Apple ordered to pay B.C. woman $2K for cracked MacBook screen

A person holds a MacBook in this image from Shutterstock.com

B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered Apple to pay a woman more than $2,000 in damages after her MacBook screen cracked twice.

Adora Niwa-Heinen purchased a new MacBook Pro in October of 2020, according to the decision issued Friday. Just under one year later, she said the bottom corner of the screen cracked suddenly while watching a movie.

She paid nearly $1,000 to have the screen repaired, however it cracked again about eight months later.

Apple argued to the tribunal that the cracks were caused accidentally, the damage was not covered under its one-year warranty, and that it was not liable for any compensation under consumer protection laws.

The company also said Niwa-Heinen’s claim should fail because she didn’t provide expert evidence proving the cracks were caused by a defect in material or manufacturing. Tribunal member Peter Mennie, however, disagreed, citing a Supreme Court of Canada decision which held buyers are not required to show how the defect arose, but can rather indirectly prove there was a defect “by eliminating all other probable causes.”

The tribunal accepted the damage appeared during ordinary use of the laptop, relying on an affidavit from Niwa-Heinen’s partner which stated the screen cracked while watching a movie and the Mac was not dropped or hit – an account Apple did not dispute.

It also cited a report from the repair shop TLD Computers, which said the MacBook had an “internal fracture” but was otherwise in good condition and noted no damage to the exterior.

For its part, Apple submitted an affidavit from a TLD manager, who claimed “manufacturing defects in a MacBook’s screen are always recorded on TLD’s reports as a single crack,” Mennie wrote.

“(The manager) concluded that the references to multiple cracks in TLD’s reports meant that the MacBook’s screen cracks were caused by physical damage that was not covered by Apple’s warranty,” the decision continues.

However, Mennie said he placed “little weight” on the affidavit because the repair shop manager “does not have the expertise to offer an opinion about MacBook screen manufacturing defects,” did not inspect Niwa-Heinen’s specific laptop, and contradicted other technicians who said 2020 MacBook Pros have recurring issues with internal screen fractures.

In addition, “(the manager) said that a defect in a MacBook’s screen will always be a single crack. However, (they) provided no justification for this blanket statement. A defect, such as an excessively fragile screen, could presumably lead to multiple cracks through ordinary use,” the decision reads.

Mennie also called an internal record submitted by Apple that claimed the MacBook was repaired after suffering impact damage “self-serving and unreliable,” as the company didn’t say who made the record or what information it was based on, and there was no evidence an Apple employee examined the laptop.

The tribunal thus ordered Apple to reimburse Niwa-Heinen $968.80 for the screen repair.

After the screen cracked again, Niwa-Heinen replaced the MacBook, but applied for additional damages under the Sale of Goods Act, which implies warranties for purchases including that goods must be of “merchantable quality” and they must be “durable for a reasonable period,” Mennie explained.

He specifically found that Apple breached the SGA because the MacBook was not durable.

“I accept Ms. Niwa-Heinen’s uncontradicted evidence that MacBooks are marketed for active students, meaning the MacBook’s normal use required it to be durable enough to withstand daily use and transport. In this case, the MacBook’s screen cracked in less than one year and again around eight months after being repaired,” he wrote.

“I also accept that Ms. Niwa-Heinen suffered distress and inconvenience which were foreseeable consequences of her MacBook failing twice during her university studies.”

In total, the tribunal ordered Apple to pay the applicant $2,365.42, including CRT fees and pre-judgement interest.