Italy Fines Apple $12 Million For Unfair Claims About iPhone Water Resistance (9to5mac.com) 68
A reader writes: Italian regulators have fined Apple $12 million for making misleading and unfair claims about iPhone water resistance. The fine was imposed by L'Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), which translates literally as the guarantee authority for competition and the market. This is the competition watchdog responsible for ensuring that companies treat both consumers and competitors fairly.
First, it says, Apple made water resistance claims without making it clear to consumers that these were true only in ideal laboratory conditions, and phones had not passed the same tests in real-life conditions. [...] Second, and more seriously, Apple made iPhone water resistance claims in its marketing, but then refused warranty service on phones which suffered water damage.
Apple has been fined ten million Euros, and additionally ordered to publish a notice on its Italian website through a "Consumer protection information" link. The potentially opens the way for similar rulings in other European Union countries, and could conceivably lead to class action lawsuits in the US and elsewhere, now that the issue has been highlighted. SetteBIT notes that the ruling references three Apple ads. Apple tends to delete older ads from its YouTube channel, but the site archives its own copies, providing proof of the claims originally made.
First, it says, Apple made water resistance claims without making it clear to consumers that these were true only in ideal laboratory conditions, and phones had not passed the same tests in real-life conditions. [...] Second, and more seriously, Apple made iPhone water resistance claims in its marketing, but then refused warranty service on phones which suffered water damage.
Apple has been fined ten million Euros, and additionally ordered to publish a notice on its Italian website through a "Consumer protection information" link. The potentially opens the way for similar rulings in other European Union countries, and could conceivably lead to class action lawsuits in the US and elsewhere, now that the issue has been highlighted. SetteBIT notes that the ruling references three Apple ads. Apple tends to delete older ads from its YouTube channel, but the site archives its own copies, providing proof of the claims originally made.
Re:How much do they fine Italian companies? (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly the same, because the fine depends on the size of the fraud, not the nationality of the fraudster. Quickly skimming the website of the AGCM, I can see a fine of 27M€ to a recycling company for abusing dominant position, of 5M€ to the Italian postal service for delays, one of 600k€ to a German supermarket chain for misleading information about the origin of durum wheat used in pasta, another of 30M€ to private security firms for price fixing...
A 10M€ fine is far from exceptional and is not reserved to USA multinational corporation. It is dictated by the European tradition of protecting customers, despite what typical USA arrogance may lead you to believe
Re:How much do they fine Italian companies? (Score:5, Interesting)
More important than the fine, Apple should be forced to honour the warranty on water damaged iPhones and compensate anyone who bought another phone as a result of a refused claim.
I noticed they tried to pull this on my wife earlier this year when she had her iPhone 11 replaced due to it getting too hot to touch during use. They asked if she had used it in a bathroom and I asked why they were asking, since the phone is waterproof.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen worse. My Boss had bought a new mac mini (this is around 2011-2012?), after about 6 months his ($200) keyboard stopped working with it, he tried other keyboards nothing, until he realised the USB was burning the keyboards you attached to it. Ouch, those were some nice keyboards gone. Anyway, 6 months old mac mini, he takes it to a downtown Manhattan apple store, they tell him it needs a board replacement come back in 2 weeks. He goes to pick it up, they tell him they have voided the warranty becau
Re: How much do they fine Italian SWASTIKAS? (Score:2)
"The way forward: Positive White Nationalism"
Awesome you promote this with a roll of giant swastikas the world associates with war, suffering, and death.
Good job there, sport!
Re:How much do they fine Italian companies? (Score:5, Interesting)
It true, that's an open-and-shut violation of Magnusson Moss. People give Apple way, way too much leeway, and I've seen them take advantage of people way more often than is reasonable.
When I hear about it, I always advise people to call 1-800-SOS-APPL, press 0 repeatedly until you get an operator, and ask to speak to Customer Relations. That's the escalation point that your call would reach if you escalate it enough times anyway, so there's no point in bothering with all the people in between whose job it seems to be to make it harder for you to reach them. :-)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
...I asked why they were asking, since the phone is waterproof.
