The Australian regulator has filed a lawsuit against Apple because of the “error 53” and the denial of free repair devices
06.04.2017 Erika J. Wells 0 Comments
Australian Commission on competition and consumer protection (ACCC) filed a lawsuit in court against Apple. A complaint to the manufacturer about the “error 53”, in which the devices cease to operate correctly due to repairs iPhone and iPad to third-party service centers.
The “error 53” have become widely spoken in the past year after the release of iOS updates 9.2.1. She began to arise from the downloaded update iPhone owners who have previously replaced a broken scanner Touch ID in the informal service center. As a result, users receive unusable smartphone with “error 53”, which is impossible to eliminate.
The report said those who changed the “Home” button in the official service centre where the repair is much more expensive. As it turned out, the “error 53” was introduced on the initiative of the Apple for security purposes.
While Apple refuses to maintain free device with such a problem. In a statement, the ACCC says the company is thus violating the law on protection of consumer rights, blocking the functionality of the iPhone after the repair in the unofficial service centers.
The statement noted that customers with “error 53” have the right to obtain warranty service iPhone: “It is connected with such aspects as quality, functionality and other characteristics of the goods. These warranties exist in addition to the standard warranty that comes with the product, and provide service without any additional cost in case of situations when the product does not comply with the foregoing guarantees”.
In ACCC claim that Apple has no right to demand from consumers with the “error 53” fee for repairs. The regulator believes that Apple itself is guilty of causing unlawful damage, because it imposes its own services, which are more expensive than at unauthorized workshops
Apple explains iPhone lock security measures. The company explained that the Touch ID to collect fingerprints of the owner, which may be in a third hand. However, some perceived this policy as an opportunity to increase revenue due to the fact that the user is forced to buy original components.