Apple sued for misrepresentation

The lawsuit was issued on behalf of two Miami residents, Paul Orshan and Christopher Endara, who bought iPhones and iPads with an advertised storage of 16GB. Their lawyer stated: “In reality, nothing close to the advertised capacity of the devices is available to end users. Indeed, the discrepancy between advertised and available capacity is substantial and beyond any possible reasonable expectation. For the devices, the shortfall ranges from 18.1-23.1%. Each gigabyte of storage Apple shortchanges its customers amounts to approximately 400-500 high-resolution photographs. The defendant fails to disclose to consumers that as much as 23.1% of the advertised storage capacity of the devices will be consumed by iOS 8 and unavailable for consumers when consumers purchase devices that have iOS 8 installed.”

Apple has previously (and successfully) defended similar claims and this looks like a class action in the waiting. However all providers of any goods or services need a robust set of terms and conditions. I say this as any consumers reading this will be aware that many business terms are never read. You simply click and state ‘ I agree’ however its extremely advisable that you do. In addition any business provider needs to ensure the business terms are robust and fair especially when you consider what is over the horizon!

The Consumer Rights Bill

The bottom line is that consumer legislation in this country is a mess.

The Consumer Rights Bill seeks to clarify the plethora of legislation incorporated in the following pieces of legislation namely:

Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973
Sale of Goods Act 1979
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994
Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2001
Competition Act 1998
Enterprise Act 2002

A useful explanation of the importance of the Bill and what it is seeking to replace can be found andÂ






share this Article

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

Recent Articles

Nike v StockX, NFTs and Counterfeit products

American footwear and apparel company Nike has launched trademark infringement actions against the Detroit-based trainers and streetwear resale platform StockX, after allegedly using Nike’s Intellectual