And you have inadvertently highlighted exactly why Apple won't do a damn thing to support users water damage claims. This is likely through no fault of your own, as the marketing term "waterproof iPhone" is eclipsed only by Tesla's "autopilot", and creates a rather massive loophole ripe for abuse.
There is a large difference between something being water resistant and waterproof. Even the infamous IP6x "waterproof" standards touted so much by vendors, are technically defined as water resistant. The iPhone
Re: (Score:2)
They did replace my wife's phone in the end, yes. Had to argue as they tried to fob us off with a referb so quoted the Consumer Rights Act at them, said we would take a refund instead. They caved and she got a brand new one.
Re: (Score:1)
They did replace my wife's phone in the end, yes. Had to argue as they tried to fob us off with a referb so quoted the Consumer Rights Act at them, said we would take a refund instead. They caved and she got a brand new one.
Sounds like the usual shitty moves to save money no matter what, but in the end I'm glad they caved and did the right thing. Sadly that level of consumer threat is becoming more and more necessary.
I had to actually leave my cable company in order for them to do anything. Told them repeatedly just make me a better offer and I'll stay. They refused. I threatened to leave. They naturally didn't believe me. I left. A week later my mailbox is filled with offers far lower than I was even trying to negotiate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How much do they fine Italian companies? (Score:2)
"If you want to know what a good example of what waterproof is, go ask a vendor who makes diving watches. THAT, is waterproof."
Even those are not water proof, and if you check the face of the watch, you should see something like "WR-200M" (meaning water resistant down to 200 meters). Beyond that, the water pressure gets great enough to force it's way through the gaskets.
Of course a good watch will be water resistant a bit beyond the point where the diver wearing it would start to ascend, because he feels th
Re: (Score:3)
Water pressure per-se isn't really the limiting factor for divers. Divers equalize pressure in the air cavities in their body (the reason why you need to clear your nose even for a dive to the bottom of a swimming pool. The free dive world record is 214 meters (no supplemental air supply) and the SCUBA world record is 314 meters.
The issue is what happens within your bloodstream when you equalize to those pressures then want to go back up to normal atmospheric pressures. Bubbles will form in your bloodstream
Re: (Score:1)
"If you want to know what a good example of what waterproof is, go ask a vendor who makes diving watches. THAT, is waterproof."
Even those are not water proof, and if you check the face of the watch, you should see something like "WR-200M" (meaning water resistant down to 200 meters). Beyond that, the water pressure gets great enough to force it's way through the gaskets.
Of course a good watch will be water resistant a bit beyond the point where the diver wearing it would start to ascend, because he feels the crushing death of high water pressure all over his body.
The other 99.999% of humanity cannot even fathom (heh) a 200-meter "limit" as even being a problem when purchasing or using a dive watch.
In other words, they are waterproof for every environment people would normally put them in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm as big an Apple fan as generally shows up around here, but honestly, this behaviour is absurd on its face. You can't simultaneously say that your phone won't break if you use it near a pool or drop it in water and then refuse to fix it when it fails to live up to whatever meagre claims you've made. Certainly, waterproof watches are waterproof, but Apple has made certain claims both implicitly and explicitly as to how well it resists water ingress, and then give you a hard time when your phone breaks usi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I noticed they tried to pull this on my wife earlier this year when she had her iPhone 11 replaced due to it getting too hot to touch during use.
I had this same problem with my Cherry 2000 [wikipedia.org]
They asked if she had used it in a bathroom and I asked why they were asking, since the phone is waterproof.
They told me that a soapy sex romp on the kitchen floor was not covered in the warranty.
Well, then, she shouldn't have been programmed to do that, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
More important than the fine, Apple should be forced to honour the warranty on water damaged iPhones and compensate anyone who bought another phone as a result of a refused claim.
Most certainly, but this isn't unique to Apple. Sony ran into the very same thing with the Z series. See This advertisement [youtube.com] I believe Samsung as well. They should ALL be made responsible for their advertisement being contrary to their ratings.
