Tech Shout

• Tweet

• Tweet

Once again, Apple’s much talked about iPhone is in the news. But this time it looks like its not going to be a smooth ride for Apple, who was also recently sued by Eminem for copyright infrinegment. A Chicago man is suing the company for alleged fraud regarding the revolutionary device’s battery.

Jose Trujillo had no idea as to how expensive it would be to replace the iPhone’s battery as he claims that Apple did not disclose the details of its iPhone battery-replacement programme prior to selling the device.

On behalf of Jose, Larry Drury, an Illinois lawyer claims that Apple failed to reveal that the iPhone battery was not user-replaceable and that it would die after 300 charges, which for many people would mean paying for a new power supply once a year.

And, that’s not all; Drury is also alleging that to get a new battery for an iPhone, one would have to send it back to Apple at a cost of $85.95.

Besides, Apple’s iPhone battery replacement program requires consumers to pay $79 to ship the handset to the Cupertino-based company and then $29 extra if an owner would like to rent a phone for three days.

Here is a quote from the actual lawsuit filed by Larry Drury on behalf of Jose Trujillo against Apple: “ This case arises out of Defendants’ purposeful and fraudulent concealment to purchasers of its iPhone cellular telephone that they will be required to incur an annual fee of $85.95 as part of Defendants’ battery replacement program,” the complaint reads. It goes on to say that, “the iPhone battery has a durability and/or lifetime of approximately 300 charges, necessitating frequent and more than annual maintenance, repair, and/or replacement if charged regularly on a daily basis.”

However, when the revolutionary touch-screen device was launched, Apple claimed that its battery lasts a lot longer, because a charge cycle runs from zero to fully charged. For instance, charging a half-spent battery would only be half a charge cycle.

Also, when teh iPhone was just launched, Apple publicly stated that the iPhone boasts a longer battery life, besides having a scratch-resistant surface.

Apple’s Web site also says that the iPhone battery will retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 400 full charge and discharge cycles.

To make matters worse for Apple, the Consumer Protection Board echoed those allegations saying in a letter to Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs that Apple should “review its practices in disclosing contract terms and conditions, warranties and return policies.”

Board Chairwoman and Executive Director Mindy A. Blockstein also said that disclosures on the cost of replacing the battery should be more prominently displayed in Apple stores as well as on its Web site.

What’s more; the Consumer Protection Board also objected to the iPhone’s 14-day trial period offered by Apple, while the AT&T phone service comes with a 30-day grace period in which a customer can cancel without penalty.

Not only that; in July this year we had reported about a consumer rights group who raised the issue of the iPhone battery replacement prgramme regarding the phone’s “hidden” battery fee.

The lawsuit against Apple does not ask for a specific amount of damages, but says that both eth companies should be ordered to pay actual, compensatory and punitive charges, as well as attorney fees and costs.

As of now, neither Apple nor AT&T, who has also been named a defendant in the case, would comment on this fresh lawsuit.