Skip to main content

Apple faces ‘Error 53’ class action lawsuit in U.S., may also be in breach of UK law

error-53

A Seattle-based law firm is preparing to file a class action lawsuit against Apple over iOS updates bricking iPhones whose home buttons have been repaired or replaced by third-party companies. The Guardian reports that lawyers PCVA are inviting those who have experienced the ‘Error 53’ problem to contact them.

A London-based lawyer also believes that the issue may place Apple in breach of consumer law in the UK …

Apple says that the issue is a security feature designed to ensure that Touch ID cannot be compromised.

Error 53 is the result of security checks designed to protect our customers. iOS checks that the Touch ID sensor in your iPhone or iPad correctly matches your device’s other components.

If iOS finds a mismatch, the check fails and Touch ID, including for Apple Pay use, is disabled. This security measure is necessary to protect your device and prevent a fraudulent Touch ID sensor from being used. 

But law firm PCVA believes that Apple’s policy may violate consumer protection laws in the USA.

We believe Apple may be intentionally forcing users to use their repair services, which cost much more than most third-party repair shops. There is incentive for Apple to keep end users from finding alternative methods to fix their products.

UK barrister Richard Colbey says it is likely the same is true in the UK, and that Apple may even be guilty of causing criminal damage.

It is hard to see how something which ceases to work in this way could be said to be of reasonable quality, one of the determinants of which is durability. The law states: ‘A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.’

Apple says that those who experience Error 53 should contact Apple Support, but has not yet responded to a question I asked yesterday about whether it is able to resolve the issue for those owners other than by providing a chargeable out-of-warranty replacement.

Those interested in joining the class action lawsuit can register at PCVA’s website.

It’s not unusual for class action suits to be filed against Apple, recent examples including iOS 9 performance on older devices and two different ones relating to mobile data charges.

Photo: Michaela Rehle/Reuters

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. William D - 8 years ago

    Apple really screwed up here. If they were going to add this lock in they should have done it when TouchID first came out, and make the parts wildely available to repair services etc, and not retroactively disable functioning iPhones

    • They screwed up by waiting until the next update before reporting the error. If they would have have reported the error at power on it would have been obvious that it was not actually a repaired, and users would not have been scammed into paying for the bogus repair.

    • Rich Davis (@RichDavis9) - 8 years ago

      Apple has their own service centers (Apple Stores) and a variety of Independent Authorized Service Locations that will either swap the phone out or perform certain break/fix. The problem is based on several fundamental problems.

      1. People aren’t backing up their device before they do an OS update or having it serviced.
      2. Some people are using really cheap cables, chargers etc. that aren’t Made For Apple. That means they can also destroy the product.
      3. Some people are taking their devices to UN-Authorized Service Centers and they don’t have the training, the diagnostic tools, genuine Apple replacement parts, etc. and that’s where a lot of this is coming from.

      If you look at ANY reputable mfg., LG, Samsung, HTC, Lenovo, Dell, HP, etc. etc. etc. They service their products through Authorized Service Centers OR direct through the company (not many of them actually have their own store fronts). All reputable hardware mfg have the same constraints for servicing their products and I don’t think any lawsuit will have enough merit.

      The problems is that there are too many “I can fix an iPhone, iPad or Mac” idiots loose. Even iFixIt isn’t an Authorized Service Center for anyone and not all of their information is accurate, and people simply don’t have access to proper diagnostic tools and genuine parts. These Independent Authorized Service Locations have to prove their financial stability, they have to invest having their employees go through Apple training, they are in the Apple Service Eco-system so they can perform Warranty Repairs, etc.

      If you go outside the mfg’s service eco system, then you are just inviting trouble. PERIOD. If you don’t back up your data before an OS update or bringing in for service, then you are inviting trouble. I always bring my devices in at least once a year just to get them to diagnose the unit to check the battery and any other problems, JUST TO MAKE SURE. I have NEVER had a problem, other than an accidental screen crack, which wasn’t anyone’s fault other than my own, but i took it to an Independent as it was out of warranty, and it got fixed and it wasn’t that expensive. $140 with shipping to/from for an iPad 4 screen.

