Apple admits in open court to reuse old parts from damaged phones, in new ones

[DozerKitty]

Today Apple has gone to court in a danish courtroom. In its essence, its a case regarding the Danish Sale of Goods Act, specifically in this case about replacing a product that has been damaged within the 2-year warranty, which you get through danish law, and has to receive a "new product of equal value".

 

In this case, the buyer, David Lysgaard, has received a new replacement phone for his old damaged iPhone 4, but it has contained reused parts from other phones, either returned from customers who did not wish to keep their product, or from products returned due to damage to some extent, but had salvage parts. The Danish Consumer Ombudsman, an institution to help people in cases like this, agrees with David that he should receive a brand new phone, as is the law, but Apple fights this, as this could impact their entire business model.

 

This is all in danish, but I haven't been able to find anything about it in international media, so a good bit of Google Translate must be put to use, to understand this. This article also has a live blog from the courtroom, which is live right now:

http://ekstrabladet.dk/kup/elektronik/teknologi/apple-erkender-i-retten-du-faar-aldrig-ny-iphone-som-byttetelefon/6372927

 

Here is also an article from a few days ago from Business Insider Nordic:

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/apple-is-violating-danish-laws---and-is-now-suing-an-iphone-user-for-winning-a-consumer-rights-case-against-apple-in-court-2016-10

 

I'm not sure if this is a case which could impact Apple on a bigger scale, but perhaps it could change some things for the consumers, in a, hopefully, good way.

[DarkBlade2117]

To me personally, I could care less. To an average consumer, this could make them flip shit. Along as it had no visual imperfections on the outside, go for it.

[Volbet]

Yeah, I read that and I'm a bit torn on the case. 

The Danish law on the sales of goods doesn't specifically say "new product of equal value". §78 2. says the consumer has the right to (in the event of a broken item)

Quote

levering af en anden genstand, der stemmer overens med aftalen (omlevering),

(English translation: Deliverance of another item that is in accordance with the purchase agremment (redelivery)). Source.

 

Now, one could argue that the agreement between David and Apple is for a phone, not specifically a 100% new phone.

If the refurbished phone is completly undisguisable from a new phone then Apple might have a case. 

David's phone was also used at the time of replacement, which could lead to a justification of giving him a used phone. 

 

I would tend agree with Consumer Ombudsmanden in this case, since the judicial president does point in the direction that the redelivered item has to be of the same value as the replaced item, but that's not written in stone. 

The court could very well favour Apple's case, but the opinion of the various Ombudsmænd tend to be valued a lot by the courts.  

 

[AlTech]

"Apple. Coming up with new innovative ways of ripping people off"

 

AluminiumTech 2016

[Mr.Meerkat]

What? There are very very little companies that actually gives out brand new products as replacements. I would say 98% of companies gives out refurbs as replacements rather than a new one plus it's a FUCKING IPHONE 4, a 6 YEARS OLD phone...where are you going to get brand new parts for it?

[DozerKitty]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

What? There are very very little companies that actually gives out brand new products as replacements. I would say 98% of companies gives out refurbs as replacements rather than a new one plus it's a FUCKING IPHONE 4, a 6 YEARS OLD phone...where are you going to get brand new parts for it?

 

This case has been over 3 years in the making. It started way back in 2013. At that time, the phone was still within its warranty. This is a principal case at this point.

[Volbet]

3 hours ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

What? There are very very little companies that actually gives out brand new products as replacements. I would say 98% of companies gives out refurbs as replacements rather than a new one plus it's a FUCKING IPHONE 4, a 6 YEARS OLD phone...where are you going to get brand new parts for it?

It's a 5 year old case. 

The phone was bought in 2011 and the case began rolling in 2012 with the first decision being made in 2013.

Apple then waited untill 2014 to drag David to court and the case has just now begun. 

 

The main reason it's still going is due to the president it can set for how the Danish laws on the subject are to be interpreted in the future.

[Centurius]

I honestly would object to companies not reusing parts. Recycling is almost never 100% and as long as it can pass the same quality tests as a completely new thing it should be fine.

[Enderman]

1) good for them, that's called reusing and that is better than recycling or disposing.

 

2) if it works, why the hell are you complaining... it's not like it's worse because it doesn't have new parts.

 

3) this guy should stop buying apple products if he disagrees with their reuse methods.

[79wjd]

26 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

"Apple. Coming up with new innovative ways of ripping people off"

 

AluminiumTech 2016

 

Just now, Wikiforce said:

Wow, Great for a company with already ridiculously overpriced products

Ridiculously overpriced items that are relatively competitive with the rest of the market*. 

