Since the beginning of the iPhone 12 series, Apple has officially cancelled the accompanying charger in the name of "scientific and technological environmental protection", which has triggered widespread criticism from consumers around the world, and many users have sued Apple. Now the Brazilian court has ruled that Apple's failure to send chargers violates local consumer protection laws and requires Apple to compensate users for about 7,000 yuan.
According to foreign media reports, the local court judge of the local court in Goiania, Brazil, Van der Celez Pinheiro, ruled that Apple had carried out illegal collocation sales, violating article 39 of Brazil's Consumer Protection Law, which is an illegal means of prohibited abuse. According to the law, Apple can not sell mobile phones and charging plugs separately, but in fact Apple did so, so Apple's behavior is a crime, and it needs to compensate the prosecutor for 5,000 reais (about 6935 yuan).
In the face of the verdict, Apple refused to agree and slyly argued: Apple has never required users to buy charging heads, although the iPhone uses the Lighting interface, but the cable provided can use the Type-C to Lighting interface. Therefore, Apple has not violated the relevant laws, and users can use any Type-C interface charger. Moreover, more importantly, this judgment seriously affects the "environmental protection of science and technology" and is a negation of Apple's environmental efforts.
In the face of Apple's response, Judge Pinelo bitterly criticized: the charging cable provided by the iPhone cannot be used with other charging heads, because Apple's previous charger only has A port. In this case, consumers have to buy Apple's products.
In fact, this is not the first time Apple has faced punishment, in March last year, Brazil's local consumer protection group said that because the iPhone 12 series canceled the charger, violating the Consumer Protection Law requires a fine of $2 million (about 13 million yuan). In the face of successive penalties, Apple has refused to rectify every time with "scientific and technological environmental protection" as a fig leaf, after all, the benefits brought by the cancellation of accessories are hugely different from the fines, but they are a dime.
According to the British Daily Mail, some experts analyzed the revenue changes after Apple canceled chargers and headphones, and found that Apple could save 5 billion pounds (about 41.3 billion yuan). 41.3 billion compared to 13 million, 7,000 yuan two figures are simply not worth mentioning, for Apple is just a dime, so I would rather pay a fine of millions of dollars a year, but also resolutely refuse to restore the attached charger, the two phases of weighing which is light and heavy at a glance.
In addition to Brazil, students from China's Beihua University and Donghua University also organized public interest lawsuits in October last year, requiring Apple to fulfill the obligation of attaching a charger. Different from foreign countries, in the face of public interest litigation by domestic college students, some fruit fans can't sit still, criticizing such a practice is not conducive to environmental protection, is forcing apple prices in China, and will harm the interests of more people. There is even a big V that the lack of electrical appliances is too much trouble and obstruction, and supporting Apple's cancellation of the charger is not only environmentally friendly, but also to reduce the burden on users.
What do you think of Brazil's penalty of Apple not coming with a charger, while some domestic fruit fans criticize the public interest litigation of college students?