A judge in Amsterdam has ruled in favor of a customer who sued Apple for refusing to replace her broken iPhone 6 plus with a new model. According to her, she bought an iPhone 6 plus in 2014 and nine months later, it stopped working. Apple has issued her a refurbished model instead of a new device. A refurbished device includes both new and recycled parts.
Although it is a standard practice for Apple to replace a damaged device with refurbished phone, the court saw it differently. Since the device has stopped working within warranty and it is not the fault of the customer, the judge believes that it is Apple’s responsibility to replace the broken device with a new model and not a refurbished one. The court also ordered Apple to refund the customer the full €799 she paid for the device, plus interest. In addition, it ordered Apple to replace the broken iPhone with a new one.
It is a standard policy for Apple to replace a broken device with a refurbished model. In fact, Apple’s standard one-year limited warranty and extended AppleCare+ policies for iPhone in both the Netherlands and the U.S., and most other countries, explicitly state that repairs or exchanges may involve devices or parts that are either new or “equivalent to new in performance and reliability,” otherwise known as refurbished. Very rarely does Apple replace a broken unit with a truly new device only rarely does the company provide a brand new replacement on a case-by-case situation.
However, the court’s decision in Amsterdam could force Apple to change its policies. The court filing in the Netherlands does not indicate if Apple plans to appeal the decision. While, Apple has not publicly commented on the matter, it would not be unprecedented for the company to exhaust all avenues in an effort to overturn the ruling.