 

Also, it's not like most companies give refurbished products as RMAs. Oh wait...that's exactly how most companies handle RMAs.

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, Wikiforce said:

Wow, Great for a company with already ridiculously overpriced products

And it's like samsung is going to give you a brand new phone if you RMA it  (the note 7 doesn't count...just sayin...)

[Mr.Meerkat]

12 minutes ago, Centurius said:

I honestly would object to companies not reusing parts. Recycling is almost never 100% and as long as it can pass the same quality tests as a completely new thing it should be fine.

So not the actual hardware but the bits for anesthetics  (aka the cheap parts)

 

2 minutes ago, Wikiforce said:

I also hate Samsung, they are also overpriced compared to most other local or chinese brands here which i generally buy if possible.

Sony FTW as they make great sub 5 inch flagships...or they used to  

[belfouf]

I think it's good to re use all parts, look all the things we kill to produce (smartphones do kill people), then throw away...

[QBtech]

Okay it's not entirely clear in the OP and I dont speak Danish so here is the main question?

 

Is this a Case of:

  A person got a refurb. A phone that was repaired and validated by Apple to be okay for resale

  B Person got a new phone, which due to a great recycling program has some used parts in it

 

In case of B: seriously what is wrong with the Danish?

 

In Case of A: The problem is actualy a bit more nuanced then it seems.

 

From a consumer standpoint I get it. My current laptop was a refurb, it saved me €300 and served me extremely well for the last 2.5yrs. But if I would have bought the new one, it broke in a month and I got a refurb as a replacement, I would be gunning for that €300.

 

From a business standpoint: Apple is required to first try to repair a broken phone before it must be replaced with a new one. They decided they can either repair each phone individually and make consumers wait for months, or they can exchange the phone now for one that is in a similar state as the repaired phone would be (so basically a refurb), take their sweet time repairing your phone and not deliver a patch job, keep this rotation going and you have a phone tomorrow.

 

 

Not a bad business practice IF you inform your customer what it is you are doing, and give them a choice to wait on their phone. Seriously if they would have given people an option they could have done this without trouble. (Almost no one will choose to wait several months on their phone just in case it is not repairable and they will get a new one)

[Dredgy]

This is not something they should be punished for. This is something more tech companies should be encouraged to do. Recycling and reusing parts, so long as their tested thoroughly, is something that should be more commonplace in the tech industry.

[DozerKitty]

1 minute ago, QBtech said:

Okay it's not entirely clear in the OP and I dont speak Danish so here is the main question?

 

Is this a Case of:

  A person got a refurb. A phone that was repaired and validated by Apple to be okay for resale

  B Person got a new phone, which due to a great recycling program has some used parts in it

 

In case of B: seriously what is wrong with the Danish?

 

In Case of A: The problem is actualy a bit more nuanced then it seems.

 

From a consumer standpoint I get it. My current laptop was a refurb, it saved my €300 and served me extremely well for the last 2.5yrs. But if I would have bought the new one, it broke in a month and I got a refurb as a replacement I would be gunning for that €300.

 

From a business standpoint: Apple is required to first try to repair a broken phone before it must be replaced with a new one. They decided they can either repair each phone individually and make consumers wait for months, or they can exchange the phone now for one that is in a similar state as the repaired phone would be (so basically a refurb), take their sweet time repairing your phone and not deliver a patch job, keep this rotation going and you have a phone tomorrow.

 

 

Not a bad business practice IF you inform your customer what it is you are doing, and give them a choice to wait on their phone. Seriously if they would have given people an option they could have done this without trouble. (Almost no one will choice to wait several months on their phone just in case it is not repairable and they will get a new one)

7

It is the case of B.

 

The way Apple does it is that they have a separate production line, which manufactures new phones, but with reused parts. So it's not a refurb as such, but it is not new either. In the danish law, it states that you must receive a replacement product "of same value" as the original. It does not state if it has to be absolutely new, as it is a bit of a grey area, which this case goes into.

 

The Consumer Ombudsman says it has to be a new product, to be "of the same value", where Apple says it is okay to reuse old parts, as these also go through the same tests as any other new phone, before being shipped. Apple does sell these in other countries at a 15% discount though but doesn't do this in Denmark. But they do use them as replacements for broken phones.

 

It's very grey this one, so at least for Denmark, this case can set a new, and potentially dangerous, precedent.

[AndrewBit]

Nothing so shocking . . . All high tech companies re-use components as long as they are re-tested and therefore reliable on brand new machines . . . It's ecological and good practice if done correctly !

PS All phones with a strong brand behind are overpriced . . . 

