Apple is violating Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 with 'Error 53'

[illegaloperation]

As you may have read on the front page [https://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/05/error-53-home-button-iphone-brick/], Apple is bricking iPhone that have had Touch ID repaired with 'Error 53'.

This violate the law, specifically the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975.

The law was specifically passed because in the past, car manufacturers were voiding the warranty for those who took their car to independent mechanics for repair.

Do I have to use the dealer for repairs and maintenance to keep my warranty in effect?
No. An independent mechanic, a retail chain shop, or even you yourself can do routine maintenance and repairs on your vehicle. In fact, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which is enforced by the FTC, makes it illegal for manufacturers or dealers to claim that your warranty is void or to deny coverage under your warranty simply because someone other than the dealer did the work. The manufacturer or dealer can, however, require consumers to use select repair facilities if the repair services are provided to consumers free of charge under the warranty.

That said, there may be certain situations where a repair may not be covered. For example, if you or your mechanic replaced a belt improperly and your engine is damaged as a result, your manufacturer or dealer may deny responsibility for fixing the engine under the warranty. However, according to the FTC, the manufacturer or dealer must be able to demonstrate that it was the improper belt replacement — rather than some other defect — that caused the damage to your engine. The warranty would still be in effect for other parts of your car.

Will using 'aftermarket' or recycled parts void my warranty?
No. An 'aftermarket' part is a part made by a company other than the vehicle manufacturer or the original equipment manufacturer. A 'recycled' part is a part that was made for and installed in a new vehicle by the manufacturer or the original equipment manufacturer, and later removed from the vehicle and made available for resale or reuse. Simply using an aftermarket or recycled part does not void your warranty. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal for companies to void your warranty or deny coverage under the warranty simply because you used an aftermarket or recycled part. The manufacturer or dealer can, however, require consumers to use select parts if those parts are provided to consumers free of charge under the warranty.

Still, if it turns out that the aftermarket or recycled part was itself defective or wasn't installed correctly, and it causes damage to another part that is covered under the warranty, the manufacturer or dealer has the right to deny coverage for that part and charge you for any repairs. The FTC says the manufacturer or dealer must show that the aftermarket or recycled part caused the need for repairs before denying warranty coverage.

Source: http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0138-auto-warranties-routine-maintenance

This law is however, not limited to automobiles and, but applies to consumer products such as the iPhone.

By bricking the iPhones, Apple has gone beyond no only voiding the warranty, but also render the products unusable.

 

[AFEPPL]

It's a pretty astounding silly position apple have taken on this.
I'm sure you'll see a long line of lawyers wanting some flesh over this one..

 

[ToroidalZeus]

I'm not sure if the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 applies to this case. Reason being is that act is meant for "regular" parts so to speak. Apple is bricking iPhone's with replaced (3rd party or form another iPhone) TouchID home buttons. TouchID is a security feature so the closest car equivalent would be immobilizer chips, which didn't appear on vehicles until 20 years after that act.

From Apple's POV, the most likely vulnerability of the TouchID security feature is a hardware attack hence the locking of the device and the bricking of a device with changed button.

It's still quite possible that Apple needs to only disable the TouchID feature and disabling the device outright does violate a law.

 

[AFEPPL]

Is it not like BMW disabling the ECU on your car if you have it serviced outside their dealer chain??

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Is it not like BMW disabling the ECU on your car if you have it serviced outside their dealer chain??

more like you changed the immobilizer chip (TouchID) and now the ECU no longer reads the key.

 

[Gav2k]

We're talking about a non serviceable device not a car. With that said...

Given the security behind it I don't think this would hold up in court.

 

[AFEPPL]

Non user serviceable vs non serviceable are a totally different thing..
Apple should not be able to stop 3rd party repairs, that would be a monopoly or even a cartel...!

 

[ToroidalZeus]

We're talking about a non serviceable device not a car. With that said...

Given the security behind it I don't think this would hold up in court.

iPhone isn't non serviceable. Apple does it all the time in the Apple store and there are no void warranty stickers on the device either.

 

[illegaloperation]

Apple might have a case for disabling Touch ID functionality after a third party repair, but to disable the entire device, probably not.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if lawyers have field days with this.

 

[danny_w]

Apple might have a case for disabling Touch ID functionality after a third party repair, but to disable the entire device, probably not.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if lawyers have field days with this.

You can bet on it! Apple left themselves wide open on this one.

 

[I7guy]

Apple could claim the hardware was faulty and the software didn't recognize it. They are under no obligation to write their software for non-standard non-oem hardware.

