The lawfirm leading the attack against Apple for its "Error 53" code issue when an unauthorized Touch ID sensor is replaced has filed for $5 million in payouts and a software patch disabling the lockout performed by an alleged Apple policy to discourage third-party repair. Filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, the suit claims that Apple's measures to protect the TouchID security are "problematic, and even abusive."
The suit claims that "despite knowing about the security features, Apple took no steps to warn consumers and owners of the Affected Models that updating software or restoring data would result in an Error 53 code that would render the phone inoperable, and cause data loss." The suit does note, however, that Apple did make clear that the fingerprint data was stored in a "secure enclave," with it quoting a report from UK newspaper
The Guardian that notes that when the iOS detects that the pairing fails, Touch ID -- including Apple Pay -- is disabled so the device remains secure. However, not mentioned by Apple in marketing documents is that a mismatch in hardware would result in the "Error 53" code upon attempted restoration in iTunes.
While
MacNN is broadly in favor of repairability rights, there is no guarantee that shoddily-sourced parts are secure, and do not pose a threat to the security of the user's data, or the phone. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the third-party repair shops cited in the lawsuit have the relevant skill set to adequately perform the repair, even if given the proper tools to perform the repair, which the lawsuit does note are not provided to independent repair shops by Apple.
Also not noted in the report is the genesis of the "small crack" that developed in the lead plaintiff's device, causing the failure. It does note, however, that the plaintiff "did not think much of the cracked home button" as the device otherwise functioned perfectly. Apple offered to replace the then-new iPhone 6 for $300, well less than the $800 retail for the device, which was refused by the plaintiff. The suit also does not make the distinction between full retail of the afflicted phones, which start at $600, as is comparing Apple's replacement offer to the subsidized price of the phone through a carrier.
As
MacNN reported before, there is a likelihood Apple is in fact covered by the law. According to the
Magnuson-Moss Act, warranties for a device "can disclaim warranty coverage only for defects or damage caused by the use of parts or service" not provided or authorized by the warranty issuer, in this case, Apple, but it does allow for necessary maintenance or repairs to be performed by any company.
There is more to the act to protect Apple in this case. According to the FTC, one exception to the general ban on tie-in provisions is that a "warrantor may include a tie-in provision if it has received a waiver from the FTC," namely by proving to the regulator's satisfaction that the product "won't work properly without a specified item or service." Almost all manufacturers of computers and mobile devices have FTC waivers for repair parts which aren't covered by standards-essential patents, which would almost certainly include replacement Touch ID sensors and the motherboard. The need for "qualified" technicians is addressed in the legislation as well, which Apple has a certification program for, and has had since before the genesis of the iPhone.
As a whole, the law firm and the plaintiff are seeking injunctive relief preventing Error 53 from rendering the phones inoperable, and making afflicted devices operable and usable, regardless of the nature of the repair performed on them. In addition, injunctive relief is demanded to put all past repair or replacement costs under warranty, even if the device was physically damaged by the user.
Top