(The mini program has been added here, please go to today's headline client to view)
Apple has been on the hot search because of the penalty, the reason is that the mobile phone does not have a charger!
Yesterday, Phoenix Network Technology reported that a court in the brazilian city of Goiânia ruled that Apple violated consumer protection laws and must compensate an iPhone buyer who did not get a charging plug for 5,000 Brazilian reals (about 6943 yuan).
In fact, it is not the first time that Apple has been sued in Brazil, as early as last May, there was a case in which a Brazilian user sued Apple without a charger in favor.
The Brazilian court found that Apple's claim to protect the environment was not valid, and ordered Apple to provide a charger to consumers for free, and if the company did not comply with the judgment, it would be fined 200 reais (about 242 yuan) per day.
In fact, when the iPhone 13 was not yet on the market, Apple was targeted by the Brazilian Consumer Protection Agency.
The attitude of the local area is clear - it is not legal to sell mobile phones and chargers alone! Apple was also heavily fined $2 million, or about 12.84 million yuan, by Brazil.
Look at the people, how tough!
In contrast to our country, how do we feel that "leeks are good to cut, weak and deceitful"? And what's worse is that domestic mobile phone manufacturers have also begun to emulate mobile phones without chargers, the excuse is also environmental protection, it is really good not to learn bad one will learn.
Is it difficult for us to have no one in the country to sue?
some.
Last year, students from Beijing University of Chemical Technology and Donghua University teamed up to take Apple to court, demanding that Apple deliver the phone charger and bear the liability for breach of contract and pay for the purchase of a separate adapter. It is reported that the case was heard in the first instance in September last year, but the final verdict has not yet been reported, so we do not know how the final result will be.
So, if apple mobile phones do not have chargers, does it infringe on the legitimate interests of consumers? Can Apple's repeated emphasis on "environmental protection" be established?
01
Is it infringing on the legitimate interests of consumers?
Some netizens joked: Mobile phones are not equipped with a charger, just like eating without giving you chopsticks, off the spectrum! It makes sense to think about it.
Before the iPhone12 series, apple mobile phones were equipped with chargers, and chargers were necessary and frequent accessories for using mobile phones. Buying a car can be without leather seats, but you can't be without tires; when you go out to eat, the store must provide you with tableware, which is a "trading habit", and consumers will default to the mobile phone with a charger, which is also a "trading habit", and this is a legal concept.
Article 510 of the Civil Code stipulates that after the contract takes effect, if the parties do not agree on the place of performance, etc., or the agreement is not clear, they may be supplemented by agreement, and if a supplementary agreement cannot be reached, it shall be determined in accordance with the relevant terms of the contract or trading habits.
That is to say, after the sales contract takes effect, and there are unclear provisions in the contract content, and a supplementary agreement cannot be reached, it can be determined according to the "trading habits".
A law student at Beijing University of Chemical Technology purchased an iPhone 12 Pro Max mobile phone, and after finding that the mobile phone was not equipped with the corresponding charging equipment, she believed that Apple's behavior of selling mobile phones without chargers violated "trading habits". However, whether the charger is a trading habit or not needs to be determined by the court.
In addition to trading habits, consumers have another right, called the right to know. If Apple does not clearly inform consumers that the purchased mobile phone does not contain a charger, it may constitute an infringement of the consumer's right to know, which is also a dishonesty.
Apple argued that on the phone box, the complete package content is clear - that is, it does not contain a charger, and it is equipped with a USB-C to lightning cable. However, the plaintiff college student believes that Apple's hints on the power supply design lack of significance, simply put, the font size is too small, and it is deliberately unwilling to make it clear to consumers.
For example, the Brazilian Consumer Protection Agency punished Apple for the reason that if the merchant sells X yuan of mobile phones (including chargers) to users, but cuts off the charger and sells the price when it is sold, it is equivalent to false publicity.
It can be seen that Brazil punishes Apple, and college students sue Apple for similar reasons, that is, based on "trading habits", consumers are equipped with chargers by default, and Apple does not explain it clearly, which is false propaganda.
02
Is "eco-friendly" a sufficient reason why Apple does not have a charger?
With an old charger at home, can't you?
Not really!
It should be known that the fast charging protocols used by various brands of mobile phones are incompatible with each other, and consumers' old chargers can hardly achieve fast charging on new Apple mobile phones.
Therefore, Apple does not have a charger, then the user can "charge with love" and not buy a charger? Or does Apple want to make another charger money?
Although the final verdict is unknown, it is difficult for the court to make a subversive judgment in this obviously public interest lawsuit.
How to say it, in China to be a consumer is indeed quite humiliating!
During the pandemic, there are legal issues
↓ Poke the following mini program, immediately free consultation ↓
(The mini program has been added here, please go to today's headline client to view)
↑↑↑