lawsuit


'lawsuit' Articles

Apple 'Suffocates the Creation of New Technologies,' Claims Former Chip Designer Being Sued for Breach of Contract

Apple has been in an ongoing legal fight with Gerard Williams III, who worked at Apple until February 2019 when he left to start up a new company called Nuvia with other Apple developers. Williams was Apple's lead chip designer, working on the A7 to A12X chips that Apple used in its mobile devices, and his new company develops processors for use in data centers. Apple first sued Williams in August 2019, claiming that his contracts with Apple prevented him from engaging in business activities that are directly related to Apple's business. Since then, Williams has claimed that Apple invaded his privacy and monitored his texts, while Apple complained that Williams had been planning and developing Nuvia while still at Apple, and also soliciting Apple employees. In January, Williams tried to get the lawsuit brought against him by Apple rejected by the court, but he was unsuccessful, and now he's back with a new claim that Apple has been recruiting engineers from Nuvia. According to Bloomberg, Williams says that Apple is aiming to lure his staff away and is also preventing its own employees from leaving to pursue their own ventures. He claims that Apple's lawsuit against him for breach of contract aims to "suffocate the creation of new technologies and solutions by a new business, and to diminish the freedom of entrepreneurs to seek out more fulfilling work." He goes on to accuse Apple of improperly deterring employees "from making even preliminary and legally protected preparations to form a new business - whether competitive or otherwise." There has been no

Apple Could Owe Millions for Off-the-Clock Employee Bag Searches in California

Apple broke California law when it failed to pay employees for time spent waiting for mandatory bag searches at the end of their shifts, the California Supreme Court ruled today. [PDF] The unanimous court decision, shared today by Bloomberg Law and The Los Angeles Times, dates back to a class action lawsuit filed against Apple in 2013. Employees at the time alleged that Apple subjected them to mandatory bag checks that were conducted off the clock, leaving them uncompensated for their time. At the trial level, Apple actually won the lawsuit when the court ruled that Apple employees chose to bring personal bags to work and dismissed the case, but the decision was appealed and brought to a higher court. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is now handling the case, asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether California state law requires compensation, and the California Supreme Court ruled that the law does indeed dictate that employees be compensated while waiting for bag checks. "Hours worked is defined as the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so," reads the court's opinion.Based on the language of the control clause, Apple employees are entitled to compensation for the time during which they are subject to Apple's control. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, Sn. 11070, subd. 2(G).) Applying a strictly textual analysis, Apple employees are clearly under Apple's control while awaiting, and during, the exit

Apple Explains BlueMail Reinstatement, Says BlueMail Finally Complied With Gatekeeper Security Requirements

Last week, BlueMail co-founders Ben Volach and Dan Volach penned an open letter that encouraged any developers who feel that Apple kicked them out of the App Store or has treated them unfairly to share their stories. BlueMail itself was removed from the Mac App Store in June 2019 after Apple found the app to be in violation of several App Store Review Guidelines, but the Volach brothers disagreed and argued that Apple showed "little willingness to resolve the issue" and provided "shifting explanations" as to why the app was removed from the Mac App Store and why it could not be reinstated. Apple has since responded to the matter, refuting many of BlueMail's claims and noting that its App Store Review Guidelines apply evenly to all developers. In a statement last week, shared with MacRumors, Apple said it "attempted on multiple occasions to assist them in getting their BlueMail app back on the Mac App Store," but said "they have refused our help." Apple added that BlueMail was "proposing to override basic data security protections which can expose users' computers to malware that can harm their Macs and threaten their privacy." Just days later, however, BlueMail has returned to the Mac App Store, which BlueMail said is "proof that speaking out works." "When we wrote to Tim Cook in November, we heard back in hours. When we wrote to Apple's developer community, BlueMail was back on the App Store within a week," said Dan Volach, co-founder at Blix. "If you're out there too scared to come forward, let this be your proof that speaking out works. To Apple, we

BlueMail Returns to Mac App Store, Developers Still Suing Apple Over Anticompetitive Behavior [Updated]

