The Italian Competition Authority AGCM found that the allegations of Apple on waterproof devices do not correspond to reality, as they only concern under laboratory conditions with purified water. These are the devices iPhone 8 up to iPhone 11.
According to AGCM, the advertising practices of Apple's subsidiary in Italy are misleading because the company claims that the mobile phones in question are water-resistant to a depth of one to four metres and for a duration of 30 minutes. But it did not specify that it was static and purified water in a laboratory environment.
AGCM also identified problem and with the guarantee offered by the company, as it does not cover liquid damage, which contradicts the claims of waterproofing in its advertisements. It should be noted that in those ads the iPhones are shown coming into contact with water.
Not being covered by the guarantee is considered a violation of consumer rights under Italian law and has even been described as an “aggressive” practice. However, in its forms, Apple recommends that buyers of its products not swim or bathe with their iPhone. However, the Authority noted that this reference is not sufficient, the Authority noted, to be used to circumvent the company's obligations with regard to a product that does not work in the way advertised.
“Tritute” the evil
As a result, AGCM imposed a fine of EUR 5 million for each of the two practices found to be problematic. In addition to the fine of EUR 10 million, Apple is required to publish on its website the conclusion of the Competition Authority.
However, this is not the first time that the Italy puts the American multinational in the crosshairs. In 2018, it was also fined ten million euros for the problems caused on iPhone 6 devices by the installation of the iOS 10 operating system, which had higher power requirements. But the update that would have solved the problem also ended up burdening the devices' processors.
The Italian authorities also found that the company did not inform users of its devices about the operation of their batteries. In fact, it was directly accused of “planned obsolescence”, a practice designed to encourage consumers to constantly buy a company's refurbished products.
