How I Was Bullied by a Company Claiming to Care About Customer Satisfaction and Holding the Highest Market Value

To summarize: AppleCare+ is a service provided by a third-party insurance company, authorized by Shanghai Ya Mei International Consulting Co. Ltd. to sell and act on behalf of Apple in a service plan. Apple Store Geniuses promote Apple's AC+ service and its excellence, but in reality, when legal disputes arise, Apple's defense states that the legal dispute is between the consumer and Shanghai Ya Mei International Consulting Co. Ltd., and Apple is only an outsider providing repair services.

At the end of October 2022, my iPhone 12 Pro accidentally got water damaged (specifically, I accidentally left it in the washing machine when washing my jacket). Since I had AC+, I took it to the Xiamen SM New Life Plaza for a factory return.

About two weeks later, I received notice from the Apple store stating that my phone had undergone unauthorized modification, and therefore, after-sales service could not be provided. I argued with them, stating that this could not be possible. I purchased the phone from the official website, used it by myself throughout the entire process, and the only time it was opened (possibly) was the last time I sent it to Apple for repair due to excessive battery consumption (not holding a charge overnight). Apple returned the phone stating that there was no problem. Up to when I returned the phone for water damage repair, the abnormal battery consumption still existed. The direct branch stated that they could only notify me of the issue and could not handle any further problems.

I contacted Apple Hotline and explained that I had AC+ coverage, and since the phone sent to them was factory original without any modifications, why wouldn't I go through Apple repair services for any normal or accidental damage? Did they have any evidence of unauthorized modifications? Could the unauthorized modifications they referred to be related to any previous repairs done by either Apple or the direct branch?

Apple Hotline explained that they understood my concern and that they wouldn't choose third-party repairs, but their factory conclusions, including reviews, indicated that it had undergone third-party modifications. They had no evidence, and their after-sales service was very professional, so they wouldn't leave any traces during an open repair that would cause subsequent problems.

After researching online, I found that there are many similar cases.

Afterward, I filed a complaint with Xiamen's 12315(12315:market supervision administration in China), which stated that they would coordinate with Apple on my behalf. However, there was no resolution to resolve the related Apple issues, and they recommended that I prepare for legal action. A week later, Xiamen 12315 called me back, stating that Apple refused 12315's mediatory services and advised me to seek legal action. (I want to commend Xiamen 12315 for supporting consumer rights throughout the entire process by providing advice and legal support.)

Next, I filed a suit with the Beijing Internet Court (because my invoice was issued by Apple Electronic Products Trade (Beijing) Co., Ltd.), but was informed that they do not accept claims outside of public e-commerce platforms. Public e-commerce platforms refer to businesses like Taobao and JD.com which have entered into agreements with Apple. Apple's official website is considered non-public and thus outside of the jurisdiction of the Internet Court. Therefore, I had to file a suit offline.

I then filed the suit with the Jimei District Court of Xiamen (the performance location of the purchase contract), arguing that according to the purchase contract, the machine and AC+ service were bought on the same contract, for the performance location of Xiamen, and thus the contract should be fulfilled in Xiamen. However, Apple argued before the trial began that the defendant, Apple Electronic Products Trade (Beijing) Co., Ltd., was a third party in this lawsuit. The lawsuit is between the plaintiff, Shanghai Ya Mei International Consulting Co., Ltd., and the third party, Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., and thus should be filed in Shanghai according to the AC+ contract.

The local court in Xiamen ruled that the objection to jurisdiction was established and transferred the case to Pudong New Area in Shanghai.

In summary, Apple's AC service in China is nothing more than an empty promise. Apple can, without any justification or explanation, reject the agreed-upon accidental damage repair services. Even their own legal response clearly states that even if you purchase AC, there is no legal relationship between the user and Apple. Apple is merely an outsourced company authorized by Shanghai Ya Mei International Consulting Co. Ltd. to sell services and repair phones. The service contract you signed does not establish a legal relationship with Apple.