David Lysgaard recently launched a legal battle against Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL), and managed to emerge victorious in his claims against the tech giant. However, the lawsuit was not directed towards the products of Apple, but rather the way that the tech giant conducts business.
The reason that Lysgaard remained unsatisfied with Apple loses lawsuit
One of the biggest problems that Lysgaard had with Apple’s return proclamation, is the fact that the company released refurbished devices, which are equipped with spare parts, which in turn reduces the total retail value of the phone. This warranty was the primary reason Apple loses the lawsuit.
This directly contradicts the policies of the company, which states that the phone will retain its retail value post-fix. A prime example is a phone which served as Lysgaard’s replacement iPhone 4. This went to the benefit of Lysgaard, as the Danish court agreed, this went against the policies listed in the Apple warranty.
Due to this, the court allocated Apple liable for ordering a brand-new phone equal to the value of Lysgaard’s original device. As this went directly against Apple’s policies, providing a phone, which retains less value than that of the original product.
Apple’s response to the lawsuit
Although it is possible for the company to proceed to the high court to fight against the lawsuit, this will lead to damaging representations of the Apple brand-name. However, the company did state that the reason that they use recycled parts is to reduce the stress on their production line, though not being liable to create a brand new replacement phone.
This lawsuit may have a much larger impact on Apple overall, in terms of the way that the company handles its product repairs. This is not the first case of Apple being sued for improper replacement practices.
In court, it was stated, “This directly inflicts the way, In which, Apple will handle future refurbishment to its products.”