Re: How much do they fine Italian companies? (Score:5, Informative)
WTF does that have to do with anything? Apple lied to its consumers about water resistance with ads showing underwater use, and then told them to get lost when phones were damaged when used in that exact way.
Does it matter if this is the only fine the Italian authority has ever issued in its existence? It doesn't change what Apple did.
"But you didn't fine the other guys doing bad stuff!" isnt a defence you or I could use, why should Apple be given the right to use it?
Re: How much do they fine Italian companies? (Score:5, Informative)
Does Apple's mechanism for determining whether to reject a repair claim for water damage reliable distinguish between the conditions they advertise and conditions that are not warranted? Do the advertisements show any conditions not covered by the warrantee? Your argument only holds water of the answers are yes and no, respectively.
Also, IP6x protects against dust ingress, not liquid ingress. IPx8 is the water ingress protection, where water is a proxy for more types of liquids. And Apple's fine print for the iPhone 11 Max and newer (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207043) says that they are rated for at least 4 m depth, so yes, a home swimming pool will typically be covered. Except that fine print also says that don't warrantee against any water damage, so the ads show activities that void your warrantee. Oops, deceptive trade practice.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Does Apple's mechanism for determining whether to reject a repair claim for water damage reliable distinguish between the conditions they advertise and conditions that are not warranted? Do the advertisements show any conditions not covered by the warrantee? Your argument only holds water of the answers are yes and no, respectively.
Agreed, and if Apple was that egregious about claims, they would have pissed off their entire user base by now. Obviously they are supporting some customers.
Also, IP6x protects against dust ingress, not liquid ingress. IPx8 is the water ingress protection, where water is a proxy for more types of liquids.
Yes, I'm aware of the meanings behind the numbers. I used IP6x as a generic reference, as there are different water standards for iPhones.
And Apple's fine print for the iPhone 11 Max and newer (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207043) says that they are rated for at least 4 m depth, so yes, a home swimming pool will typically be covered. Except that fine print also says that don't warrantee against any water damage, so the ads show activities that void your warrantee. Oops, deceptive trade practice.
From what I can tell, the warranty does not cover liquid damage, so sadly that would need clarification from a lawyer. Since this was clarified after an entire paragraph talking about water ratings, I would have to
Re: (Score:2)
IPx8 is the water ingress protection, where water is a proxy for more types of liquids.
Technically IPx8 only protects against ingress due to submersion and does not protect against water in a jet form. For full protection you're looking for the spec IPx6/IPx8 since the liquid rating of 7 or 8 do not supersede 6 or below (though for ratings below 5 I really question how something could withstand submersion but not against splashes)
Behavior in ads except IP68 conditions (Score:2)
In short, the fine seems to be about the truthfulness of the advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF does that have to do with anything? Apple lied to its consumers about water resistance with ads showing underwater use, and then told them to get lost when phones were damaged when used in that exact way.
Uh, I'm no fanboi here, but I'm calling bullshit on this.
iPhones (or smartphones in general) carry an IP6x rating at best. The highly-advertised (NOT hidden) IP68 rating means a smartphone will be water resistant (ONLY water, not coffee, soda, or beer) for upwards of 30 minutes (NOT longer), in a very short depth of water (NOT your pool).
An IP68 rating requires that the product can be immersed in fresh water for at least 30 minutes in 1.5 *meters* of water (4.92 feet). So unless you drop it in the deep end, that does, in fact, cover your pool. It should be very hard to destroy something with an IP68 rating with any sorts of moisture exposure. If it isn't, then the product doesn't meet the specification, and was defective as manufactured. That's a warranty defect, and it is per se fraud to build a product that claims to meet that specifi
Re: (Score:2)
Most pools are chlorinated and as such are not fresh water. Claim denied :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How much do they fine Italian companies? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF does that have to do with anything?
