This morning, the topic of "Legal Students Sued Apple" has become a hot search and attracted attention.
According to the Shanghai Legal Daily, a student from Beijing University of Chemical Technology purchased the iPhone 12 Pro Max mobile phone. After discovering that the mobile phone was not equipped with the corresponding charging device, he chose to use legal means to protect his rights. "According to the transfer of slave objects with the main objects and social transaction habits, buying a mobile phone should be equipped with a charger."
Students from Beijing University of Chemical Technology and Donghua University formed a team to sue Apple. In May 2021, Fang and his team members filed an application for filing a case with the Dongcheng District People's Court of Beijing, where Apple Electronics Trade (Beijing) Co., Ltd. is located. Request to order Apple to deliver the mobile phone charger; bear the liability for breach of contract, pay the penalty of RMB 100 and bear the litigation costs.
In September this year, the case was tried on the online trial site of the Beijing Internet Court electronic litigation platform, and the trial lasted for 2 hours.
Apple official website screenshot
The above report of "Shanghai Legal Daily" stated that first of all, Apple's agent believes that the complete packaging content of iphone12 pro Max is clarified on the packaging box of iPhone 12 pro Max, that is, it does not include a charger, and it is equipped with usb-c to lightning connection cable. Therefore, the sales contract between the two parties does not include the power adapter . "Apple's tips on power supply design are not significant." Student Fang compared the instructions for power supply design on the Apple mobile phone packaging box, and the text style and size comparison is very obvious.
Then, Apple's agent came up with a proposal from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology to guide consumers, sales companies and manufacturers to change their concepts and promote the separation of sales of mobile phones and power adapters. However, Student Fang clearly pointed out that this proposal itself is a "proposal on unifying the connection between the mobile phone and the charger." On the premise that the plug and port connection between the mobile phone and the charger cannot achieve widespread unity, it is difficult to separate the sales of mobile phone and the charger.
It is worth noting that unlike most mobile phone manufacturers, Apple has never used the charging interface on the mobile phone side. It has always been a unique lightning interface (lightning interface); its mobile phone products are always USB-A interface connected to the power adapter side, and have become USB-C interface since the iPhone 12 series. It is completely different from other charging products on the market, and it is impossible to use interchangeably between different models of mobile phones and chargers.
Apple agent pointed out that in the "power and battery" description of , Apple clearly stated that in the "power and battery" description of product , Apple clearly stated that consumers can use USB to connect to a computer or power adapter to charge. "From the web page, it is impossible to know which computer or power adapter to connect to the computer through USB to be able to charge, nor can it be known whether the fast charging function can be achieved by connecting to the computer through USB. In addition, consumers cannot connect to the original Apple power adapter with a USB-C to lightning cable as advertised by Apple." Student Fang also refuted this statement.
In addition, Apple agents believe that separate sales are common in mobile phone sales. But in fact, before the iPhone 12 series was launched, mainstream mobile phone manufacturers on the market were equipped with chargers. Not only that, after searching, student Fang found that Xiaomi , Meizu , etc. provide 3 packages for consumers to choose when selling their mobile phone products. The three packages include chargers, no chargers, and mobile phone chargers and headphones have different prices, giving consumers the right to choose independently. This is obviously different from Apple's separate sales.
"Environmental protection" is also a noun that Apple's agent repeatedly mentioned. But is it for environmental protection reasons or to expand profit margins if not equipped with a charger?
Apple promotes MagSafe wireless charger below the sales interface of iPhone12. In Fang's view, this is a solid evidence of Apple's "two-faced person". "Apple is just using environmentally friendly gimmicks to sell its new product MagSafe." Wireless charging is the lowest conversion efficiency charging method.Apple vigorously promotes wireless charging, which puts the practical value of wireless charging before the environmental value; instead of attaching the power adapter, it puts the practical value of the charger behind the environmental value. Therefore, Fang believes that Apple's behavior is just under the guise of environmental protection and increases corporate profits by reducing the necessary use of accessories for consumers.
"According to the relevant terms of Civil Code , the graphics and text information on Apple's official website is format clause . The defendant cannot refuse to deliver the power supply tester on this ground. Apple has committed fraudulent behavior in the process of selling mobile phones. We cannot charge with existing power adapters as stated in Apple's official website. It cannot match and cannot use the fast charging function normally." At the end of the trial, Student Fang stated.
At present, the case is still in the stage of supplementing evidence and written materials.
In recent years, many college students have used the law to defend their rights and interests
Netizens: Put what they have learned into practice! support!
From Guopaixing, CNKI to Disney, New Oriental , these college students have provided a reference path for many consumers to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests through litigation.
In May 2018, when Xiao Liu, a junior student at Suzhou University, downloaded a document called "Traditional Medicine" on China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the web page prompted that he would pay 7 yuan. However, China National Knowledge Infrastructure's "recharge center" sets a minimum recharge amount limit. In order to download this 7 yuan document, Xiao Liu recharged 50 yuan. After purchasing the document, Xiao Liu wanted to refund the balance, but was rejected by Zhiwang.
Xiao Liu believes that China National Knowledge Infrastructure's "minimum recharge amount limit" and does not apply for a balance refund for himself is infringing on consumers' free choice and the fair trading right of , so Tongfang Zhiwang (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd., the operator of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Tongfang Zhiwang (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd., the operator of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, is a violation of consumers' free choice and fair trading rights. The company (hereinafter referred to as CNKI Company) sued the court, asking it to revoke the minimum recharge amount limit and refund the entire balance of the account.
In the end, the court ruled that the CNKI Recharge Center's regulations on the minimum recharge amount limit were invalid, and Xiao Liu won the case. CNKI also updated the website's payment page and added custom recharge.
In early 2019, it was blocked by the park staff for carrying snacks, East China University of Political Science and Law Xiao Wang, a junior student, sued Shanghai Disneyland in court in a lawsuit.
On September 12, 2019, according to the Shanghai Pudong New District Court, the two parties voluntarily reached a mediation agreement, and the defendant Shanghai International Theme Park Co., Ltd. compensated the plaintiff with RMB 50 (payment in court). The mediation agreement has been signed and taken effect by both parties.
In addition, due to the download of " Kingsoft Poison". When dominating the " software, it was bundled and installed with "cheetah eye protection master" and "software manager". Xiao Li, a student of the 2017 class of Huazheng, and four of her classmates sued "Kingsoft Antivirus".
After the first instance verdict and appeal... In September 2020, the case finally had a result. After mediation by the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court, the defendant paid the plaintiff 700 yuan in compensation.
"The final result was satisfactory because we safeguarded the public interest in the form of private interest litigation. "Xiao Li said that through hard work to protect rights, it seems to be a lawsuit by one person, but it actually concerns the vital interests of a large group of consumers.
Netizens: Put what you have learned into practice! Support!
Comprehensive from Shanghai Legal Daily (Reporter: Zhai Mengli), Beijing Youth Daily, Jiefang Daily, China Youth Daily previously reported
Source: China Youth Daily
