The plaintiff appealed to court with the claim about protection of consumer rights after the authorized service center Apple refused him a warranty repair due to the discovery of the telephone traces of liquid.
The representative plaintiff the court found that the phone was indeed in the water, but not more than a minute and at a depth of no more than a meter.
While Apple stated that iPhone’s and other models, starting with the iPhone 7, have a degree of protection IP68 water — this means they can be submerged up to 2 metres for up to 30 minutes.
“This information is actively used in promotional materials of the phone to attract buyers, in connection with which the plaintiff was so confident in the water resistance of the phone and did not violate the rules of use of the phone, installed by the manufacturer,” claimed the plaintiff.
The plaintiff demanded to reimburse him for the cost of the phone, to pay a penalty and compensation of moral harm.
The representative of “Apple Rus”, however, stated that the plaintiff did not provide evidence precluding his fault that the phone was in the water.
“The phone traces liquids, the sensor is drenched on the motherboard is active. This suggests that the consumer has violated the rules of use of the product, and his arguments that he dropped the item in water no deeper than one metre and not more than one minute, unfounded,” — said the defendant.
The court with these arguments agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.
The owner of the iPhone 7 from Elabugi claimed that his smartphone has drops of water while bathing the child, then the device broke. Examination decided that “the degree of protection from spray is not a permanent factor.” The court decided that there was a violation of the conditions and dismissed the action.
A resident of Lipetsk demanded compensation after he has ceased to be the iPhone 7. Examination has established contact with moisture and because a smartphone until that was exposed to the autopsy, was unable to decide whether worked to protect from moisture. The court ruled that he had violated the conditions of operation, and dismissed the action.
The court in the Moscow region ruled in favor of hostess broken iPhone X. Despite the fact that the Respondent (OAO “VimpelCom”), insisted that the phone broke due to improper operation, inspection decided that this model phone should have worked to protect from moisture, and since this did not happen, it was a manufacturing defect.
Read more •••