Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

iPhone Battery Target of Class-Action Suit

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

July 30, 2007, 11:22 AM

The iPhone has only been out for a month, yet there's already a class-action lawsuit against it over its battery life.

Jose Trujillo filed the suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Among other things, he claims that the battery can only be charged for 300 cycles before needing to be replaced, and that he wasn't made aware that the battery was soldered inside of the unit.

Among the relief sought by Trujillo is certification of the class-action suit, and charges brought against Apple for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as "actual, compensatory, and punitive damages."

Trujillo's claims are quite odd considering that Apple itself has already said that the battery would still retain 80 percent of its full charging capacity after 400 charge cycles, 100 more than where the suit claims the phone stops working altogether.

Obviously, under normal use, it would be practically impossible to test out Trujillo's claims in a real world setting, which several Web logs pointed out when reporting the story. "Is he really that ignorant? Does he think that the judge is going to be stupid?" Jesus Diaz wrote for Gizmodo on Friday.

Additionally, Apple had also disclosed before the iPhone's release that the battery was not user-replaceable. It launched a $86 battery replacement program concurrently with the iPhone, long before any user would likely need to change the device's battery.

A request for comment from Apple was unanswered as of press time.

Add a Comment (50 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By vcorvinus

posted Jul 31, 2007 - 1:09 PM

Not a credible case.
Why didn't he wait for version 2.0 of the iPhone instead of being one of the earlier adopters who qualify as guinea pigs anyway.

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted Jul 31, 2007 - 11:44 AM

I dont pity the fools who bought this... "phone". As much as they "advanced" with the touch screen BS, they gone backwards with rest of the features most phones consider "standard".

Like being able to switch batteries yourself.

Score: 0

By AntiochMedia

posted Jul 31, 2007 - 1:18 AM

Oh Ed. Did you have to post today? Of all things - a sensational news story with scary headlines?

I'm thrilled to see a reference link to Jesus Diaz's post -- although, who the hell cares about this? Where's a direct link to information about the suit being filed by Trujilo?

Perhaps taking a cue from other writers and having a title such as 'iPhone Faces Possible Class-Action Lawsuit' would have been better.

Score: 0

By PSXp-ONE

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 11:59 PM

Hahahaha, what?...no little scratch on the LCD like the iPod awhile back, remember that? lol...ni modos, asi estan las cosas!!

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 11:49 PM

What a POS.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 11:12 PM

"It launched a $86 battery replacement program concurrently with the iPhone"

$86 to get your phone battery replaced?? What a bargain! You have hand it to Apple though, always finding new ways to squeeze exorbitant amounts of money for their crappy iWhatever products out of idiot customers. While 400 charges may sound like a lot, these batteries will eventually all die. Imagine, once 10 million iPhones are sold, Apple will be raking in $860 million each cycle, just from replacing the batteries!

Score: 0

By ZenWarrior

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 4:46 PM

I definitely do not favor the lawsuit, but many people/reviewers/blogs/etc. noted at the iPhool's release that Apple certainly did not go out of its way, compared to other super-hyped iPhool features, to make the battery issue as fully known and understood to buyers.

Score: 0

By Point Zero

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 3:48 PM

You wanted your nerdy thingy, now live with it !

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 3:47 PM

Another @sshole looking to make a quick buck. In the Netherlands for example there aren't a lot of lawsuits like this. There if you sue someone you have to pay the court cost. And if you are suing for a million dollars you need to put down 10% or 1% of that amount. I don't remember the exact percentage. But the point is if you don't have a good case you will think twice before going to court. And if you lose you also need to pay your attorney and the other sides attorney fees then some. So suing someone for no good reason can end up costing a lot of money. And then there is also the counter sue that cat cost even more.

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 4:29 PM

LOL the EU does it to microsoft all the time.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 3:59 PM

I think in Europe, if the defendant is brought to court, there is a high chance he is guilty in charge. In the US, it's total opposite, you can bring anyone with next to no evident to court as long as the judge accept your case.

Score: 0

By TomeOne

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 3:38 PM

*snerk*

http://news.com.com/8301...s&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 4:28 PM

cnet is no longer an valid source of news, since they've been sucking the iphone off since its launch.

