Apple is being sued because of the refurbished iDevices offered through AppleCare+

AppleCare +AppleCare + is a premium warranty service sold by the company Apple Lossless Audio CODEC (ALAC), customers who buy products sold through its stores, it being expensive, but with the promise that any product can be replaced.

Although Apple replaced no less than two iPhone terminals after their screens were broken, a woman from Texas intends to initiate a class action against the Apple company saying that the refurbished terminals offered through AppleCare+ do not meet her standards.

More precisely, the woman claims that in the AppleCare+ terms and conditions, the Apple company claims that the terminals offered as replacements are "like new with equivalent performance", and she believes that the devices should be new and not refurbished, as the Apple company does at the moment from the girl.

In its terms, the Apple company is sufficiently vague in its expression not to imply that it will replace broken terminals with new ones, but only with ones that are like new or equivalent and have the performance of new terminals, bought directly from its store.

...Apple will either (a) repair the defect at no charge, using new or refurbished parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability, or (b) exchange the Covered Equipment with a replacement product that is new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability, and is at least functionally equivalent to the original product.

Considering this ambiguous expression, the woman claims that the terminals offered as replacements have a "propensity" to break, so that Apple earns money from the sums paid by users for replacement, so she demands damages from the Apple company.

Of course, if we look at the fact that this woman damaged two iPhone models multiple times, we can understand that she is not really that handy, but on the other hand, the terms established by Apple for the AppleCare+ service should not be overlooked either .

Whether an installation will accept this process or not remains to be seen, but it is unlikely that it will result in the granting of damages.