Apple is in trouble, files a lawsuit against the lie about iPhone waterproofing
After resolving Batterygate’s multi-million-dollar claim, Apple was once again in trouble for falsely claiming that the iPhone was waterproof, this time with a lawsuit against the company. According to the latest report from AppleInsider, Cupertino has been sued for misleading consumers. It is believed that the company has formulated an exaggerated advertising policy regarding the waterproof performance of the iPhone, but the company faces several complaints.
Apple files a lawsuit against the lie about iPhone waterproofing
Recent lawsuits against iPhone waterproofing
In a lawsuit recorded in the Southern District of New York, Apple allegedly misrepresented the waterproof function of the iPhone. The victims (consumers) of the current situation also expressed their concerns about the organization’s refusal to cover floods within the scope of its warranty.
Is a waterproof iPhone a lie?
IPhone models have varying degrees of water resistance. The iPhone 7 advertises its IP67 warranty and provides 30 minutes of optimal performance at a depth of 1 meter. IPhone 11 Pro and Pro Max again obtained IP68 certification, and soon reached a height of 4 meters. On the iPhone 12, this number is said to reach 6 meters in 30 minutes. However, these are all Apple cases… the plaintiff’s client claimed that this was incorrect.
Moreover, customers say that the functionality of the iPhone’s waterproof device is overestimated, and they say that the organization obtained these tests from research institutes that use purified and impure water. He said that this ability is confusing in areas where the water is imperfect and unstable. Additionally, users say their equipment was damaged by water containing chlorine or salt; the problem is not covered by the warranty.
Interestingly, this is not the first time that Apple has not been convicted of the iPhone’s waterproof function. A year ago, the company filed a similar lawsuit in Italy and was fined 10 million euros. However, the only reason for such a huge fine is that the agency did not misrepresent your equipment. Hence, the way in which the guarantee failed to remedy the fluid damage was also convincing in the court’s decision.