 

[illegaloperation]

Apple could claim the hardware was faulty and the software didn't recognize it. They are under no obligation to write their software for non-standard non-oem hardware.

"The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal for companies to void your warranty or deny coverage under the warranty simply because you used an aftermarket or recycled part."

Apple would have to make a case by case basis that the parts are indeed faulty. The burden of proof lies with Apple.

In this case, even an OEM home button taken from another iPhone 6 wouldn't work.

 

[I7guy]

"The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal for companies to void your warranty or deny coverage under the warranty simply because you used an aftermarket or recycled part."

Apple would have to make a case by case basis that the parts are indeed faulty. The burden of proof lies with Apple.

In this case, even an OEM home button taken from another iPhone 6 wouldn't work.

This would be up to the courts to decide. Of course this could go either way if a suit was filed but I can also see Apple potentially bringing in the Dcma which could actually help Apple.

 

[illegaloperation]

This would be up to the courts to decide. Of course this could go either way if a suit was filed but I can also see Apple potentially bringing in the Dcma which could actually help Apple.

DCMA has to do with intellectual property and doesn't have anything thing to do with this case.

 

[I7guy]

DCMA has to do with intellectual property and doesn't have anything thing to do with this case.

That's correct, third party parts, proprietary interfaces and all that, i.e. Intellectual property.

 

[illegaloperation]

That's correct, third party parts, proprietary interfaces and all that, i.e. Intellectual property.

Let me be clear about this: Apple cannot claim intellectual property to bar third party repairs.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

There is a saying:

"Well-willing is often the opposite of week-done"….

The problem is NOT the fact that for EVIDENT security reasons the phone gets blocked.
I am criticizing apple for many things, but not this care for more security itself.

The REAL problems - and this is where apple failed - are:
1) apple did not communicate the new security feature. No warning.
2) since you have still full security with your old method of four numbers, apple could easily have solved the problem in case of exchange of broken screens by making the phone demanding this code (or even a much more complicated one created by yourself while activating it the first time) after each exchange of screen or fingerprint-button.
3) apple could at least for the exchange of fingerprint-sensors and/or screen charge a reasonable charge instead of horrible charges, doing so they´d prevent forcing their customers to search for alternative repair services…

This solution is so simple and logic that I can´t imagine none at apple did think about it.

So - for me - this is just another step away from their customers. Like they solder now every SSD, RAM, glue every battery - their policy is to make their customers slaves.
Their once well-functioning Eco-system is getting more and more a real prison.

They give a s*** on customers needs and free choice (to update/modify their own property for example) now. Sadly, there are still too much lemmings who even apologize everything…

I hope there will be class lawsuit action soon.
They deserve it.

 

[kdarling]

I'm not sure if the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 applies to this case. Reason being is that act is meant for "regular" parts so to speak. Apple is bricking iPhone's with replaced (3rd party or form another iPhone) TouchID home buttons. TouchID is a security feature so the closest car equivalent would be immobilizer chips, which didn't appear on vehicles until 20 years after that act.

Under Mag-Moss, Apple would have to get a waiver from the FTC by stating that only certain brands would work... AND the FTC would have to agree that such a requirement is in the public interest.

This doesn't sound likely here, since the OS lockout has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BRAND OF THE PART. It only has to do with the part's ID changing and a new OS update bricking the phone because of it.

From Apple's POV, the most likely vulnerability of the TouchID security feature is a hardware attack hence the locking of the device and the bricking of a device with changed button.

Still waiting for someone to explain how it's a security threat, since fingerprints are recognized by the secure element, not by the fingerprint sensor. (I can think of a really unlikely scenario, but nobody's mentioned so far that seem likely.)

It's still quite possible that Apple needs to only disable the TouchID feature and disabling the device outright does violate a law.

They might even need to disable the TouchID feature. Surely entering your passcode should be enough to reset the key.

 

[gnasher729]

As you may have read on the front page [https://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/05/error-53-home-button-iphone-brick/], Apple is bricking iPhone that have had Touch ID repaired with 'Error 53'.

This violate the law, specifically the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975.

The law was specifically passed because in the past, car manufacturers were voiding the warranty for those who took their car to independent mechanics for repair.

Who says Apple is voiding any warranty here? Someone attempted a repair of a component that is absolutely critical for the security of the device. The device cannot distinguish between a botched repair and an attempt by a hacker to gain illegal access to your device. Therefore the device stops working.

Now clearly the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act says that Apple can't void your warranty because someone repaired or serviced the phone. However, they can void the warranty if someone botched a repair. However again, you don't even have evidence that the warranty is voided - if the device stops working because it detects tampering that doesn't mean your warranty is voided or that Apple claims it is voided. That only happens when you take the device to Apple and Apple refuses to repair it.