Score: 0

By slinkys_delsol

edited Jul 30, 2007 - 3:30 PM

Hmmm attention Dumb-A$$es.

All Rechargeable Batteries have a Lifespan. Weather it be in your Cordless Phone, your Laptop and even your IPH0NE.

Want to extend the life of those batteries? STOP CHARGING THEM ALL THE TIME. It is not good for the batteries. You can build a new Memory into them weather it is a Lithium-Ion or Ni-Cad Based Battery. Let them completely discharge until you charge them again.

Rechargeable batteries are a "Wearing Part" and considered a "User Replacement", just like tires on your car are.

If you can spend $600 on a Phone, $100 on a Monthly plan, then you can afford a new Battery once a year!

Score: 0

By ZenWarrior

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 4:39 PM

Actually, you can charge NiMH batteries whenever desired without prematurely killing the battery*. However, I've seen (with a measure of surprise) that Apple sometimes still uses old-fashioned NiCads in some devices (e.g., iPod Nano). That type of battery should be fully drained before recharging.

My question is why doesn't Apple always use the best battery technology available? Why use NiCad when there is NiMH technology, which is without question superior?

That said, what battery type is in the iPhone? I've not seen that mentioned anywhere just yet.

* http://www.rayovac.com/recharge/hybrid_faq.shtml
* http://duracell.com/products/faq.asp

Score: 0

By ZenWarrior

posted Jul 31, 2007 - 11:10 AM

To answer my own question, the iPhool uses a lithium-ion battery.

And for a cheaper replacement than that offered by Apple:

http://www.ipodjuice.com...eplacement-products.htm

Score: 0

By flake

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 11:18 PM

Yes on the NiCad and NiMH points.

OP is wrong on the Li. The life of Li batteries is much shorter if they're always being drained down and Li has no memory like NiCad In theory he's right about leaving it on the charger (overcharging Li leads to catestrophic failure). However all Li compatible chargers are "smart" and turn off when they sense the battery is full.

I was unaware the nano used NiCad. Wow that's really old fashioned!

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 5:56 PM

'cos it would make the iPhone too expensive!
(grin)

--->why doesn't Apple always use the best battery technology available?

Score: 0

By Black-Wolf

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 2:32 PM

Whoever files the lawsuit is such a loser.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 2:34 PM

Consider that the purpose is probably to try and take advantage of the "problem" to make money out of Apple! So the filer is most likely quite smart!

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

edited Jul 31, 2007 - 9:38 AM

I think a better class-action suit should be the fact that subsidzed phones (i.e. you get cheaper phone price in place of a contract that locks you in) are (EDIT:)*NOT* a better value.

Then you have the *non*-subsidized iPhone, which is outright robbery at 600 bucks, *and* being locked into a contract for 2 years?

I think the case would be better made against Apple and AT&T to do one of the following:

Non-Subsidized (full price) iPhones should be totally unlocked and available directly from Apple.

Subsidized (half price or less) iPhones should be able to be locked, and available from either party.

THAT makes much more sense to file a class action suit over than this lawsuit over a stupid non-removable battery.

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 2:39 PM

too bad that case would have no value. as a company can charge what they wish for their product and sell it through channels it sees appropriate, just as a cell phone provider can choose to set the company wide regulation that a contract is necessary to purchase the device and its fair because everyone is eligible for that particular contract extension even if they had purchased a subsized bb curve the day before, no etf.
a better suit would be all business customers lose all business associated discounts with their mobile number if they purchase an iphone, that includes if they return within first 15 days.
in order to stop the suppression of monthly and equip purchase discounts customers must change their mobile number.. meaning if you purchase a treo and you used to get 50% off.. you won't, till you change your number

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 2:11 PM

a better class-action suit should be the fact that subsidzed phones (i.e. you get cheaper phone price in place of a contract that locks you in) are a better value.

That's quite possibly the dumbest thing I've seen here, barring pure trolls and flamers, in quite some time.

If *you* (not you personally) make a stupid buying decision, that's *your* responsibility. If I were to pay $600 and lock myself into a 2 year contract, I would do my research, and I would expect anyone else to do the same.

These people are adults. They needs to start acting like them.

