Consumers accuse Apple of hiding Apple Watch security danger

An advertisement for Apple Watch is displayed inside the new Apple Store, ahead of its official opening on September 28, during a media tour in Mexico City, Mexico on September 25, 2019. REUTERS / Carlos Jasso

Register now for FREE and unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

  • Complainants say swelling lithium batteries make screens susceptible to shattering
  • Previous similar lawsuits were dismissed

(Reuters) – Apple Inc has been the subject of a class action lawsuit claiming its first-generation Apple Watches through the Series 6 have a flaw that makes their screens susceptible to shattering or coming off, in some cases injuring them. carriers.

the trial, filed Thursday by five people in federal court in San Francisco, claims lithium batteries in popular portable fitness trackers tend to swell, leading to screen failures. The complaint includes an image of a deep laceration on a complainant’s arm, allegedly suffered when his screen shattered.

The plaintiffs claim that the defect was present in different versions of the Apple Watch and that he was aware of the risk but hid it from consumers.

Register now for FREE and unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

They have said that insufficient space to allow the battery to swell “constitutes a material and unreasonable danger to the safety of consumers,” and are filing claims on behalf of Apple Watch buyers under federal and California protection laws. of consumers.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Apple was the subject of a lawsuit making similar allegations of screen defects in the same court, represented by different attorneys, in 2018, although it did not directly link the screen defects to swelling of the screen. batteries. A federal judge in 2019 dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiff had not identified a specific flaw.

Another such case, filed in New Jersey federal court in 2019, linked the defect to swelling in the batteries. A federal judge allowed part of this trial to continue, but the plaintiff in 2020 decided to drop it, without giving a reason.

The case is Smith et al v. Apple Inc, US District Court, Northern District of California, # 3: 21-cv-09527.

For the Complainants: Michael Ram of Morgan & Morgan

For Apple: not available

Register now for FREE and unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Our standards: Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.


Source link

Susan W. Lloyd