Back in October, the developers behind email app BlueMail sued Apple, alleging that the "Hide My Email" feature of "Sign in with Apple" infringes on its patented technology. The complaint also accuses Apple of anticompetitive behavior, including removing BlueMail from the Mac App Store. Last week, after months of making little to no progress with Apple towards having its Mac app reinstated, BlueMail co-founders Ben Volach and Dan Volach penned an open letter to the developer community that encouraged any developers who feel that Apple has kicked them out of the App Store or otherwise treated them unfairly to reach out to them and share their stories. Just days later, the BlueMail app has returned to the Mac App Store. In a press release, BlueMail parent company Blix said it has no intention of dropping its legal case against Apple, which it believes extends beyond the removal of BlueMail on the Mac App Store to the "suppression of its iOS app and the infringement of Blix's patented technology through 'Sign in with Apple.'" "We're happy that users can once again get BlueMail through the Mac App Store, but we know this isn't the end. Our experience has shown that until the app review process includes effective checks and balances, Apple holds too much power over small developers." said Ben Volach, co-founder at Blix. "One solution could be to include external independent members and observers in Apple's App Review Board, just as a public company's Board of Directors represents its shareholders." "When we wrote to Tim Cook in November, we heard back in hours.

After Suing Apple, BlueMail Calls on Other Developers 'Kicked Out' of App Store to Join the Fight [Updated]

Back in October, the developers behind email app BlueMail sued Apple, alleging that the "Hide My Email" feature of "Sign in with Apple" infringes on its patented technology. The complaint [PDF] also accuses Apple of anticompetitive behavior, including removing BlueMail from the Mac App Store. "Hide My Email" hides a user's personal email address by substituting it with a unique, random email address when setting up an account in an app or on a website that supports "Sign in with Apple." Apple explains how the feature works in a support document:A unique, random email address is created, so your personal email address isn't shared with the app or website developer during the account setup and sign in process. This address is unique to you and the developer and follows this format: @privaterelay.appleid.com For example, if j.appleseed@icloud.com is your Apple ID, your unique, random email address for a given app might look like dpdcnf87nu@privaterelay.appleid.com. Any messages sent to this address by the app or website developer are automatically forwarded to your personal email address by our private email relay service. You can read and respond directly to these emails and still keep your personal address private.After writing a public letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook, BlueMail co-founders Ben Volach and Dan Volach said that they were contacted by Apple within a few hours, but they claim that the correspondence was merely a delay tactic.We were overjoyed when we heard back from Apple within the day – within just a few hours in fact. It seemed to share our

Class Action Lawsuit Over iPhone 7 Audio Chip Defect Narrowed, But Allowed to Proceed

A class action lawsuit accusing Apple of violating consumer laws and breaching its warranties over an alleged iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus audio chip defect has been allowed to proceed, but the case has been narrowed. U.S. district judge Jon Tigar on Thursday denied Apple's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty under California law, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment in the form of an alternative remedy. The court granted Apple's motion to dismiss the remaining claims, but the plaintiffs have an opportunity to amend their complaint within 21 days. Filed in May 2019, the class action lawsuit alleged that "the materials used in the ‌iPhone‌'s external casing are insufficient and inadequate to protect the internal parts," eventually resulting in the audio chip losing electrical contact with the logic board due to "flexion" of the device during regular use. The defect results in multiple issues on affected devices, ranging from a grayed-out speaker button to customers not being heard during phone calls and FaceTime video chats, according to the complaint. The initial complaint sought an order that would require Apple to repair, recall, and/or replace the affected iPhones and to extend the warranties of the devices for a reasonable period of time. The plaintiffs also sought damages "likely in the millions of dollars" that would be divided among affected customers. The class action has been consolidated in Northern California court. "Loop Disease" In an internal document obtained by MacRumors

Apple Ordered to Pay Caltech $838 Million for Infringing on WiFi Patents

Apple and Broadcom have been ordered to pay the California Institute of Technology a fine of $1.1 billion for infringing on Caltech's patents related to WiFi transmissions, reports Bloomberg. Apple has been ordered to pay $838 million, while Broadcom has been ordered to pay $270 million, but Apple plans to file an appeal. Caltech in 2016 filed a lawsuit against Broadcom and Apple, claiming that the two companies infringed on a series of patents granted between 2006 and 2012. The patents in question relate to IRA/LDPC codes that use simpler encoding and decoding circuity for improved data transmission rates and performance, with the technologies used in the 802.11n and 802.11ac Wi-Fi standards supported by many Apple products. At the time, Caltech said that Apple was infringing on four of its patents with the iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Mac, Apple TV, Airport routers, and Apple Watch. Caltech demanded a jury trial and preliminary and permanent injunctions in the U.S. against Apple products using its technology. A jury today ruled that Apple and Broadcom violated three of the four patents. Apple and Broadcom denied infringing on the patents and even filed counterclaims against Caltech, urging the court to invalidate the patents in question. Apple claimed that because Caltech didn't file the lawsuit until 2016, six years after the 802.11n wireless standard was published, the time limit to collect damages had expired. Apple also argued that Caltech does not make, use, or sell products that practice the claims in the asserted

