This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Song-Beverly Act
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Vicky Maldonado and Justin Carter, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Applecare Service Company Inc., Apple CSC Inc.

Published: Oct. 22, 2021 | Result Date: Oct. 1, 2021 |

Case number: 3:16-cv-04067-WHO Settlement –  $95,000,000

Judge

William H. Orrick III

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Steve W. Berman
(Hagens, Berman, Sobol & Shapiro LLP)

Robert B. Carey
(Hagens, Berman, Sobol & Shapiro LLP)

Michella A. Kras
(Hagens, Berman, Sobol & Shapiro LLP)


Defendant

Meredith R. Dearborn
(Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP)

Gabriel R. Schlabach
(Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP)

Karen L. Dunn
(Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP)

William A. Isaacson
(Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP)

Kyle N. Smith
(Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP)


Facts

Vicky Maldonado and Justin Carter filed a class-action against Apple Inc., Applecare Service Company Inc., and Apple CSC Inc. The action included individuals who purchased AppleCare or AppleCare+ either directly or through the iPhone upgrade program on or after July 20, 2012 and received a manufactured replacement device. According to Apple's AppleCare, when a device is defective or needs to be replaced for accidental damage, Apple will exchange the device with a replacement product that is new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability. The new device can be new or remanufactured.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendants replaced consumer's products that were covered with AppleCare and AppleCare+ with remanufactured or refurbished items as opposed to brand new products or the equivalent. Plaintiffs contended that defendants' conduct constituted breach of Apple plan contracts and extended warranties. Plaintiffs further contended that defendants violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, Secondhand Merchandise Labeling Law, as well as the California Unfair Competition Law because the conduct allegedly constituted deceptive and/or false advertising and unfair and deceptive acts and practices, and was undertaken by defendants to result in, and which resulted in, the sale of goods and services to consumers.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions.

Result

The case settled for $95,000,000.


#137942

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390