      It’s a buyer beware scenario, the Error message just comes up when there is a problem and they might be able to see where the problem is, but it’s still up the user to perform backups, and it’s up to the user to bring their device in to an AUTHORIZED Service Center and they also have the option of buying an extended warranty, which I always recommend for any computer devices, especially mobile devices. If you trade in your device for a new one before the 2 years is up, they credit you if the difference so you can use to help pay for the new service contract.

      I just find any lawsuit against Apple for this situation is totally frivolous and the customers need to be reminded that THEY need to better care of their device, back up data, take to only authorized service centers and bring the device in before the warranty is up and not use cheap chargers, cables that aren’t Made For Apple. and that will minimize any problems.

      • kevinhancox - 8 years ago

        @Rich Davis, the issue here is not that people use 3rd party repair centres, it is that the way in which they have locked the phone down is illegal, as they never did this in previous versions or made it clear that changing the home button would activate security they set a precedent that has made there software cause damage to the phone, and rightly so people will pursue this. It will cost Apple in the end, as they cannot legally do this.! There has always been the right to have your item repaired at your own cost should you choose to do so at the repair centre you choose to do so… Like it is Apples right not to touch it after it has been repaired at an unauthorised service centre if things go wrong. But to implement software that bricks the phone is criminal after the fact..!

  2. William D - 8 years ago

    What makes zero sense is that Apple hasn’t blocked iPhone 5s in the same way.

    • alanaudio - 8 years ago

      iPhone 5S uses a different CPU and doesn’t have the secure enclave, so the security issue isn’t relavent. You can’t use a 5S for Apple Pay ( except with an Apple Watch ).

      • William D - 8 years ago

        Sorry, thought there was – for unlocking the phone – a Secure Element even on the 5s. So basically you can just change the Touch ID to get into the phone ?

      • deienos - 8 years ago

        This is incorrect. The 5S does have a secure enclave. I haven’t read any issues for Error 53 for the 6S either, it seems to be iPhone 6 only. It seems to be an mistake on Apple’s part, not deliberate. If it was deliberate, it would affect the most recent phone as well. Pretty shoddy of Apple though – Error 53 is obviously an error that was was never meant to be seen by the public.

      • alanaudio - 8 years ago

        My apologies. As deienos pointed out, the 5S does indeed have a secure enclave – it’s part of how the fingerprint sensor works. But the security issue seems to revolve around the need for the CPU to be paired with a trusted home button.

        I would have assumed that this error 53 issue applies to all iPhones built since then, but it appears to only affect the iPhone 6. I do wonder if the only iPhone in the whole world that ever had a third party replacement home button happened to be a 6 and that the 5S and 6S models would also be equally susceptible if repaired by unauthorised people? It’s hard to see why only the iPhone 6 is affected.

  3. 89p13 - 8 years ago

    Just a casual, disinterested comment not really germane to the discussion of Apple shooting themselves in the foot – but the only winners in a Class Action Lawsuit are the Lawyers! They collect the lions share of the final settlement and whatever is left over after all “Legal Fees” are paid is usually pennies-on-the-dollar for the people who have been affected by the action.

    YMMV

  4. cybercade - 8 years ago

    its actually pretty smart, given that people would do anything to get into your secure accounts

  5. alanaudio - 8 years ago

    I’m a bit sceptical about claims that thousands of users have been affected by this. That seems a hell of a lot of people having a third party replacement for a home button.

    Having said that, I do feel that Apple has screwed up on this. Obviously it’s right that the home button needs to be securely paired with the CPU if Apple Pay is going to work, but completely bricking the phone without warning is not the appropriate thing to do when an unauthorised home button is found to be present. At the very least the update should perform that check before continuing with the software update, alert the user to the seriousness of the issue and allow the user to proceed knowing that Apple Pay will no longer be functional on that iPhone.