Apple Gains Footing in Court Feud With Former iPhone Chip Architect

A former Apple executive who worked on the chips that power iPhones and iPads has had a request to toss a breach-of-contract lawsuit brought by the company rejected by the court in a tentative ruling. Last August, Apple sued its former A-series chip lead, Gerard Williams III, for breach of employment contract. Williams was the lead designer of Apple's custom ‌iPhone‌ and ‌iPad‌ chips from the A7 to A12X, before he departed the company in March 2019 to start his own chip company, Nuvia Inc, with two other former Apple chip executives. Apple accuses him of breaching the contract because it barred him from planning or engaging in any business activities that are "competitive or directly related to Apple's business or products." Williams argues that a provision in the contract conflicts with a California law that allows workers to develop new businesses while they're employed elsewhere. However, Bloomberg today reports that Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Mark Pierce said the law doesn't permit an employee "to plan and prepare to create a competitive enterprise prior to termination if the employee does so on their employer's time and with the employer's resources." The judge also dismissed a claim by Williams that Apple invaded his privacy by reviewing text messages he wrote to coworkers that were critical of the company. In one of the messages, Williams is said to have claimed that Apple would have "no choice but to purchase" his new company. Williams sought to have those texts excluded as evidence in the suit. Pierce disagreed. "There are no

Apple and M. Night Shyamalan Sued Over 'Servant' TV Show's Similarity to 2013 Movie 'The Truth About Emanuel'

Apple and M. Night Shyamalan, producer of Apple TV+ show "Servant," are being targeted in a new lawsuit that accuses "Servant" of copying 2013 film "The Truth About Emanuel," according to The Blast. "The Truth About Emanuel" director Francesca Gregorini claims that "Servant" appropriates the plot of her movie and uses the same "cinematic language," resulting in a "substantially similar feeling, mood, and theme." Along with parallel plot points, Gregorini says that Servant also features "strikingly similar--and highly idiosyncratic--characters, scenes, directorial choices, and modes of storytelling." Released in 2013 with Kaya Scoddelario and Jessica Biel, "The Truth About Emanuel" involves a 17-year-old babysitter who looks after a baby that turns out to be a doll replacing a baby that has died, which is indeed similar to the plot of "Servant." The lawsuit targets ‌Apple TV‌+, show creator Tony Basgallop, producer M. Night Shyamalan, and other producers on the series. Shyamalan and the other show creators say that "Servant" was in development prior to the release of "The Truth About Emanuel.""Defendants have arrogantly dismissed Ms. Gregorini's protests by vaguely claiming that Servant was in development long before Emanuel was made, and that any similarity is a coincidence. Indeed, Mr. Shyamalan and Mr. Basgallop implausibly claim they have never seen Emanuel--apparently not even curious enough to watch after hearing Ms. Gregorini's objections. Worse, Apple has brought stonewalling to a new level by simply referring inquiries to Mr. Shyamalan's lawyer (who

Masimo Sues Apple for Stealing Trade Secrets for Health Monitoring Functions in Apple Watch

Masimo, a medical technology company that designs pulse oximetry devices, has filed a lawsuit against Apple accusing the Cupertino company of stealing trade secrets and improperly using Masimo inventions related to health monitoring in the Apple Watch. According to Bloomberg, Masimo claims that Apple stole secret information by pretending to have a working relationship with Masimo, and then hiring Masimo employees. Masimo also believes the ‌Apple Watch‌ is infringing on 10 Masimo patents. Masimo, and its spinoff company Cercacor, claim that Masimo's technology for non-invasive health monitoring helped Apple overcome performance issues with the ‌Apple Watch‌. Apple allegedly relied on Masimo tech when developing the light-based heart rate sensor used in the ‌Apple Watch‌, among other technologies. According to Masimo, Apple first contacted the company in 2013 and asked to meet for a potential collaboration, with Apple asking to "understand more" about Masimo's products to potentially integrate Masimo technology into future Apple devices. After what Masimo considered productive meetings, Apple began hiring away important employees. Ahead of when the ‌Apple Watch‌ was released, Apple hired Michael O'Reilly, who had served as the Chief Medical Officer and EVP of Medical Affairs at Masimo. He has been working on Health Special Projects at Apple, and had a hand in the development of the ‌Apple Watch‌. O'Reilly wasn't the only hire from Masimo, as Apple also took on other former Masimo employees along with employees from other health-related companies during the

