It is neither the first nor will it be the last lawsuit brought against Apple. The last one has been presented by a Chinese lawyer claiming misleading advertising. And, when we go to the Apple Store online, we can read the phrase «the only thing that changes is everything»Something that the lawyer, named He Ganlin, assures is totally false. As He says, the iPhone 6s «has nothing new»When compared to the previous generation model, the iPhone 6.
A court in Canton, the southern Chinese province where He Ganlin resides, has accepted the case. The lawyer alleges that the words "single" and "all" violate the new Chinese advertising law, a law that prohibits including absolute terms in ads like "best" or "perfect." What is not entirely clear is whether he will win the case, since Apple would have planned to comply with the laws of all countries, especially China, which is the country that has made them grow the most in the last two years.
As for what the Chinese lawyer hopes to get, He Ganlin asks those in Cupertino for a total of 20.000 yuan, which is about three times the price he paid for the iPhone, 6.858 yuan, something that is not clear either, since that if what you expect is to collect damages, you should only ask for the value of the iPhone and the costs generated by the purchase itself, such as gasoline, shipping costs and the like. For asking, that is not. If Apple has committed any regularity, it would have done so against China's new law, but I am not a lawyer.
Apple has yet to comment, but you need to be careful when it comes to solving this case. Whatever you decide, you must not allow the Chinese to feel betrayed in any way, which could cause the company led by Tim Cook to lose the ground it has gained in China in recent years.
Payment for moral damage is requested. It is intangible. If you are not a lawyer, you should stop giving your opinion
Hi, Jman. I am not a lawyer, but I have been in several trials. The moral damage ... I would tell you things, but better than not. I can say with what I have seen, which is not little. Even so, I write clearly that "it is not clear either," which is not an opinion, if not to express ignorance.
A greeting.
non-pecuniary damage ... it is clear that you are the typical usurious lawyer who is resorted to by the worst ilk to get money from even rats ... It is the typical case of the idiot on duty who hopes to get his iPhone for free. If you don't like it or it doesn't comply, YOU RETURN IT, that's what Apple's return policy is for. I do not see that people sue when a TV does not fulfill what they expect or say, RETURN IT to the store and get their money back AND POINT. With many lawyers like you, this is why there are this ilk of people. Do society a favor and jump out the window from the fourth floor up, lest you survive
Pablo, I would not like to depend on you for any matter. If you have nothing to say ... do I need to say it?
Good morning,
Jman, I do not know if you will be a lawyer or not, I deduce that if from your comment, with more reason you should know what FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION is ... it is a shame that a comment like this dirties a post on this page and also leaves in between saying "your high knowledge in law." All the best.
Greetings Pablo, I read your post daily, you are a crack