PDF (Español)
FLIP
How to Cite
Soto Pineda, J. A. . (2021). USA vs. Apple Inc.: regarding the litigation caused by the planned technological obsolescence. Jurídicas, 18(1), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.17151/jurid.2021.18.1.16
More Citation Formats
Authors
Jesús Alfonso Soto Pineda
Perfil Google Scholar
Abstract
Planned obsolescence is becoming a more frequent motive of litigation in the international sphere, which damages are being claimed by both public authorities and individuals affected by such behaviour, that seek fair retribution. Therefore, this paper aims to analyse different private actions against the technological company, Apple, who has pparently taken advantage of consumers’ lack of knowledge of their area of business, to put into practice tactics for ending their products’ lifespan and by doing so, increase their demand. Particularly, this paper discusses the substantive juridical grounds alleged by different class actions in the United States in the last years, against Apple, and their connection with planned obsolescence. The results of the research show that there is a clear increase in the litigation of the technological planned obsolescence around the
world and that the arguments used in those cases are mainly private, despite the fact that public concerns are also present.
Keywords:
References
Bonfanti, M. A. (2001). Derecho del Consumidor y del Usuario. Buenos Aires: Abeledo-Perrot.
Dasgupta, A., Magrab, E. B., Anand, D. K., Eisinger, K., McLeish, J. G., Torres, M. A. & Dishongh, T. J. (1997). Perspectives to understand risks in the electronic industry. IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing Technology: Part A, 20(4), 542-547. DOI: 10.1109/95.650946
Del Mastro, A. (18 de julio de 2012). Planned obsolescence: the good and the bad. Property and Environment Research Center (PERC). https://www.perc.org/2012/07/18/planned-obsolescencethe-good-and-the-bad/
Estados Unidos, District Court for the District of New Jersey. (2003). JazzPhoto Corp. v. International Trade Comission (Fuji Photo Film Co.). F. Supp. 2d 434, D.N.J.
Estados Unidos, District Court for the District of New Jersey. (1949) United States vs. General Electric Co. et al. F. Supp. 753.
Estados Unidos, Eastern District of New York. (2017). Lerman vs. Apple Inc. Case No. 1:15-cv-07381.
https://www.truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Lerman-v-Apple-order-denyingmotion-to-dismiss.pdf
Estados Unidos, Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, Judicial Council Proceeding No. 4355, Class action, In Re iPod Cases, Notice of pendency and proposed settlement of class action. (2005). Andrew Westley y otros vs. Apple.
Estados Unidos, Suprema Corte de los Estados Unidos. (2009). Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678.
Estados Unidos, Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”). (1970). California Civil Code, secciones 1750-1784.
Estados Unidos, District Court for the Central District of California. (2017). Bogdanovich & Dakota Speas vs. Apple Inc. Case No.2:17-cv-09138. https://es.scribd.com/document/367729251/Class-ActionLawsuit-against-Apple-Inc
Estados Unidos, District Court for the Northern District California. (2017). Michael Hakimi vs. Apple Inc. Case No.3:17-cv-07292. https://es.scribd.com/document/367896137/Michael-Hakimi-v-AppleClass-Action-for-Purposely-Slowing-IPhones
Estados Unidos, District Court for the Northern District California. (2017). Gallmann vs. Apple. Case No. 5:17-cv-07285-NC.
Estados Unidos, District Court for the Northern District of California. (2017). Keaton Hearvey vs. Apple Inc. Case No. 5:17-cv-07274-NC. https://es.scribd.com/document/367815541/Keaton-Harvey-vsApple-Battery-Issue-Lawsuit-3-Dec-2017.z
Estados Unidos, District Court for the Sourthern District of New York. (2017). Eliezer Rabinovits & Victor Mazzeo vs Apple Inc. Case No. 1:17-cv-10032. https://es.scribd.com/document/367816750/Eliezer-Rabinovits-v-Apple-Class-Action
Estados Unidos, Magnuson Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act, sección 2304.
