Advice regarding consumer rights claim vs Apple (on a MacBook Pro)

No response from Apple as far as I can see / have heard, but no change on the online portal either way.

I tried calling the phone number of the registrar on Thursday; no answer. Left an email to their address… also no response yet. So I’ve heard absolutely nothing so far. The registrar said at the start of the week that if Apple hadn’t responded by Wed morning, they’d grant judgement in default. They also informed me that if they received a response, they would forward it to me. So the lack of an update is because I literally haven’t had any update on my end either :D

Thanks for the info and details on your experience. Unfortunately… it appears their solicitors did reply to my claim so it might be a while before this one sees a conclusion :(

I received a copy of Apple's dispute of the claim. They make reference to EU 2003 regulations throughout their dispute, rather than the Irish SOGA.

They mention that in the 2003 EU directive, the onus is on the consumer to provide proof that the defect existed at the time of manufacture once 6 months have passed. The SOGA has no such stipulation and takes precedence over the EU directive, I believe that is very clearly stated in said regulation (of course, I will have all of this information prepared more formally when it comes time for the hearing). SOGA makes reference to durability: 'as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances'. I think this is a good angle for me to argue down, as you expect a 'Pro' laptop costing over 3,000EUR, to last over 3.5 years without developing inherent faults with the components, especially when said laptops are supported in software updates for ~8 years typically.

They also had the cheek to mention in their dispute letter to the court that Apple, nor any Apple Authorised Service Provider, had 'the opportunity' to physically examine the device in order to identify whether the fault was a 'manufacturing defect', despite me asking them multiple times whether they would like me to send the device in or bring it to a service provider for inspection, while sending them many videos and images via email of the issue. When they refused to do anything for me in Executive Relations after waiting weeks for their response, I even asked the woman handling my case how they could judge that it was not a manufacturing fault without physically inspecting the device and she said it was deemed unnecessary. I'll be mentioning all of this to the judge in the hearing.

For being the largest company in the world with probably the most highly paid legal team on the planet, their knowledge of consumer rights laws have seemed extremely amateurish throughout this experience, to be perfectly honest. Constantly, they have given misinformation about and misunderstood Irish consumer rights.

Yep, that's the exact one, the flex cable tearing due to bad design. I will be bringing some pictures of this from YouTube, such as the one below, which shows the cable being stretched taught over a 90 degree bend around some sharp circuit boards beneath, causing a tear, which is not replaceable as Apple decided to directly solder the cable to the screen, making it unreplaceable.

I think you’re being a little bit over aggressive with your accusations and assumptions against me here, but I’m not an idiot nor am I going to speak like that in front of the judge.

Yes, the SOGA is very long and complex, but nowhere in it can I see a reference to the onus shifting to the buyer to prove there is an inherent manufacturing fault after 6 months. I have read quite a bit of the act’s text and see no reference to any 6 month period. In fact, there isn’t even a reference to a need to prove the device had an inherent fault. The act speaks about merchantable quality and an expectation of durability with respect to the price and description of the goods. This will be my main line of argument if Apple even show up; the reasonable expectation of the durability of the product given the price, as the act itself references:

”Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances, and any reference in this Act to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.”

This 6 month provision appears to come from the EU regulation which was adopted in 2003, which I have also read, and it very clearly states that it does not override any part of the SOGA, and is a supplement to it, where the consumer chooses to use it:

 In a case where the level of protection for the consumer afforded by a particular provision of any other enactment is greater than that afforded by a particular provision of these Regulations, or to the extent that the invocation of a latter such provision by the consumer would diminish the first-mentioned level of protection for him or her —

(a)        the consumer may opt to invoke the particular provision of that other enactment to the exclusion of the other provision of these Regulations and

(b)        that other provision of these Regulations may be invoked, and shall be construed and operate so as to be capable of being invoked, by the consumer in a manner that does not diminish the first-mentioned level of protection for him or her,

If I am missing something from the SOGA which enforces this 6 month onus criteria, I would greatly appreciate if you could point that out for me, rather than making assumptions about me and suggesting I’m going to act like an unprepared clown in front of the judge.

I have done quite a bit of research into this, and will continue to do my due diligence prior to the hearing, however, people bringing claims to the SCC are not expected to be qualified barristers with deep knowledge of the law; it is a court for the average person to attempt to get compensation against companies not obeying their consumer right obligations. I am not under any illusion that this is my crusade, I’m solely taking this case on principle after Apple has not looked after a device which has been rendered unusable far too soon, due to their own design issue. If I lose, so be it, the money is not the end of the world to me, I just want to take action and try my best here to satisfy my principles.

I do see this 6 month period mentioned in multiple places, but it is confusing me as I don’t see it mentioned anywhere in the actual Irish SOGA from my reading so far, only in the EU directive from 2003.

I will continue to read the SOGA and see if I can find the actual passage from legislation that this info comes from, maybe it’s hidden in some amendment or addendum which I haven’t encountered yet. Thanks for your help.