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

posted Jul 31, 2007 - 9:36 AM

Maybe I wasn't putting my line of thought out there better, and I wasn't trying to troll, but isn't a phone that is unlocked a better value? Then you could simply take the phone and use a SIM card from a different provider with a better set of terms and pricing?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 31, 2007 - 1:59 PM

Sure. But it's not something they *have* to do.

Suing them for not providing a service or option of service they never intended to provide is ridiculous.

That's the portion of the comment that struck me as absurd. You don't sue a company just because the product is what you wanted it to be. If they promised a certain functionality at sale that wasn't available, sure. But this isn't one of those cases.

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Jul 31, 2007 - 10:16 AM

then you would have class action suits against apple because people would be convinced that their visual voicemail should work anywhere and at&t is the only provider to offer it

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 2:31 PM

Agreed....this is clearly an attempt to simply make money out of Apple.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 1:07 PM

"A request for comment from Apple was unanswered as of press time."

They were probably too busy laughing, but I hope they were busy having a money fight with the sucker's money.

Score: 0

By skissinger

edited Jul 30, 2007 - 12:54 PM

I find it funny that, on a device you could return in the first 15 days for full refund, that he's acting as though the non-removable battery was a deception.

Apparently he never turned the phone over to try to remove the battery for weeks? Not likely.

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 12:56 PM

yea 15 days short of cingular return policy on any other device. and full refund- the 10% restocking fee but yes still enough time to figure out the battery wasn't coming out.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 12:34 PM

Although I hate Apple for charging too much for it's products, but this suit is silly. The phone is only out for a month, it impossible to run the battery for 300 cycles.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 12:23 PM

he claims that the battery can only be charged for 300 cycles before needing to be replaced,

That's several years, even under heavy use.

and that he wasn't made aware that the battery was soldered inside of the unit.

Common knowledge, and something he should have asked if it was as important to him as he is claiming it is.

For the first, he'd have to be able to prove that this is the case for the majority of the iphones out there. Currently impossible.

For the second, he's simply up a crick. This was publicly disclosed prior to launch and they made no attempts to hide the fact.

Yeah, this is a waste of the courts time and money.

Score: 0

By skimore

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 12:38 PM

Several Years?? doesn't this phone have a max life of 8hours? (More like 5Hours.)
So that will be under a year.. But I think the screen will be damaged before the battery goes..

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 12:50 PM

Do you use your phone 8 hours a day?

Actually using it?

Doubtful.

Under normal use the phone might need to be fully recharged every 2-3 days. That's well over a year.

I'm not saying they couldn't have put better batteries in there, but 300 cycles is far from the worst out there.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 2:33 PM

Hmmm, the problem with that theory is that you would run the phone down until it (almost) dies, and then recharge it. In practice, I think one really needs to put it in the charger every night to make sure it's topped up.

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 2:42 PM

no, it would be run down until its dead. then recharge it in full while powered off, thats 1 cycle. just cause you can plug something in 300 times doesn't mean your completing 300 cycles

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 5:57 PM

So how much of a cycle is used by partial recharging?

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 6:37 PM

who knows? depends one how drained it is and how fully charged it becomes i suppose. thats the thing tho, when making a class action lawsuit you can't allow for 'variables' like that, because the battery life stated is based on certain condtions and recharging procedures and if those procedures aren't followed then there is no case.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jul 30, 2007 - 2:43 PM

Score: 0

By TomeOne

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 12:11 PM

The dork stood in line for his $600 toy only to get all angry at it. Pfft.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 12:18 PM

Or perhaps saw a chance to earn himself a lot of money.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 12:11 PM

you think he stood in line? He didn't have to, it's not like they sold out or anything.

Score: 0

By ir0nw0lf

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 3:56 PM

He might have paid someone to stand in line for him until the last minute... People were doing that you know.

Score: 0

By sacaripasa

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 12:07 PM

As a country, were are too lawyer happy and too quick to try to make an unearned buck via lawers.