Corellium Accuses Apple of Using Lawsuit to 'Crack Down on Jailbreaking'

Apple is currently involved in a lawsuit against Corellium, a mobile device virtualization company that supports iOS. Apple has accused Corellium of copyright infringement because Corellium creates software designed for security researchers that replicates iOS. The lawsuit has been ongoing since August, but it is heating up after Apple amended its lawsuit in late December with a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) filing, suggesting the Cupertino company believes jailbreaking is a violation of the DMCA. Corellium, says Apple, facilitates jailbreaking through its software. A virtual ‌iPhone‌ on Corellium's website used as evidence in Apple's lawsuit against the company Corellium's CEO Amanda Gorton has taken issue with Apple's new filing, and yesterday penned a missive lambasting Apple for its jailbreaking position. "Apple's latest filing against Corellium should give all security researchers, app developers, and jailbreakers reason to be concerned," reads the letter's opening statement.The filing asserts that because Corellium "allows users to jailbreak" and "gave one or more Persons access... to develop software that can be used to jailbreak," Corellium is "engaging in trafficking" in violation of the DMCA. In other words, Apple is asserting that anyone who provides a tool that allows other people to jailbreak, and anyone who assists in creating such a tool, is violating the DMCA. Apple underscores this position by calling the unc0ver jailbreak tool "unlawful" and stating that it is "designed to circumvent [the] same technological measures" as Corellium.Gorton

Law Firm Sues Apple and Samsung, Claiming Phones Exceed Radiofrequency Radiation Safety Levels

Chicago-based law firm Fegan Scott has levied a lawsuit against both Apple and Samsung, claiming that independent testing suggests the radiofrequency radiation levels in recent smartphones "far exceeded the federal limits" when used "as marketed by the manufacturers." The basis for this lawsuit dates back to August, when The Chicago Tribune launched an investigation into the radiofrequency radiation levels output by popular smartphones. RF Radiation Testing Results from a Chicago Times Investigation in August The paper hired an accredited lab to test several smartphones according to federal guidelines, and found that some of Apple's iPhones are allegedly emitting radiofrequency radiation that exceeds safety limits. Apple disputed the results and in a statement, said that the testing was inaccurate "due to the test setup not being in accordance with procedures necessary to properly assess the ‌iPhone‌ models.""All ‌‌iPhone‌‌ models, including ‌‌iPhone‌‌ 7, are fully certified by the FCC and in every other country where ‌‌iPhone‌‌ is sold," the statement said. "After careful review and subsequent validation of all ‌‌iPhone‌‌ models tested in the (Tribune) report, we confirmed we are in compliance and meet all applicable ... exposure guidelines and limits."At the time, the FCC said that it would launch its own investigation into the results, and a day after The Chicago Tribune published its findings, the Fegan Scott law firm pledged to launch its own investigation into the claims. Fegan Scott enlisted an FCC-accredited laboratory to do its own testing of six

Lawsuit Against Apple's Faulty Butterfly Keyboards Moves Forward

A federal judge this week rejected Apple's request to dismiss a class action lawsuit over its faulty butterfly keyboards, reports Reuters, which means the lawsuit will proceed. The complainants believe that Apple knew of and concealed the fact that its 2015 and later MacBook models had keyboards prone to failure and that its repair program does not serve as an effective fix because replacement butterfly keyboards can also fail. San Jose District Judge Edward Davila said that Apple must face the claims that the repair program is inadequate or compensate customers for their out-of-pocket expenses for repairs. The lawsuit covers customers who purchased 2015 MacBook models or later and 2016 MacBook Pro models or later, which includes all machines that are equipped with Apple's butterfly keyboard. Apple has faced public scrutiny and many, many complaints over the butterfly keyboard's penchant to fail when exposed to dust and other small particulates. Apple launched a repair program that covers all of its MacBook, ‌MacBook Pro‌, and MacBook Air models that have a butterfly keyboard, but at the current time, all keyboard replacements are also butterfly keyboards. Apple has attempted to revise the butterfly keyboard several times to make it more durable, but ultimately, it's still prone to failure. With the recently released 16-inch MacBook Pro Apple eliminated the butterfly mechanism and reverted to a more reliable scissor mechanism, but the new 16-inch ‌MacBook Pro‌ keyboard is limited to that machine and older models are still getting repairs with

