Judge dismisses Apple iPhone battery suit

Stephen Withers
Monday, 29 September 2008 04:27

Your IT - Mobility

Judges often come in for some stick over their decisions, so it's good to report on one that seems sensible. US Judge Matthew Kennelly has ruled that Apple did not deceive a customer by failing to show the cost of replacement batteries on the iPhone box.

Over a year ago, Jose Trujillo sued Apple and AT&T over the need to pay for a replacement battery for an iPhone during the minimum two-year phone service plan. The companies had thus concealed an annual fee of $US85.99, he argued.

Kennelly last week entered a summary judgement in favour of Apple, holding that "the 'feature label' affixed to the box states that the iPhone '[b]attery has limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by Apple service provider. Battery life and charge cycles vary by use and settings. See www.apple.com/batteries.'"

The information on the label meant Trujillo could not win his claim that failing to show the cost of battery replacement constituted consumer fraud or common law fraud, the judge ruled. "Under the circumstances, no reasonable jury could find that deception occurred."

Interestingly, Trujillo argued that the cost of battery replacement relative to the price of an iPhone - around 20 percent - made the fee material. Kennelly held "there is no genuine issue of material fact", pointing out that "a seller of a new car is not required to disclose to the buyer, up front, the likely cost of replacing the car’s tires, brakes, or even its transmission at some point before it becomes cost-justified for the buyer to scrap the car and acquire a new one."

Although the suit against Apple has been dismissed, Trujillo's case against the other defendant - AT&T - continues to run. AT&T sought to have the suit dismissed as its terms of service require disputes to be settled through arbitration, not litigation.

But Trujillo was not provided with the terms of service, nor was there any reasonable prospect of him being aware of the terms prior to purchase.

There's more of what the judge has to say on page two.