We and our partners store or access information on devices using cookies, for the purposes described in our privacy centre.. You may click to accept to our and our partners’ processing for such purposes. Alternatively, you may click close to refuse to consent.
A man in the city of Goiânia, Brazil purchased a new iPhone which did not include a charger in its retail box. While he had to know that it didn’t come with a charger – as it’s clearly marked as such – he decided to buy the iPhone anyway and then take Apple to Court.
The issue made its way to a local court and the presiding judge ordered Apple to compensate the customer five thousand Brazilian real (roughly $1081 USD).
Judge Vanderlei Caires Pinheiro of the Goiânia 6th Special Civil Court found Apple committed an ‘abusive and illegal commercial practice’.
Caires Pinheiro wrote that Apple forced into a tie-in sale where ‘consumer to purchase a second product of its exclusive manufacture which without the main product does not serve the purpose for which it is manufactured (and) intended.’
Apple was given 10 days to comply with the judge’s order. Failing to do so will carry a daily penalty of 100 reais, or $21.63, until the matter is resolved.
Apple first made the decision to stop including chargers with their iPhone retail boxes back in 2020 when it first launched the iPhone 12. Each of the company’s flagship mobile devices has been shipping without included chargers since. The Brazilian government has previously butted heads with Apple on the issue.
A São Paulo consumer protection agency imposed a $2.2 million fine on Apple in March for selling iPhones without chargers.
Apple is thought to have sold 190 million iPhones worldwide since the move, which was applauded by environmentalists.
Total gains from removing chargers and earphones, plus reduced shipping costs, could be as high as $6.5 billion, with an additional estimated $293 million from the sale of accessories.
‘It is not appropriate that such a measure seeks to reduce environmental impacts, since, in all evidence, the defendant continues to manufacture such an essential accessory, but now sells it separately,’ Caires Pinheiro said.