A San Jose federal judge has thrown out a class action lawsuit which claimed that Apple misrepresented the strength of the iPhone 4's glass, reports GigaOm. The lawsuit was brought by Betsalel Williamson who broke the back glass of his new iPhone by knocking it off a chair, resulting "in spider cracks across the back glass panel."
US District Judge Edward Davila found no evidence that Apple breached a warranty or violated California's consumer protection laws.
Here, the representations taken as a whole would not lead the "reasonable consumer" to believe that the glass housing on the iPhone 4 was indestructible or drop-proof because of one important distinction not at issue in Morgan: it is a well-known fact of life that glass can break under impact, even glass that has been reinforced. This much is known to the ordinary, reasonable consumer. The shattered window of a storefront, the cracked windshield of a car, and the chipped smartphone screen are routine encounters of modern existence. It seems a suspension of logic to say that the marketing campaign described in the FAC, which notably has nothing to do with phone-dropping, somehow erases these images from the collective experience such that the reasonable consumer could expect that glass could not break if dropped.
Read More [via Ian]
US District Judge Edward Davila found no evidence that Apple breached a warranty or violated California's consumer protection laws.
Here, the representations taken as a whole would not lead the "reasonable consumer" to believe that the glass housing on the iPhone 4 was indestructible or drop-proof because of one important distinction not at issue in Morgan: it is a well-known fact of life that glass can break under impact, even glass that has been reinforced. This much is known to the ordinary, reasonable consumer. The shattered window of a storefront, the cracked windshield of a car, and the chipped smartphone screen are routine encounters of modern existence. It seems a suspension of logic to say that the marketing campaign described in the FAC, which notably has nothing to do with phone-dropping, somehow erases these images from the collective experience such that the reasonable consumer could expect that glass could not break if dropped.
Read More [via Ian]