2023-06-26 14:59:12
Here in the MacMagazinewe have already reported dozens of cases involving Apple convictions in Brazil with regard to iPhones that go into contact with water.
The most recent case to come to light is from the Federal District, where the 1st Civil Panel of the Federal District and Territories Court of Justice (TJDFT) condemned the Brazilian subsidiary of Maçã (Apple Computer Brasil) to refund the amount paid by a customer in a iPhone 11.
According to the process, the consumer purchased the device in September 2020. Still with the warranty in force, in June of the following year, he ended up being surprised by a rain that ended up wetting the device. After letting the iPhone dry overnight, he noticed that the device’s camera was cloudy and facial recognition (Face ID) was no longer working.
After taking the cell phone to an authorized technical assistance, the customer was informed that the warranty would not cover defects caused by exposure to moisture. The budget for the repair, therefore, would be R$3,199.
The judge rapporteur Carlos Pires Soares Neto highlighted, in his vote, that the Apple website makes it clear that the model in question is resistant to splashes, water and dust, was tested under controlled conditions in the laboratory and classified as IP68. Also, that such resistance is not permanent and that it may decrease over time and show that damage resulting from contact with liquid would not be included in the warranty.
Despite this, the magistrate considered this information to be insufficient, along with the IP68 certification and the photos the device on the Apple website. This, then, makes the consumer believe that he has bought a water-resistant device in any situation.
Although the information is clear, in the sense that the damage arising from the contact of the cell phone with liquid is not included in the guarantee, the information is insufficient regarding the way of using the respective device in contact with water, lacking information on the water quality and characteristics (such as fresh and/or salt water), depth, weather and adverse conditions.
During the process, Apple would have claimed that the problem cited by the consumer would have been caused due to the misuse of the device – which should be done by presenting the exclusion of responsibility due to the victim’s sole fault, as determined by the Code of Criminal Procedure, what would not have been done.
So, unanimously, the class decided that Apple should refund the amount paid by the consumer on the iPhone, in addition to keeping the iPhone 11 damaged.
tip from Marcel Santos Mutimvia @direitonews
1687792626
#Rain #damages #iPhone #Apple #Brazil #reimburse #customer