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 12:01 PM

the fact that the battery was not replaceable except through apple was widely known. and for the case to have merit the 'cycles' would have to be fully charged and draining to drain on only standby time (10 days i think) then fully charged while off... 300 times. this lawsuit is not getting off the ground

Score: 0

By DJManiakal

edited Aug 8, 2007 - 2:29 PM

If, in fact, they obtained the life cycle based on the phone not being used then would it not stand to reason that the life cycle would be greatly shortened by actually using the phone? Not to mention that any battery life estimates are based on ideal conditions, meaning perfect, constant functioning temp, best possible cell connection 100% of the time, etc. How often, really, is that the case? Meaning your battery life gets shortened even more.
Personally I don't have too much of a problem with apple not letting people change stuff out themselves because that reduces the chance that somebody will screw something up and then try to blame apple for it. Also, $85 or so to get a new battery and have it installed isn't that bad when you consider that most places sell OEM batteries for around $50 anyhow.
I do think this guys case isn't going to get far though because it's his own fault for not doing his homework in a society where "buyer beware" has become a way of life for most. At least most educated people anyhow.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 12:11 PM

I'm sure he didn't let it sit idle for 300 cycles....

I like the way fanboys think..."well, in best case scenario, if you don't use the device at all...this would be impossible!!".

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 12:20 PM

im sure he didn't drain it using the video funtion or everything else 300 times yet either as its been 1 month since launch...
and not sure if you are referring my comment is fanboyish which it shouldn't be its just saying inorder for him to prove it and be entitled to anything those would be the condtions the battery would be tested under.

Score: 0

By strangerdon

posted Jul 30, 2007 - 3:02 PM

Math - Take the lowest time between charges under heavy use - 5 hours - with say 30 minutes to fully recharge (am I being generous here?) and he would have needed to recharge at least 10 times a day to make it to 300 in one month. That would require 55 hour days to test.
Obviously this guy somehow traversed the dimensional gap from a world which has 55 hour days and Apple did not publisize the un-changeable battery. Could he be from the Mortorola System, or the Nokia Universe? Possibly he is from the Microsoft homeworld (I know - how unlikely that Microsoft would play dirty tricks, I am just trying to be fair here...). This is obviously a cry for help. I am sure that the judge will send him home in good time, but the transportation fee might be stiff.

Score: 0

By burfadel

posted Aug 1, 2007 - 7:48 AM

They'll always claim you'll get x number of charges out of it, but you never will. How about those rechargeable Ni-mh batteries you get? they have up to 1000 charges on them (supposedly) which would mean, statistically, you would never need to replace them. Who has ever got the amount of charges out of a normal rechargeable battery to the amount claimed? probably more like 50-100 times.

The fact the battery is soldered in is a scam, does that mean you have to send the phone away to replace the dud battery? much rather buy and replace it myself. Quick, easy, cheap, 5 second job.

Maybe they should call these things i-crap, because until Apple stops their greed they will be hated like Microsoft.

Remember the Macintosh? they wanted to rule the OS and computer market. If macintosh won, we'd be using slow $5000 computers with only one brand parts inside, no competition. You can hate Microsoft all you like, but at least they didn't try and monopolise every part of the PC market.

The i-range of stuff has just become bling, they're overpriced for what you get. They could be a lot better and taken more seriously. Not to mention their customer support is almost non-existent.

Score: 0

Dec 1 - 6:59 PM ET Palm to restructure yet again, may cut more jobs

Dec 1 - 4:58 PM ET Blockbuster downloads headed for more devices via Live Mesh

Dec 1 - 4:55 PM ET AOL's PlaySavvy speaks to game-shy parental units

Dec 1 - 4:41 PM ET Less bad news than anticipated for the semiconductor industry in 2008

Dec 1 - 3:51 PM ET 'Xohm' makes way for 'Clear,' as Sprint/Clearwire merger moves ahead

Dec 1 - 2:01 PM ET Chasing down the latest Cyber Monday tech deals

Dec 1 - 12:50 PM ET Will 'Cyber Monday' fare better than a weak 'Black Friday?'

Dec 1 - 12:38 PM ET Microsoft Cashback goes offline to Black Friday shoppers

Dec 1 - 11:19 AM ET DTV broadcasters could make another transition to mobile next year

Nov 29 - 1:41 PM ET Teacher must still surrender license in bizarre 'exposure to porn' suit