Estados Unidos, Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California Business & Professional Code, secciones 17200-17209.
Estados Unidos, Westley vs. Apple Computer, Inc. En el que fueron unificados los siguientes asuntos: Craft v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Diciembre 23, 2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court); Chin v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Diciembre 23, 2003, San Mateo County Superior Court); Hughes v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Diciembre 23, 2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court); Westley v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Diciembre 26, 2003, San Francisco County Superior Court); Keegan v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Diciembre 30, 2003,Alameda County Superior Court); Wagya v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Febrero 19, 2004, Alameda County Superior Court); Yamin v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Febrero 24, 2004, Los Angeles County Superior Court); Kieta v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Julio 8, 2004, Alameda County Superior Court).
Jayme, E. & Pichio, F. L. (1990) Giurisdizione e legge applicabile ai contratti nella CEE. Padova: CEDAM.
Kelly, G. (21 de diciembre de 2017). Why your iPhone is slowing down. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2017/12/21/apple-iphone-battery-life-slow-iphone-performance-ios11-battery/#24656165674b
Martínez-Luna, W. F. (2017). La obsolescencia programada en los contratos internacionales de consumo. En P. J. Soto (ed.), Aproximaciones jurídicas a la obsolescencia programada (pp. 279-320). Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.
Moreno-Blesa, L. (2017). Las controversias del Derecho Internacional Privado derivadas de las limitaciones aplicadas a la vida útil de los productos. En P. J. Soto (ed.), Aproximaciones jurídicas a la obsolescencia programada (pp. 321-362). Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.
O’Dowd, R. J. (2010). A survey of electronics obsolescence and reliability (No. DSTO-TR-2437). Edinburgh: Air Operations Division. DSTO. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a531873.pdf
Soto, P. J. A. (2015). En torno a la relevancia jurídica de una estrategia empresarial consolidada y subyacente: la obsolescencia programada. Libro Colección Enrique Low Murtra. Derecho económico X, Universidad Externado, 325-428.
Soto, P. J. A. (2017a). Reflexiones Acerca de las Posibles Incompatibilidades de la Obsolescencia Programada Con el Sistema de Defensa de los Consumidores. Actualidad Civil, 6, 40-55.
Soto, P. J. A. (2017b). La obsolescencia programada y la defensa de la libre competencia. En P. J. Soto (ed.), Aproximaciones jurídicas a la obsolescencia programada. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.
Torresen, J. & Lovland, T. A. (2007). Parts obsolescence challenges for the electronics industry. In 2007 IEEE Design and Diagnostics of Electronic Circuits and Systems (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
Dasgupta, A., Magrab, E. B., Anand, D. K., Eisinger, K., McLeish, J. G., Torres, M. A. & Dishongh, T. J. (1997). Perspectives to understand risks in the electronic industry. IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing Technology: Part A, 20(4), 542-547. DOI: 10.1109/95.650946
Del Mastro, A. (18 de julio de 2012). Planned obsolescence: the good and the bad. Property and Environment Research Center (PERC). https://www.perc.org/2012/07/18/planned-obsolescencethe-good-and-the-bad/
Estados Unidos, District Court for the District of New Jersey. (2003). JazzPhoto Corp. v. International Trade Comission (Fuji Photo Film Co.). F. Supp. 2d 434, D.N.J.
Estados Unidos, District Court for the District of New Jersey. (1949) United States vs. General Electric Co. et al. F. Supp. 753.
Estados Unidos, Eastern District of New York. (2017). Lerman vs. Apple Inc. Case No. 1:15-cv-07381.
https://www.truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Lerman-v-Apple-order-denyingmotion-to-dismiss.pdf
Estados Unidos, Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, Judicial Council Proceeding No. 4355, Class action, In Re iPod Cases, Notice of pendency and proposed settlement of class action. (2005). Andrew Westley y otros vs. Apple.
Estados Unidos, Suprema Corte de los Estados Unidos. (2009). Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678.
