a Apple was ordered to compensate R$ 3,000 in moral damages A man bought an iPhone that came without the charger in the box. The Rio de Janeiro court recognized that Massa's practice of selling the device without a charger constitutes splicing, which is illegal under consumer protection laws.
The decision was taken unanimously by the judges of the 18th Chamber of Private Law of the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro (TJ/RJ). In addition to the compensation amount of R$3,000, plaintiff Mateus dos Santos Bigorim Abreu will receive another R$219, the amount paid for the iPhone charger.
The rapporteur of the case, Judge Claudio de Mello Tavares, stressed in his decision that a company that sells an electronic device must “provide such an option.” [de fornecer todos os itens para funcionamento do eletrônico]Providing the consumer with the means and materials necessary for the adaptability and functionality of their goods.
Since 2020, Apple has been selling iPhones without a charging source in the box (Photo: LeoPatrizi/Getty Images)
“on condition The addon seems necessary to use the main asset“Causing property damage and diversion of production is subject to compensation,” the judge also wrote.
Regarding moral damage, the judge considered that compensation was necessary because the customer had to spend time in a “situation of poor service” in order to “provide a solution to a problem caused by the supplier.”
the other side
To respond to g1, Apple stated that it would not comment on the court's decision. The tech giant may appeal the decision.
Just as it has advocated since it began selling iPhones without a charger in the box, in 2020, Apple has signaled in the process that it is clearly reporting the issue.
The iPhone 15 was the first to ditch the USB-C lighting standard (Image: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Furthermore, the company has defended the product's “irrelevance” ever since In theory, a cell phone can be charged by alternative means, such as using the cable on a computer. Apple also claimed that this action complied with environmental legislation, by discouraging the proliferation of energy sources, and for this reason it rejected the duty to compensate.
Mação has already received several fines and lost some cases related to the charger not being in the box, but it has not yet changed its policy of not providing the source.
