The new Apple phone is broken and no warranty is provided! Apple's "domineering" response is questioned

Apple mobile phone purchased from the official website

After only three months, the high temperature alarm and shutdown occurred and could not be restarted.

Apple only refused
to provide free warranty due to "unauthorized modification" and "trade secrets"

No information about mobile phone failures will be disclosed.

recently

Ms. Hu, who lives in Harbin, Heilongjiang

To the reporter of China Consumer News

Reflecting on her experience

I just bought my phone 3 months ago and it broke down.

Apple said it was caused by unauthorized modification

On October 19, 2021, Ms. Hu spent 5999 yuan on Apple's official website to buy an iPhone 13 pink 128g mobile phone, and everything was normal afterwards. On January 14, 2022, the phone suddenly became abnormally hot without any signs, so she called Apple's official customer service for consultation.

Customer service conducted a remote test and found that there was no problem with the phone. They also told her that it was normal for the phone to heat up and that no action was needed. However, on that day, Ms. Hu's phone displayed a high temperature alarm and then automatically shut down and could not be turned on again.

The next day, Ms. Hu went to Apple's official after-sales offline store, Harbin 567 Mantiandi Store, for inspection. After inspecting the phone, the after-sales staff said they could not handle it and needed to return it to the factory for inspection. They also took photos to record the appearance of the phone and evaluated the phone as being worn out by use.

On January 22, the staff of the offline after-sales outlet of Harbin 567 Mantiandi store contacted Ms. Hu and informed her that Apple’s manufacturer’s appraisal opinion on the mobile phone was: there had been unauthorized modifications, it was not covered by the warranty, and further repairs would require a repair fee of 5,300 yuan.

▲Product maintenance information.

Consumers are required to provide evidence of "unauthorized modification"

Apple says the decision is based on trade secrets

"It's been less than three months since I bought the phone, and it's still within the warranty period. Why should consumers pay for quality problems? Why can't the phone be used normally? I bought the phone through Apple's official website, and it has never been repaired. Instead, I was accused of 'unauthorized modification'. What did I modify?" Ms. Hu could not accept Apple's explanation. The staff of Harbin 567 Mantiandi store said that they were just conveying the opinions of Apple manufacturers, and that specific situations could be consulted with the manufacturer.

Ms. Hu then called Apple's official customer service number for consultation. Apple's senior product expert said that he could not give any advice on how to deal with the matter and needed to report it to the appeal team for processing. On January 24, Nono Zhu, a member of Apple's appeal team, contacted Ms. Hu and asked her to provide her purchase receipt, phone serial number and other information. On January 28, Nono Zhu told Ms. Hu that the appeal failed. Ms. Hu asked which part of the other party's phone was damaged and how Apple determined whether the consumer had modified the phone without authorization? The staff member said that it was a trade secret and had nothing to say, and said that the investigation into this issue was over.

"Apple is too overbearing. It didn't inform consumers of any problems with the phone during the three-year warranty period, and it said consumers had 'modified the phone without permission' without giving any basis for the allegations." At this point, Ms. Hu's path to defending her rights through Apple's official channels was blocked.

Afterwards, a reporter from China Consumer News called Harbin 567 Mantiandi store, where staff said that if the device cannot be turned on normally, it can only be returned to the factory for inspection. "We do not turn it on for inspection, so we can only follow the manufacturer's opinion. As for the inspection before returning the device to the factory, we only check whether the appearance is damaged or worn, and we do not determine whether the consumer has made unauthorized modifications."

The reporter contacted Apple headquarters twice on March 22 and March 23 through Apple 400 customer service to request an interview. The customer service staff said that they could only send the reporter the email address of the media service department of Apple headquarters, and they would contact the reporter as soon as they received the email. However, the reporter sent interview requests twice through emails, but Apple did not contact the reporter until the reporter's deadline on March 28.

"Unauthorized modification" has become Apple's shield for refusing the three guarantees

Experts question Apple's disregard for consumers' legal rights

The reporter searched online and found that many consumers have encountered the embarrassment of being refused three guarantees by Apple on the grounds of "unauthorized modification" or "unauthorized modification".

Sun Wei, director of Heilongjiang Chengqi Law Firm, said in an interview with a reporter from China Consumer News:

The merchant's obligation to perform repairs during the warranty period is statutory.

The fact that the Apple after-sales service center mailed the phone back to the headquarters for testing in accordance with its headquarters regulations is itself an infringement on consumers. Apple has no right to decide that the three-guarantee repair must be tested before it can be carried out, nor does it have the right to conduct unilateral testing on the modification or non-modification issues unrelated to the heating problem without the owner present, and give an evaluation that can determine whether the three-guarantee is covered. Refusal to provide the three-guarantee based on unilateral test results makes Apple's identity as both an athlete and a referee even more embarrassing.

The Consumer Protection Law clearly stipulates that consumers have the right to know the true situation of the goods they purchase, use or the services they receive. Apple unilaterally tested the phone without consulting with consumers, refused to provide warranty, and did not inform the reason on the grounds that it involved commercial secrets, which seriously violated consumers' right to know and failed to fulfill the operator's obligation to inform the truth.

Article 23 of the Consumer Protection Law stipulates that for durable goods, if the consumer discovers defects within six months from the date of receiving the goods or services, if a dispute arises, the operator shall bear the burden of proof of the defects.

• 
  

  First of all, Apple has no right to refuse warranty for unauthorized disassembled iPhones. When the company's self-imposed rules have no legal basis, if the rules refuse its obligations and exclude its own responsibilities, such overbearing clauses are invalid.

  
  

• 
  

  Secondly, Apple has the responsibility to truthfully disclose the specific reasons for rejection to consumers and prove to consumers that they are reasonable and legal;

  
  

• 
  

  Apple's repairs during the warranty period should be unconditional, and the company's artificial testing procedures are all breaches of the warranty commitment. When problems occur, it should first be presumed that the consumer is not at fault. If there is no sufficient reason to prove that it has intentional damage liability, Apple should consciously provide warranty for consumers and fulfill its after-sales service obligations.

  
  

Li Bin, a lawyer at Beijing Zhonggaosheng Law Firm, believes:

The right to know is an important right of consumers.

When consumers' mobile phones are suspected of having quality problems, they go to Apple's designated repair agency and accept the repair agency and Apple's advice to return the phone to the factory for processing, which reflects the consumer's trust in Apple. Correspondingly, when Apple's ability to detect product quality and faulty mobile phones is far higher than that of ordinary consumers, it should not only inform consumers of its inspection conclusions, but also inform them of the basis for its conclusions, so as to eliminate the information and ability asymmetry between the two parties in terms of product quality and fault causes. Apple's behavior of only giving consumers a conclusion after testing and refusing to provide explanations and supporting evidence for the conclusions highlights Apple's contempt for consumers' legal rights.

The reporter learned that on March 24, Ms. Hu had complained to the Heilongjiang Provincial Consumer Association, and the staff of the Consumer Association had contacted Apple headquarters through 400 customer service and customer service email. China Consumer News will continue to follow up on the report.