Apple and Intel Sue SoftBank-Owned Firm Over 'Endless, Meritless' Patent Lawsuits

Apple and Intel on Wednesday jointly filed a lawsuit against SoftBank-owned investment firm Fortress Investment Group, accusing the company of violating U.S. federal antitrust laws by pursuing "endless, meritless" patent litigation. The complaint alleges that non-practicing patent assertion entities like Fortress aggressively pursue patent litigation against large companies like Apple and Intel, knowing that even if they lose several cases, they could eventually win a case with a large monetary reward that exceeds their losses. Apple and Intel argue that Fortress-backed entities have "sought billions of dollars" from the two companies over the years, forcing both tech giants to spend "millions of dollars" on outside resources like counsel and expert witnesses to defend against Fortress-backed demands and assertions. Fortress-backed entities like Uniloc, DSS Technology Management, and Seven Networks are also named in the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters. The complaint was filed in Northern California federal court. Apple and Intel v. Fortress... by MacRumors on Scribd

Corellium Responds to Apple Lawsuit, Claims its iOS Virtualization Software Helps Apple

Apple in August filed a lawsuit against Corellium, a mobile device virtualization company that supports iOS, with Apple accusing Corellium of copyright infringement for replicating the operating system that runs on the iPhone and iPad. As noted by Motherboard, Corellium today filed its response to Apple's lawsuit, accusing the Cupertino company of owing $300,000 and claiming that its software helps Apple by making it easier for security researchers to track down iOS bugs. A virtual ‌iPhone‌ on Corellium's website used as evidence in Apple's lawsuit against the company According to Apple, Corellium's product infringes on its copyrights by creating digital replicas of iOS, iTunes, and other apps and software. "Corellium has simply copied everything: the code, the graphical user interface, the icons - all of it, in exacting detail," reads Apple's lawsuit. Corellium designed its software to create virtual iOS devices able to run iOS, and has encouraged researchers and hackers to use it to find and test vulnerabilities. According to Corellium, Apple's code in its product is "fair use" and the software makes the world better by allowing security researchers to look into iOS, find flaws, and inform Apple so the bugs can be fixed. Corellium argues it's easier for researchers to find and test bugs in iOS using virtual instances of iOS rather than physical devices. With this lawsuit, says Corellium, Apple is aiming to control who is allowed to find vulnerabilities in its software. This is a position that is also supported within the security community, according to Mo

Former Apple Lawyer Facing Criminal Charges for Insider Trading

Former Apple lawyer Gene Levoff, who was in charge of enforcing Apple's Insider Trading Policy, is facing criminal charges related to insider trading of Apple stock, reports CNBC. Levoff was today indicted for insider trading, and he is facing six counts of security fraud and six counts of wire fraud. According to the U.S. government, Levoff used inside information from Apple, including financial results before they were published, to sell Apple stock ahead of weaker than expected earnings results between 2011 and 2016 as well as to purchase stock during stronger quarters. This scheme to defraud Company-1 and its shareholders allowed Levoff to realize profits of approximately $227,000 on certain trades and to avoid losses of approximately $377,000 on others. When Levoff discovered that Company-1 had posted strong revenue and net profit for a given financial quarter, he purchased large quantities of stock, which he later sold for a profit once the market reacted to the news.The United States Securities and Exchange Commission first filed charges against Gene Levoff in February, but now he is facing criminal charges in addition to civil charges. Levoff worked for Apple from 2008 to 2018, and prior to when he was fired from the company, he was the senior director of corporate law. Apple declined to comment on the criminal charges filed today, but in February, said the following: "After being contacted by authorities last summer we conducted a thorough investigation with the help of outside legal experts, which resulted in

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear University of Wisconsin's Appeal in Patent Lawsuit Against Apple

The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear the University of Wisconsin's appeal in its patent fight with Apple, according to Reuters. In July 2017, a U.S. district court ordered Apple to pay $506 million to the University of Wisconsin's Alumni Research Foundation for infringing on a patent related to computer processing technology with its A7, A8, and A8X chips. In September 2018, however, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the damages that Apple had been ordered to pay, ruling that no reasonable juror could have been able to find infringement based on the evidence that was presented in the liability phase of the original 2015 trial. The decision comes on the first day of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2019

