Water Resistant?: Lawsuit Claims Apple Misrepresented iPhones’ Ability to Withstand Water Damage [UPDATE]
by Erin Shaak
Last Updated on July 21, 2022
February 4, 2022 – “Water Resistant” iPhone Class Action Dismissed
The proposed class action detailed on this page was dismissed for good by United States District Judge Denise Cote on February 2, 2022.
In granting Apple’s motion to toss the case, Judge Cote relayed in a 27-page order that the plaintiffs, for one, failed to adequately allege that they were misled by the tech giant’s “water resistant” claims for the iPhone. The judge said that although the plaintiffs properly alleged that consumers would be misled, for instance, by the depiction of an iPhone submerged in various liquids at various depths, the suit nevertheless failed to plausibly show that they sustained any injury from conduct depicted in Apple’s advertisements.
“The [second amended complaint] asserts that Smith’s iPhone malfunctioned after ‘sustained contact with water,” the judge wrote. “It alleges that Santos’s iPhone was damaged after contact with water and other specified liquids. The [second amended complaint] fails to plead therefore that the plaintiffs’ iPhones were damaged by liquid contact that Apple’s advertisements suggested they could withstand.”
The order goes on to state that the plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract allegations regarding Apple’s obligation to repair or replace iPhones not resistant to water damage lack “facts” or “circumstances” that might indicate that the parties agreed to any such contract. The plaintiffs’ fraud claims were similarly dismantled, with Judge Cote stating that the consumers failed to allege fraud with the “requisite particularity.”
“[The second amended complaint] alleges generally that the plaintiffs relied on Apple’s marketing statements about the iPhone’s water resistance,” the document says. “But it does not specify which statements the plaintiffs viewed or when, and it does not explain in what way those statements were fraudulent.”
Judge Cote found that the plaintiffs’ case contained only the “conclusory assertion” that Apple acted with fraudulent intent with its “water resistant” advertising.
Further, the order states that the plaintiffs’ allegation of “negligent misrepresentation” by Apple about the iPhone’s water resistance “suffers from many of the same defects as the fraud claim.”
“The [second amended complaint] does not identify with the requisite particularity which false statements the plaintiffs relied upon or when those statements were made,” the document reads. “Additionally, it fails to allege fact sufficient to demonstrate a special relationship between the plaintiffs and Apple.”
Judge Cote denied the plaintiffs’ request to be able to file a third amended version of the case on the grounds that doing so would be inappropriate given the consumers’ first and second amended suits varied minimally from their initial complaint.
Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
A proposed class action filed late last week claims Apple Inc. has misled consumers with regard to its iPhones’ water-resistant qualities.
Per the case, while consumers believe based on the defendant’s advertising that their iPhones will resist damage from contact with water up to a certain depth and length of time, these representations are “false and misleading.”
In reality, the lawsuit argues, certain “fine print disclaimers” purport to clarify that the iPhone’s water-resistant certification levels are much more limited than consumers expect and make it nearly impossible for customers with water-damaged iPhones to have their devices repaired under warranty.
The case argues that Apple’s misrepresentations have allowed the company to sell its iPhones at a premium price that consumers would not have been willing to pay had they known the truth about the devices’ water-resistant qualities.
“The newest iPhones regularly cost more compared to other similar top-of-the-line smartphones, represented in a non-misleading way, regarding their resistance to water and liquid contact, and higher than they would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions,” the complaint states.
“Waterproof” vs. “Water-Resistant”
According to the lawsuit, consumers have been misled by Apple’s “artificial distinction” between water-resistant and impermeable to water, i.e., “waterproof.”
Apple, the case alleges, has tended to “conflate the two” terms in its marketing and promotional materials without clarifying the difference, leading consumers to believe their iPhones are more protected from water than they really are.
Per the case, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) developed ingress protection (IP) standards that allow manufacturers to certify their devices’ levels of resistance to dust and water. Both the iPhone 7 and the iPhone 8 are rated IP67, with the “6” referring to dust protection and the “7” to water protection, the suit says. Both iPhone models were represented as able to resist water up to a depth of one meter for up to 30 minutes, according to the complaint.
The iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 11 Pro Max are rated IP68, promising water resistance up to four meters for 30 minutes, while the iPhone 12 models were marketed as able to resist water up to a depth of six meters for up to 30 minutes, the suit says.
The iPhones’ water-resistant qualities were further emphasized by advertisements showing the phones being “splashed, immersed in water and/or hit with powerful jets of water,” the lawsuit relays. Per the case, Apple’s representations led consumers to reasonably believe that their iPhones would not sustain damage due to water exposure in the advertised contexts.
Apple Disclaims Coverage for Water Damage, Lawsuit Alleges
What consumers have likely missed when deciding whether to buy an iPhone is that Apple has “insufficiently qualified” its claims with regard to iPhones’ water-resistance certifications in “fine print disclosures,” the suit alleges.
According to the case, the iPhones’ IP certification levels are based on “highly controlled laboratory conditions” using only static and pure water, which is not representative of the conditions the devices will encounter in everyday life.
“This means that consumers who stand at the edge of a pool or ocean and whose devices are splashed or temporarily immersed, will be denied coverage, because the water contained chlorine or salt,” the complaint states.
Moreover, the suit says, Apple’s one-year warranty purports to exclude damage proven to be caused by liquids, which is determined by verifying whether the phone’s liquid contact indicator has turned red, indicating liquid has entered the device. Per the case, Apple does not inquire whether the liquid contact indicator was triggered due to “unauthorized or improper use” of the iPhone.
The lawsuit goes on to state that the iPhone’s water-resistant representations include resistance to “accidental spills” from common liquids such as soda, coffee, beer, tea and fruit juices and instructs users to rinse the affected area of the phone when these spills occur. The case claims, however, that Apple often uses the rinsing of the iPhones “as a pretext to deny coverage” despite explicitly instructing iPhone owners to take that step.
Apple’s attempts to disclaim coverage for water damage is “unconscionable and deceptive,” the lawsuit argues, considering it has marketed its iPhones as water resistant.
Per the case, iPhone owners whose devices have sustained water damage often find themselves at a loss when Apple refuses to repair the products under warranty and end up paying for costly repairs out-of-pocket or buying a new phone, according to the lawsuit.
Who Does the Lawsuit Aim to Cover?
The case looks to cover New York residents who, during the applicable statutes of limitations, purchased Apple iPhones purporting to be capable of sustaining limited contact or immersion in water for a finite period of time.
How Do I Join the Lawsuit?
There’s usually nothing you need to do to join a class action lawsuit when it’s first filed. If the lawsuit moves forward and settles, which could take months or even years, that’s when those affected would be given an opportunity to claim whatever compensation the court deems appropriate. Find out more about the process here.
If you’d like to receive class action news and updates, including information about settlements, in your inbox each week, sign up for ClassAction.org’s free newsletter here.
Hair Relaxer Lawsuits
Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.
Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits
How Do I Join a Class Action Lawsuit?
Did you know there's usually nothing you need to do to join, sign up for, or add your name to new class action lawsuits when they're initially filed?
Read more here: How Do I Join a Class Action Lawsuit?
Stay Current
Sign Up For
Our Newsletter
New cases and investigations, settlement deadlines, and news straight to your inbox.
A note on class action complaints:
Bear in mind that the information in this blog post summarizes the allegations put forth in the following legal complaint. At the time of this writing, nothing has been proven in court. Anyone can file a lawsuit, with or without the representation of an attorney, for any reason, and ClassAction.org takes no position on the merits of the suit. Class action complaints are a matter of public record, and our objective on this website is merely to share the information in these legal documents in an easily digestible way.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.