A class action lawsuit was filed earlier this month over alleged design defects in the butterfly keyboard of the 12-inch MacBook and current MacBook Pro models.
A second suit has now been filed, this one claiming that Apple is in breach of no fewer than five laws …
Patently Apple has a copy of the filing.
Count 1: BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
Count 2: VIOLATION OF THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT
Count 3: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT
Count 4: VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
Count 5: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT
The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act says that warranties must be fair to consumers. The lawsuit argues that this isn’t the case.
All Laptops are sold with a one-year warranty from Apple. However, Apple does not fulfill its warranty obligations, instead directing many customers to self-help solutions when their defective keyboards are rendered inoperable. When Apple does provide warranty service, the keyboard replacement does not ensure a permanent fix. And for consumers outside of the warranty period, Apple denies warranty service, instead directing them to pay for the replacement at a cost of between $400 and $700.
The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is more commonly known as California Lemon Law. It says that products sold must be for purpose, and the suit says this isn’t the case here.
By shipping and selling defective Laptops, Defendant sold and continues to sell goods that are substantially below the quality generally available in the market, are not fit for the use for which they were intended, and are not adequately packaged and labeled.
The California Unfair Competition Law outlaws misleading advertising.
Defendant also concealed and continues to conceal the problems through its marketing, advertising, and packaging of the Laptops.
The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act is similarly concerned with outlawing deceptive marketing.
Unlike the first suit, which demands that Apple recalls the machines, replaces the keyboards with a new design, and refunds the purchase cost, this one rather more reasonably asks for damages to be determined at trial.