Still waiting for someone to explain how it's a security threat, since fingerprints are recognized by the secure element, not by the fingerprint sensor. (I can think of a really unlikely scenario, but nobody's mentioned so far that seem likely.)

A genuine sensor scans your finger print, sends it to the secure element, and forgets what it scanned. A forged sensor could do lots of things. For example, scan your finger print, send it to the secure element, and remember what it scanned, so when a thief with the right equipment steals your phone, and needs a fingerprint, he or she can make the sensor replay the last genuine finger print that it scanned.

This would be up to the courts to decide. Of course this could go either way if a suit was filed but I can also see Apple potentially bringing in the Dcma which could actually help Apple.

I suppose you mean DMCA. DMCA has nothing to do with this. The fingerprint sensor has nothing at all to do with any copying of works that are protected by copyright.

 

[macbookfan]

or wasn't installed correctly

From what i'm reading on Apples press release there stance is it was not installed correctly because the Touch ID sensor was not Matched to the secure element. Therefore they can claim

dealer has the right to deny coverage for that part and charge you for any repairs

Not saying I agree with it but I think thats where they are coming from.

 

[danny_w]

From what i'm reading on Apples press release there stance is it was not installed correctly because the Touch ID sensor was not Matched to the secure element. Therefore they can claim Not saying I agree with it but I think thats where they are coming from.

The problem is that Apple is refusing to repair it, so the only recourse is to buy another one or go elsewhere, which is exactly what I would do in this instance (not to another repair shop but to a different manufacturer).

 

[illegaloperation]

Who says Apple is voiding any warranty here? Someone attempted a repair of a component that is absolutely critical for the security of the device. The device cannot distinguish between a botched repair and an attempt by a hacker to gain illegal access to your device. Therefore the device stops working.

How come Apple haven't bricked iPhone 5 and older?

After all, Touch ID is "critical" for the security and those devices don't have Touch IDs.

A genuine sensor scans your finger print, sends it to the secure element, and forgets what it scanned. A forged sensor could do lots of things. For example, scan your finger print, send it to the secure element, and remember what it scanned, so when a thief with the right equipment steals your phone, and needs a fingerprint, he or she can make the sensor replay the last genuine finger print that it scanned.

A thief steals your phone, dissembled it, replace the Touch ID, reassembled your phone and then returned your phone, all without you noticing.

Which movie is this from?

Now clearly the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act says that Apple can't void your warranty because someone repaired or serviced the phone. However, they can void the warranty if someone botched a repair. However again, you don't even have evidence that the warranty is voided - if the device stops working because it detects tampering that doesn't mean your warranty is voided or that Apple claims it is voided. That only happens when you take the device to Apple and Apple refuses to repair it.

This isn't a botched repair. Rather, Apple doesn't approve of the repair and hence disabled the device.
[doublepost=1454898017][/doublepost]My gf dropped her iPhone 6 and cracked the screen.

I replaced the screen myself and kept the original Touch ID so her phone is still working.

That said, it is clear that Apple is giving the middle finger to independent repair shops and DIYs like myself.

 

[Borin]

A thief steals your phone, dissembled it, replace the Touch ID, reassembled your phone and then returned your phone, all without you noticing.

Which movie is this from?

How can you guarantee that any replacement part that isn't provided by Apple isn't capable of doing such a thing?

That said, it is clear that Apple is giving the middle finger to independent repair shops and DIYs like myself.

Are you upset because Apple may or may not be breaking a law, or are you upset because it may or may not impact your work?

 

[illegaloperation]

How can you guarantee that any replacement part that isn't provided by Apple isn't capable of doing such a thing?

It doesn't matter what it can or can't do. It's her phone. It's her life.

If you want to pay Apple to repair your phone, so be it.

Are you upset because Apple may or may not be breaking a law, or are you upset because it may or may not impact your work?

I am upset with this authoritarian/Big Brother attitude.

Do what Apple say or else, you'll be punished.

The law is there to protect me.

 

[Borin]

It doesn't matter what it can or can't do. It's her phone. It's her life.

If you want to pay Apple to repair your phone, so be it.

Of course. Said person owns the product, so said person can do with it what they want.

That doesn't mean Apple should always go out of their way to accommodate them after they have made said choice.

I am upset with this authoritarian attitude. Do what Apple say or else, you'll be punish.

The law is there to protect me.

Maybe attitudes towards these sorts of issues are greatly different across the pond.