U.K. Court Reinstates Lawsuit Accusing Google of Bypassing Safari's Privacy Settings to Track iPhone Users

An appeals court in London has reinstated a lawsuit filed against Google that accuses the company of unlawfully gathering personal information by circumventing the iPhone's default privacy settings, according to Bloomberg. The collective action, equivalent to a class action lawsuit in the United States, alleged that Google illegally tracked and gathered the personal data of over four million ‌iPhone‌ users in the U.K. between 2011 and 2012. The case was first brought in November 2017 and had been dismissed in October 2018. "This case, quite properly if the allegations are proved, seeks to call Google to account for its allegedly wholesale and deliberate misuse of personal data without consent, undertaken with a view to a commercial profit," wrote Judge Geoffrey Vos in a ruling today, per the report. A similar lawsuit was filed in the United States in 2012, when Google was discovered to be circumventing privacy protections in Safari on iOS in order to track users through ads on numerous popular websites. Specifically, Google took advantage of a Safari loophole that made the browser think that the user was interacting with a given ad, thus allowing a tracking cookie to be installed. With that cookie installed, it became easy for Google to add additional cookies and to track users across the web. At the time, Safari blocked several types of tracking, but made an exception for websites where a person interacted in some way — by filling out a form, for example. Google added code to some of its ads that made Safari think that a person was submitting an

Apple Sued Over Listing Memoji as One of Its Registered Trademarks Despite Ongoing Legal Battle [Updated]

Atlanta-based company Social Technologies LLC today filed a lawsuit against Apple that accuses the iPhone maker of falsely indicating that it holds the federal registration for the trademark Memoji in the United States. Apple has included MEMOJI® in its U.S. trademark list on its website since June 2019, with the ® symbol signifying a federally registered trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, despite the federal registration for the trademark belonging to Social Technologies LLC and not Apple. Of note, Apple has successfully registered the Memoji trademark in some countries outside the United States, and several foreign countries also use ® to indicate that a mark is registered in that country, but fine print on Apple's website says its list is for trademarks and service marks in the United States. Memoji is the name of Apple's personalized emoji feature for iPhone and iPad, introduced as part of iOS 12 at WWDC 2018. Apple has applied for two trademarks for the feature with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, but both are currently suspended due to ongoing litigation with Social Technologies LLC. Social Technologies LLC offers an Android app named Memoji on the Google Play store, which it describes as "the world's best messaging app that will capture the facial expression of the end user with full-motion capabilities, and transpose the image into a custom, personalized emoji of the users actual face." Social Technologies LLC already sued Apple for trademark infringement in September 2018, and alleges that Apple even unsuccessfully tried to

Class Action Lawsuit Against Apple for Offering Refurbished Replacement Devices Under AppleCare Moves Forward

A U.S. District Judge in San Jose today certified a class action lawsuit that accuses Apple of using "inferior" refurbished products as replacements for its AppleCare and ‌AppleCare‌+ protection plans despite promising consumers new or equivalent to new replacements. [PDF] The class action lawsuit was first filed against Apple in July 2016 by customers in California who were unhappy that their iPhones and iPads were replaced by refurbished devices under Apple's ‌AppleCare‌ or ‌AppleCare‌+ plan. The plaintiffs, Vicky Maldondo and Joanne McRight, claimed that Apple's decision to offer refurbished devices violate its own ‌AppleCare‌ Terms and Conditions and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. From the original lawsuit:The Apple Plans purport to provide consumers with Devices that are "equivalent to new in performance and reliability." What that phrase means is 'new' as refurbished devices can never be the equivalent to new in performance and reliability. Plaintiffs allege that it means refurbished. Refurbished is synonymous with the term "reconditioned," that is, a secondhand unit that has been modified to appear to be new for all purposes relevant to this litigation. "New" means a Device that has never been utilized or previously sold and consists of all new parts. The word "refurbished" appears only once in the ‌AppleCare‌+ terms and conditions even though the printed booklet is 33 pages long.The lawsuit seeks compensation for iPhone, iPad, or iPod owners who purchased ‌AppleCare‌ or ‌AppleCare‌+ coverage. The law firm behind the lawsuit says that Apple customers