Apple faces class-action lawsuit over iPhone XR signal

Apple Inc. filed a class-action lawsuit on Monday, Appleinsider reported. The plaintiffs allege that Apple’s failure to disclose the design and performance differences between the “poor” 2×2 MIMO antenna array used by the iPhone XR and the 4×4 MIMO antenna array used by the iPhone XS/XS Max was deliberately misleading.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, says the iPhone XR’s antenna solution is not as good as the iPhone XS’s 4×4 MIMO array. In addition, Apple didn’t notify consumers of the design “to make the iPhone XR half the signal connectivity and 4G speed of the iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max, and to significantly reduce the XR’s ability to secure connectivity in the same area”.

Apple faces class-action lawsuit over iPhone XR signal
Apple faces class-action lawsuit over iPhone XR signal

Some previous tests conducted by the media appear to have at least partially supported these claims, and it is doubtful whether Apple is covering up this fact, as the company clearly stated the antenna layout of the iPhone XR on its technical specifications page, which understands is bet on “802.11ac WiFi With 2×2 MIMO” in the description of the “cellular and wireless” feature.

The lawsuit says the 2×2 MIMO antenna array is “defective” because users have complained about connectivity issues in the UK and elsewhere, including the United States. Shortly after the purchase, the plaintiff’s iPhone XR began showing signs of a drop in network connectivity.

In addition to voice communication failures, the phone has problems sending and receiving text messages, and the data connection is intermittent or inoperable. The lawsuit reported almost identical issues with plaintiffs living in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin.

The lawsuit alleges that Apple violated an express warranty, an implied warranty, violated the California Consumer Law Remedies Act, violated California’s Unfair Competition Act, and concealed fraud. The plaintiffs sought grade proof of unspecified losses and attorneys’ fees of more than $5 million.

Must Check: