fear for someone else. Yes, I assume that the product will live up to its specifications, because Apple is a publicly-traded company and can be held responsible for the claims they make. If the iPhone batteries do not live up to Apple’s stated specifications, then Mr. Trujillo would have a reasonable case to bring against Apple, but a pre-emptive class action suit against a theoretical battery problem that cannot yet possibly be proven is a waste of the court’s time. Also, the fact that he has named AT&T in this suit should show you what is true goal is… $$$

July 31st, 2007 at 11:01 pm

okay, so as a European and non-iPhone-owner (they do exist) i see too many people have bought one and shouldn’t have.
When signing the contract in the Apple store, they should ask for a certificate of normal IQ, because the amount of people saying and doing stupid things on blogs, worshipping it, hating it, putting it in a blender???

its. a. phone. for the love of pete!

yes they do die out eventually, my old Samsung doesn’t last the week like it used too, you seeing lawsuits?
okay, the battery is fixed inside, so is the ipods and for 40$ you can get it done by your local geek shop in a years time when your battery is not even close to dead.
Why worry that in 2 years your battery might be dead? looking at the speed people are putting down 600bucks…
Steve will launch his iPhoneNano and people will buy it again! with still 80% of their battery left!
and yes the spanish dude did have his 5 minutes of fame, give the little child something to play with…

August 6th, 2007 at 2:17 pm

I think this is a valid lawsuit because Apple (like most other companies) engaged in deceptive marketing by not informing consumers about important problems/support issues with this device. I cannot think of one other consumer device where the owner cannot replace the battery. Also understand that not every consumer goes through websites where technical details are discussed. So to me it’s obvious that Apple would have demonstrated good faith by informing consumer about this important aspect - on their packaging (in regular sized font). By not doing so they are demonstrating their lack of good faith — and their desire to trick gullible people by slick advertisement and media hype into getting locked in and burdening them with unxpected cost of ownership.