Estados Unidos, Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”). (1970). California Civil Code, secciones 1750-1784.
Estados Unidos, District Court for the Central District of California. (2017). Bogdanovich & Dakota Speas vs. Apple Inc. Case No.2:17-cv-09138. https://es.scribd.com/document/367729251/Class-ActionLawsuit-against-Apple-Inc
Estados Unidos, District Court for the Northern District California. (2017). Michael Hakimi vs. Apple Inc. Case No.3:17-cv-07292. https://es.scribd.com/document/367896137/Michael-Hakimi-v-AppleClass-Action-for-Purposely-Slowing-IPhones
Estados Unidos, District Court for the Northern District California. (2017). Gallmann vs. Apple. Case No. 5:17-cv-07285-NC.
Estados Unidos, District Court for the Northern District of California. (2017). Keaton Hearvey vs. Apple Inc. Case No. 5:17-cv-07274-NC. https://es.scribd.com/document/367815541/Keaton-Harvey-vsApple-Battery-Issue-Lawsuit-3-Dec-2017.z
Estados Unidos, District Court for the Sourthern District of New York. (2017). Eliezer Rabinovits & Victor Mazzeo vs Apple Inc. Case No. 1:17-cv-10032. https://es.scribd.com/document/367816750/Eliezer-Rabinovits-v-Apple-Class-Action
Estados Unidos, Magnuson Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act, sección 2304.
Estados Unidos, Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California Business & Professional Code, secciones 17200-17209.
Estados Unidos, Westley vs. Apple Computer, Inc. En el que fueron unificados los siguientes asuntos: Craft v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Diciembre 23, 2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court); Chin v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Diciembre 23, 2003, San Mateo County Superior Court); Hughes v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Diciembre 23, 2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court); Westley v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Diciembre 26, 2003, San Francisco County Superior Court); Keegan v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Diciembre 30, 2003,Alameda County Superior Court); Wagya v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Febrero 19, 2004, Alameda County Superior Court); Yamin v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Febrero 24, 2004, Los Angeles County Superior Court); Kieta v. Apple Computer, Inc. (Julio 8, 2004, Alameda County Superior Court).
Jayme, E. & Pichio, F. L. (1990) Giurisdizione e legge applicabile ai contratti nella CEE. Padova: CEDAM.
Kelly, G. (21 de diciembre de 2017). Why your iPhone is slowing down. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2017/12/21/apple-iphone-battery-life-slow-iphone-performance-ios11-battery/#24656165674b
Martínez-Luna, W. F. (2017). La obsolescencia programada en los contratos internacionales de consumo. En P. J. Soto (ed.), Aproximaciones jurídicas a la obsolescencia programada (pp. 279-320). Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.
Moreno-Blesa, L. (2017). Las controversias del Derecho Internacional Privado derivadas de las limitaciones aplicadas a la vida útil de los productos. En P. J. Soto (ed.), Aproximaciones jurídicas a la obsolescencia programada (pp. 321-362). Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.
O’Dowd, R. J. (2010). A survey of electronics obsolescence and reliability (No. DSTO-TR-2437). Edinburgh: Air Operations Division. DSTO. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a531873.pdf
Soto, P. J. A. (2015). En torno a la relevancia jurídica de una estrategia empresarial consolidada y subyacente: la obsolescencia programada. Libro Colección Enrique Low Murtra. Derecho económico X, Universidad Externado, 325-428.
Soto, P. J. A. (2017a). Reflexiones Acerca de las Posibles Incompatibilidades de la Obsolescencia Programada Con el Sistema de Defensa de los Consumidores. Actualidad Civil, 6, 40-55.
Soto, P. J. A. (2017b). La obsolescencia programada y la defensa de la libre competencia. En P. J. Soto (ed.), Aproximaciones jurídicas a la obsolescencia programada. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.
Torresen, J. & Lovland, T. A. (2007). Parts obsolescence challenges for the electronics industry. In 2007 IEEE Design and Diagnostics of Electronic Circuits and Systems (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
