A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Apple’s iPad overheats when exposed to the sun.
The suit, filed in Oakland, Califonia in July, said the device wasn’t living up to the standards Apple had set for it.
The complaint alleged that the iPad “turns off, sometimes after just a few minutes of use,” when exposed to direct sunlight. According to the complaint, consumers who took their iPads outside encountered a yellow warning triangle accompanied by the phrase, “iPad needs to cool down before you can use it.”
“The iPad does not live up to the reasonable consumer's expectations created by Apple insofar as the iPad overheats so quickly under common weather conditions that it does not function for prolonged use outdoors, or in many other warm conditions,” according to the complaint.
The device’s irritating quirk has prompted some techies to try home-grown solutions. Zach Honig, an editor with PC Magazine, took his iPad outside on a warm New York day in April, only to have the tablet shut down after roughly 10 minutes in the park. Undeterred, Honig put the iPad in the fridge and reported that it turned back on after just a few short minutes.
iPad is not “just like a book”: suit
The suit’s plaintiffs -- Jacob Balthazar, Claudia Keller and John Browning -- specifically took issue with Apple’s statement that “reading on iPad is just like reading a book.”
“Using an iPad is not 'just like reading a book' at all since books do not close when the reader is enjoying them in the sunlight or in other normal environmental conditions,” the complaint pointed out.
That claim appears to have come from the Apple page touting the iBooks feature for iPad, which asserts that “[r]eading on iPad is just like reading a book. You hold your iPad like a book. You flip the pages like a book. And you do it all with your hands -- just like a book.”
Lack of evidence
But Judge Jeremy Fogel, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, was unconvinced.
In his order, Judge Fogel wrote that the plaintiffs had failed to present enough evidence to support their allegations of intentional and negligent misrepresentation.
“[The plaintiffs’] allegations are insufficient,” Fogel wrote. “At the least, Plaintiffs must identify the particular commercial or advertisement upon which they relied and must describe with the requisite specificity the content of that particular commercial or advertisement.”
Fogel did not leave the plaintiffs without recourse, however. In his order, he allowed them to refile the suit within 30 days if they are able to provide more specific allegations.