[DozerKitty]

1 minute ago, Dredgy said:

This is not something they should be punished for. This is something more tech companies should be encouraged to do. Recycling and reusing parts, so long as their tested thoroughly, is something that should be more commonplace in the tech industry.

 

They're not being punished for doing it. I think it's great too, that they reuse these parts. What this case is about, is the fact that they're replacing broken phones with "new" ones, which has these pre-used parts in them. So the question of this lawsuit is, can they do that, and really call it a "new phone"?

[QBtech]

7 minutes ago, DozerKitty said:

snip

 

5 minutes ago, DozerKitty said:

snip

 

So basically this is the case of  "Can companies use recycled materials to produce goods" . Good job Denmark, way to care about the environment. In a few years some compounds will all have to be recycled cuz we sucked the earth dry of them, and no one will be able to sell crap to Denmark due to this.

 

What was the original verdict in the case?

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

What? There are very very little companies that actually gives out brand new products as replacements. I would say 98% of companies gives out refurbs as replacements rather than a new one plus it's a FUCKING IPHONE 4, a 6 YEARS OLD phone...where are you going to get brand new parts for it?

Something tells me that they can't do that under Dannish Law though.

 

Let's not forget that just because in America consumer protection laws are fairly crappy that this is or should be the case elsewhere.

[DozerKitty]

4 minutes ago, QBtech said:

 

 

So basically this is the case of  "Can companies use recycled materials to produce goods" . Good job Denmark, way to care about the environment. In a few years some compounds will all have to be recycled cuz we sucked the earth dry of them, and no one will be able to sell crap to Denmark due to this.

 

What was the original verdict in the case?

 

No, this isn't the case. They are very much encouraged to do so, but they must label it as such. Many companies have "2nd rank" products, which didn't meet the requirements and then gets sold at a discount. Apple does the same in other countries. It's the fact that they're replacing his old phone, which they couldn't repair, with a new one which contains used parts. According to the law, they must replace it with something of "equal value", but it doesn't state whether or not it has to be new.

 

The original case the Consumer Ombudsman told Apple to reimburse him, and pay him back. Apple has denied doing this and has now taken it to court with this case, to reverse it.

[DozerKitty]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Something tells me that they can't do that under Dannish Law though.

 

Let's not forget that just because in America consumer protection laws are fairly crappy that this is or should be the case elsewhere.

2

 

Exactly. In Denmark, we have some very good consumer protection laws and a very good institution with the Consumer Ombudsman to help us not get pummeled by "the big

guys". 

 

We have great protection from this, including having a 14-day return policy on everything bought online, as you can't inspect what you're buying beforehand. Also, if a product has to be repaired 3 times, you can either get a full cashback or a new product of "equal value". 

[QBtech]

7 minutes ago, DozerKitty said:

No, this isn't the case. They are very much encouraged to do so, but they must label it as such. Many companies have "2nd rank" products, which didn't meet the requirements and then gets sold at a discount. Apple does the same in other countries. It's the fact that they're replacing his old phone, which they couldn't repair, with a new one which contains used parts. According to the law, they must replace it with something of "equal value", but it doesn't state whether or not it has to be new.

 

The original case the Consumer Ombudsman told Apple to reimburse him, and pay him back. Apple has denied doing this and has now taken it to court with this case, to reverse it.

It's a hard case to start with. Equal value to what? The launching price, current price or current value if it worked?

 

Plus a new phone with used parts > refurb in my book

How did this person even find out it contained some used parts?  

 

smells like someone who was already looking for a fight

[DozerKitty]

Just now, QBtech said:

It's a hard case to start with. Equal value to what? The launching price, current price or current value if it worked?

 

Plus a new phone with used parts > refurb in my book

How did this person even find out it contained some used parts?  

 

Equal value of the price that was paid when bought. If the product is still in stock, he would get a new one of the same version. But if it has been discontinued, he would get a new product with the same current value/sales price, as what he gave for his old product.

 

I agree, a new phone with few reused parts is better than a refurbished one.

I'm not sure how he found out in the first place.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, DozerKitty said:

Exactly. In Denmark, we have some very good consumer protection laws and a very good institution with the Consumer Ombudsman to help us not get pummeled by "the big

guys". 

 

We have great protection from this, including having a 14-day return policy on everything bought online, as you can't inspect what you're buying beforehand. Also, if a product has to be repaired 3 times, you can either get a full cashback or a new product of "equal value". 

If there's 2 previous repairs that's not even that much of a burden at all for companies to just give you new shit at that point: they're supposed to have a strict process of recertifying their refurbished parts and if the thing keeps failing they're obviously slacking off in that regard so I think it's a very sensible law, Apple are just being fucking jerks here.