This goes to the key and the centre of the problems of natural justice and fair play. Every time there's a fine reported on Slashdot anywhere other than the us there's normally [slashdot.org] some comment [slashdot.org] claiming that [slashdot.org] fines in countries other than the US are about those countries getting money or attacking US companies. Instead of showing a problem with those countries this just shows a huge problem with the commenter's thinking where they just believe that the justice system is politically biased. It's probably related to the political appointment of judges in the US which mostly doesn't happen elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The applicable law indicates a range between 5.000€ and 5.000.000€ based on how "serious" the damage has been. This is measured by a combination of how many users were impacted, the duration of the malpractice, what the company did in order to amend/mediate and the overall value of the damage and financial status of the offending company.
Given that Apple didn't clearly state the lack of guarantee coverage, didn't issue clear announcements about it's fault and didn't accept any kind of repair, the
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
It is good to see Apple held accountable for misleading ads.
It's going to be impossible for me to not come off as some rabid fanboi here, but here goes.
Care to explain how they engaged in deceptive advertising when making hardware that fully complies with an IP68 rating, and the commercial didn't even come close to exceeding those standards?
I'm no fan of any company abusing their warranty position, but most consumers don't have a damn clue as to what IP6x ratings actually mean. Only water resistance (which means not coffee, soda, or beer). 30 minutes of resistance
Re: (Score:3)
The ads promoted use of the product in a way (intentionally submerged) that the advertiser uses as a basis to void the product's warranty. That's why the ads are unfair and deceptive.
You do come across as a rabid fanboi, because you are white knighting Apple for a case where you recognize that the advertisements and IP rating claim something that the fine print discloses is not covered by the warranty.
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to be impossible for me to not come off as some rabid fanboi here, but here goes.
The length you're going through to hide your true colors is frankly mind-boggling.
Care to explain how they engaged in deceptive advertising when making hardware that fully complies with an IP68 rating, and the commercial didn't even come close to exceeding those standards?
The hardware may fully comply with an IP68 rating (maybe) but it's verifiably true that they will refuse to honor warranties for phones destroyed during behavior depicted in the commercial.
That is, by definition, deceptive.
Trying to spin it any other way is, well, deceptive.
Re: (Score:3)
"But what is a typical fine for an Italian company engaging in similar behavior?"
Italian judges even condemned earth-quake scientists to 6 years prison for not predicting an earthquake.
https://www.theguardian.com/sc... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually not. They were accused to downplay the risk of an earthquake.
Before the earthquake the are days of frequent tremor, and some politics force the scientist to release a notice that says that is normal and there doesn't mean that there is more risk of seriuos earthquake.
Some people trust the notice and go back to sleep in his home, and they died in the earthquake.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean I agree the way they advertised was pretty BS, but at the same time, everyone I've ever know who has seen any sort of phone advertised as water resistant talks about it with air-quotes all the time. Meaning it is freely acknowledged that this is water resistant in the sense of if you drop it in the toilet, then you've got at least a better chance of coming out ok and what it does NOT mean is you should go swimming with it.
So it strikes me kind of like the McDonalds hot coffee thing. Sure maybe they
Re:How much do they fine Italian companies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Duty of care is an established legal doctrine in tort law and forms the basis of consumer protection legislation. When trading in goods, because of the imbalance in power between manufacturer (or retailer) and consumer, it is presumed that a duty of care falls mainly upon the manufacturer (or retailer) to ensure that the goods they produce and sell are of sufficient quality not to cause harm to consumers. Hence, the reason why they are held to a higher standard compared to the individual purchasing the goods.
If Apple advertised a waterproof phone, then it is reasonable to expect that it is waterproof when used in a reasonably wet setting, whether it is a swimming pool or the bathtub. As the manufacturer and retailer of the product, they are in the position to foresee any harm incurred by the usage of the product. Hence, any harm that they should reasonably foresee due to their marketing (mis)representing their product in such a way is also in breach of their duty. This is the essence of the argument for much of consumer protection as a field - to encourage the vendor design or vet products to ensure they are of sufficient quality and marketed fairly so that the costs (or harm) incurred by a substandard product does not fall unfairly on the consumer.
In Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, the defendant was found to have required its franchisees to keep coffee at 82-88C, which was 10-20C higher than similar establishments in the area of the plaintiff, in spite of over 700 incidents of patrons being burned by its coffee in the previous 10 years or so. McD's was found negligent because they are fully aware (and hence foresee) that their coffee can scald customers, but did not take sufficient action to lower the serving temperature, improve their cups or warnings on their cups to minimise injury.
Re: (Score:2)
McD's was found negligent because they are fully aware (and hence foresee) that their coffee can scald customers, but did not take sufficient action to lower the serving temperature, improve their cups or warnings on their cups to minimise injury.
That's almost the story. A specific McD's franchise was found negligent because they were keeping their coffee hotter than even the McDonald's manual was telling them to do.
Re: (Score:3)
She wasn't "scalded". Her skin melted into her pants and required medical attention.
Apple isn't refusing warranty for taking you phone diving. They're refusing warranty for any exposure to water, while at the same time showing their phones being submerged in water and telling customers that it'll be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
The temperature they were cooking that shit to was truly fucking ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean I agree the way they advertised was pretty BS, but at the same time, everyone I've ever know who has seen any sort of phone advertised as water resistant talks about it with air-quotes all the time. Meaning it is freely acknowledged that this is water resistant in the sense of if you drop it in the toilet, then you've got at least a better chance of coming out ok and what it does NOT mean is you should go swimming with it.
The docs for my Kyocera HydroVIBE, that I bought in 2014, says:
Certified dust resistant and waterproof for IP57 - protection against dust and water immersion for up to 30 minutes in up to 3.28 feet (1 meter) of water.**
** HydroVIBE meets IPX5 and IPX7 standards for water spray and immersion for up to 30 minutes at a depth up to 3.28 feet (1 meter).
I'll also note that this phone has a removable back, user-replaceable battery -- and a headphone jack. So certified waterproof with all that in 2014 -- suck it Apple. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone is surprised that you can get a 1st degree burn from hot coffee, or even a small 2nd degree burn. The lady in the coffee suit received 3rd degree burns and required skin grafts, which is more severe than most people would expect from spilling a cup of coffee on themselves.
So in that sense, this *IS* sort of like the coffee case. Arguably, it is a bit more extreme in the sense that nobody expects a coffee spill on themselves to be totally harmless but the phones are seeing warranty void
Re: (Score:1)
Depends on whether one of your shareholders is Silvio Berlusconi off course.
Re: How much do they fine Italian companies? (Score:2)
"According to an open letter to the president of Italy, Giorgio Napolitano, signed by more than 5,000 members of the scientific community, the seven Italians essentially face criminal charges for failing to predict the earthquake â" even though pinpointing the time, location and strength of a future earthquake in the short term remains, by scientific consensus, technically impossible."
Samsung is next (Score:2)
All the phone companies who have water resistant phones are guilty of the same thing. I read a lot of complaints about Samsung rejecting repairs under warranty for the very same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Samsung is next (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Samsung is next (Score:2)
Then it must be water-absorbent! (Score:1)
Absorb water today with Apple individual absorba-prone iPhone [youtube.com]
They should have realised (Score:2)
These fines are insultingly low (Score:1)
is 12M the max fine? (Score:2)
is 12M the max fine?
kinda meaningless (Score:2)
Kinda meaningless fine. There is prob $12mil down the side of Tim Cooks couch.
That's probably about 1.5 hours of Apple revenues (Score:2)
12 mil! (Score:2)
On the other hand (Score:2)
Spare change (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My Experience (Score:1)
It went through the washing machine in the pocket of my jeans. Warm water, lots of soap, lots of agitation.
There was that OMG moment when I couldn't find my phone and realized...I fished it out and shook off the water...it worked!
It was quirky for a couple of days (some switches would not operate), but after that it was 100%.
That was a couple of years ago.
I am *very* impressed - and not out of pocket