Leaving aside the lawyer jokes (we've heard 'em all), there seems to be some confusion about the facts of the case, which centers on whether or not Apple informed purchasers ahead of time that the iPhone's battery was sealed and would need to be professionally replaced after a fixed number of charges -- leaving the owner without a cell phone in the interim.
The complaint claims that this information did not appear in the product's packaging and never came up in Apple's promotion or marketing of the device. A group called the Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayer Rights made a similar complaint about a week after the iPhone went on sale.
At the risk of being called as a witness in the trial, this is what I've learned about what Steve Jobs and Apple said about the battery issue and when they said it:
At the MacWorld keynote in which he introduced the iPhone, Jobs gave specs on battery life but did not volunteer the information that it wasn't user replaceable. Neither does Apple's Jan. 9 iPhone press release.
In subsequent press coverage, the news eventually leaked out, perhaps most memorably in John Dvorak's famous iPhone podcast, in which he quotes an unnamed Cingular (AT&T) executive complaining about the "amateur mistake" Apple made in not having a removable battery.
But the issue here is what Apple said or didn't say, not what the press surmised.
On June 18, Apple issued another press release:
CUPERTINO, California—June 18, 2007—Apple® today announced that iPhone™ will deliver significantly longer battery life when it ships on June 29 than was originally estimated when iPhone was unveiled in January. iPhone will feature up to 8 hours of talk time, 6 hours of Internet use, 7 hours of video playback or 24 hours of audio playback.*
Nothing about battery replacement.
On June 29, the iPhone was released and sold like hot cakes.
On July 2, Glenn Fleishmann on TidBits posted an item complaining that Apple had not yet provided details about the cost of replacing the battery . A week later, he posted a corrective:
...in fact, those were apparently available for at least a day on the Apple Store's ordering page for the iPhone (click the Warranty button in the bottom right). Other repair information appears to have shown up on or around 02-Jul-07.
Among the information Fleishmann says showed up "on or around July 2" is Apple's "iPhone Service FAQ." That file contains this paragraph:
My iPhone warranty has expired. What are my service options?
Apple offers two service options for iPhones that are no longer within warranty. If your iPhone requires service only because the battery’s ability to hold an electrical charge has diminished, Apple will replace your battery for a service fee of $79, plus $6.95 shipping and handling.
The FAQ also describes Apple's $29 Apple Care Service Phone program, which provides a loaner cell phone for use during the three business days yours is off being repaired.
According to Trujillo's complaint, Apple spokesperson Jennifer Hakes confirmed that "Apple posted the battery replacement program details on its website after the iPhone went on sale."
On July 23 Apple posted its iPhone Battery page, describing the proper care and feeding of an iPhone battery. It contains this key paragraph:
Charge Cycles
A properly maintained iPhone battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 400 full charge and discharge cycles. You may choose to replace your battery when it no longer holds sufficient charge to meet your needs.
That "replace" link takes you to a page that tells you what it will cost for the service.
Does any of this justify a class action lawsuit or entitle Mr. Trujillo, his lawyers and the class of iPhone purchasers to damages? You be the judge.
For more on the battery issue, see Joe Nocera's column in the June 30 New York Times, which looks at it from pretty much every angle except the legal and gives Steve Dowling and others at Apple PR a couple of chances to say their piece. (Free subscription required.)