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
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.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390