Court Ruling in Denmark Finds That Apple Must Replace Damaged iPhone With New Model, Not Refurb

[Maura]

MacRumors reports that a court in Denmark has today ruled that Apple must replace a damaged iPhone belonging to a Danish man with a brand new model rather than a refurbished device in order to comply with local Danish law.

The court’s three judges found that Apple could not legally replace David Lysgaard’s iPhone 4 with a refurb as it might contain recycled parts, and thus would possibly have a lower resale value than his damaged phone, which would go against his “legitimate expectation” of receiving a replacement phone of equivalent value to his original purchase.

Denmark’s Consumer Complaints Board had already ruled back in 2014 that Apple had gone against Denmark’s Sale of Goods Act by giving Lysgaard a refurb instead of a new phone, but Apple sued Lysgaard after that ruling, claiming that refurbs are made and tested to the same standards as brand new iPhones. The case then went to a higher level of court in Denmark today, hence the new ruling by the higher court, which upheld the decision of the Danish Consumer Complaints Board.

Apple can also now appeal today’s ruling, which it may well want to do, rather than set a costly precedent in Denmark.

Source: http://www.macrumors.com/2016/12/09/dutch-new-vs-refurbished-iphone-lawsuit/

 

[Pinkpoison]

I have always thought it wrong that Apple replace a device with a refurb within the first month, I think that within the first 30 days a device should be replaced with a brand new one.

After 30 days then a refurb is acceptable.

In the UK third party phone shops and retail stores replace with a new phone or give a full refund.

 

[scifan57]

This decision sets a dangerous precedent that could cost Apple and other companies in a similar situation many millions of dollars. The refurbished iPhones are each subject to stringent testing and are less likely to be defective than a brand new iPhone. In the case of an iPhone as old as the iPhone 4, a refurbished unit with a brand new case, screen, and battery would be better value than a new old stock iPhone that's been sitting with a dead battery for over 5 years.

 

[Pinkpoison]

In the case of an iPhone as old as the iPhone 4, a refurbished unit with a brand new case, screen, and battery would be better value than a new old stock iPhone that's been sitting with a dead battery for over 5 years.

I agree with that but still stand by what I said above, If third party phone shops and retail stores can replace with a brand new device within 30 days of buying a new device then surely Apple can.....

 

[scifan57]

I agree with that but still stand by what I said above, If third party phone shops and retail stores can replace with a brand new device within 30 days of buying a new device then surely Apple can.....

With a new phone bought recently I'd agree but in the case of the news article, the iPhone in question is an old iPhone 4 that was bought new as much as 5 years ago.

 

[brixtonboy]

So it's taken all this time to finally get to court and Apple have lost. They not doubt knew the Dutch Trading Laws but decided to trade anyway.
Apple have simply come unstuck with this ruling expecting to win. It could have all been solved years ago, just by following the law and giving their customer a new replacement iPhone 4. As they were entitled to receive.
Job done and fantastic customer service.