Italian competition watchdog slaps Apple with €10m fine over allegedly misleading iPhone waterproofing claims
- Reference: 1606752068
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/11/30/apple_italy_waterproof_fine/
- Source link:
[1]The complaint [PDF] pertains to the iPhone 8, iPhone X, and iPhone 11 blowers, which Cupertino touted as having certain levels of water resistance – between 1 and 4 metres, depending on the device. But, to the chagrin of the AGCM, Apple did not clarify that these tests were performed in specific and controlled laboratory tests, using "static and pure" water.
Real-world conditions, AGGM said, may differ significantly. Saline seawater is markedly worse for a phone than, say, the liquid in your toilet bowl. It's vastly more conductive. This can cause short circuits, which may irreparably damage specific components on your phone's logic board. Saltwater is also much more corrosive.
Put simply: if your phone takes an untoward plunge into the Med, its odds of survival will be different from falling into a tub of distilled water with no impurities. The ACGM believes Apple did not make this sufficiently clear to consumers.
The AGCM also took issue with Apple's warranty disclaimer, which excludes repairs caused by water damage. Given Apple's heavy marketing of the iPhone's water-resistant features, the watchdog believes this misled consumers.
The complaint cites several examples of consumers who felt misled. One Italian punter, who bought an iPhone XS Max, said his phone "turned out not so resistant after... a short dive in sea water. It has stopped working properly. No warranty has been recognised. I had to pay €640 for the product replacement."
The iPhone XS Max boasts a water and dust-proof rating of IP68. This means that, while under laboratory conditions, it can survive being submerged in as much as two metres of water for up to 30 minutes.
In legal arguments, Apple countered that its marketing was not deceptive as it did not suggest the devices are totally waterproof, but merely "water resistant". These advertisements, it added, focused on accidental and involuntary exposure to water, and not those likely to occur in situations where "a massive dose of water is present".
In addition to the €10m fine, the watchdog has also ordered Apple to publish a statement on its Italian homepage, as well as the page for the iPhone.
In the 12-month period ending September 2019, Apple's Italian subsidiary reported revenues of €58.6m and operating profit of €26.9m. Apple has 60 days to appeal the judgment.
We've asked Apple for comment on the AGCM's ruling and whether the company plans to appeal against it. ®
Get our [2]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2020/11/30/apple_docs.pdf
[2] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
What I want to know is
Does the statement have to be in an intelligible language?
I presume it won't be in a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard'.
Re: What I want to know is
They'll hide the note at the bottom of a webpage and write it in Wingdings!
After a short dive in sea water.
These models wouldn't fit into budgie smugglers, so attempting to take an underwater action selfie?
Is there any possibility that a court would consider 'waterproof' to (by implication) include the types of water you would expect to encounter day-to-day?
Saline seawater is markedly worse for a phone than, say, the liquid in your toilet bowl.
Hm, not so sure about that...
Well
It kinda depends on the claims made. Salt water is not water, and yes it is more corrosive. I would expect IP68 to be of reasonable tolerance to water and dust but that doesnt mean you swim with it.
Apparently Sony was caught out by an advert showing their phone being used underwater which they then went on to tell people it isnt designed to be used underwater.
Re: Well
Salt water is not water
You learn something new every day.
"...the watchdog has also ordered Apple to publish a statement on its Italian homepage, as well as the page for the iPhone."
Which Apple will do. Except that it'll be on the bottom of the page where you have to scroll down to find it, and the page won't be obviously scrollable so no-one will know it's there.
Judging by last time they were forced to publish a statement.