After the Batterygate claims settlement for millions of dollars, the company Apple has come again under hot waters for lying about waterproofing iPhones and this time the company has been sued with class actions. According to a recent report by AppleInsider, Cupertino is being sued for misguiding its consumers. The company, which is thought to have drawn an exaggerated advertising policy on the water resistance of iPhones, is facing many complaints.
Recent lawsuit on iPhone waterproof controversy
In the claim lawsuit documented in the US Southern District Court of New York, Apple purportedly distorted the waterproof ability of the iPhone. Victims (Consumers) of the present circumstance likewise express their issue with the organization’s refusal to cover water harm in its guarantee.
Waterproof Apple iPhones was a lie?
iPhone models contain water resistance of differing degrees. iPhone 7 is advertised with IP67 assurance, offering most extreme execution up to a depth of 1 meter for as long as 30 minutes. iPhone 11 Pro and Pro Max, then again, got IP68 accreditation and asserted up to 4 meters in a short time. On the iPhone 12, this figure was reported as 6 meters in thirty minutes. However, these are Apple’s cases… Plaintiff clients contend that this isn’t accurate.
Saying that the water-proof abilities of iPhones is overstated, clients said that the organization acquired these tests from research center utilizing static and unadulterated water. He contended that in zones where the water isn’t so perfect and fixed, this capacity would be baffled. While the users said their gadgets were harmed in water containing chlorine or salt; He expressed that this issue isn’t assessed under guarantee.
You can also read: APPLE TO PAY $113M TO SETTLE IPHONE BATTERYGATE
Interestingly, this is not the first time that Apple isn’t condemned for the iPhone water resistance claims. The company was sued in Italy for a similar explanation a year ago and was fined 10 million Euros. The solitary justification for this high amount of fine was not the organization’s misrepresentation of its gadget. The way that the guarantee didn’t manage liquid harm was also compelling in the court’s sentence.