    The affected iPhones have to be less than 18 months old, so I am puzzled that so many customers have needed to get repairs done by third party repairers. Most would have been eligible for a free of charge warranty repair by Apple. The much-publicised example of the guy visiting the Balkans is an exceptional case, but what are others seemingly having third party repairs?

    Apple should offer free replacements for any genuinely bricked iPhones caused by this problem, but only if the repair was done before this issue became public. Hopefully repairers will decline to replace home buttons in future.

    It seems unlikely that Apple would ever offer software for third party repairers to re-authorise replacement home buttons because that would be a potential security weakness. Lowering the price of an official Apple replacement home button would be a welcome move too. Apple doesn’t brick iPhones when other third party parts are detected, so it’s clearly not a ploy to prevent all third party repairs, but the home button is currently a very expensive repair and one that shouldn’t be necessary for many customers, so Apple could afford to be kind to those people.

    • William D - 8 years ago

      I have to think MOST of the cases were because of accidental damage – dropped phones etc, so wouldn’t have fallen under the Warranty. As you say, it doesn’t make sense otherwise given the time period we’re talking about. (Anybody within the EU who has had this issue – that wasnt as a result of a fall etc, should have claimed under EU regs which give up to 2 years, so it’s not even just a year)

  6. nonameisme - 8 years ago

    So it Apple didn’t do this, the same people to cheap to get their iPhone repaired by Apple would sue Apple if their info was stolen by an aftermarket Touch repair. Are the same ones suing Apple for doing the lockout for their safety of info. Got it.

    Apple is in the right for the lockout.

    • William Reid - 8 years ago

      If is all bout safety of your data why does it lock up as soon as the phone is turned, instead of weeks or even months later when there is an update? That is because it has nothing to do with data safety and is all about Apple wanting all of the repair dollars. GREEEEEED

    • zanconato - 8 years ago

      Couldn’t they have just inhibited the use of the fingerprint scanner. User’s could have then used their pass key to use the phone just like iPhone 5 and earlier models.

  7. paradroid888 - 8 years ago

    I think it’s likely Apple had to do this to get Apple Pay approved by the banks, and I’m not sure why are they taking so much criticism. This is not a “screw-up”. The fact that someone can’t steal my phone, hack in a dummy sensor that just returns “ok” and go shopping with my money has to be a good thing.

    Maybe people are so upset because of the implementation – it perhaps goes a step too far in bricking the phone, it could just disable TouchId or Apple Pay. But then most customers wouldn’t be happy with a phone in that state, and would still have to go to Apple to get it sorted.

  8. spacedr - 8 years ago

    OK. So your car has a problem with a critical electronics part such as the ESP or ABS module and YOU DECIDE to get it repaired at some unauthorised shop who isn’t equiped appropriately and uses some doubtful parts to “repair” the car and then you are surprised that your car won’t work at all !! Very much LOL ! The car not starting would be the equivalent of this “error 53”, i.e. the car company protecting you from having a severe crash due to inappropriate parts. In this case Appe just prevents the iPhone to provide your data because it can’t be sure the identification process through Touch ID hasn’t been compromised.

    • hodar0 - 8 years ago

      And your car has access to your checking, savings and VISA credit account? Your car can order prescription drugs online, take out loans, purchase airline tickets and order goods from online stores?

      Wow – that’s a pretty awful analogy.

  9. Mike Walter - 8 years ago

    This is bull crap. The touchID sensor is nothing more than a sensor to read your fingerprint. All the processing power behind recognizing your finger print is done on the A8 or A9 processor according to apple. The touchID home button is nothing more than a device that sends this information to the processor. It DOES NOT hold any of your fingerprints on it. I am currently using and iPhone 5s that had it’s original home button replaced and with iOS 9. I did not get error 53. The phone works fine except touchID does not work. There is no reason for this. TouchID is nothing more than a “camera” to read your fingerprint. Not giving apple any ideas or anything but how come when you replace the back camera with an after market camera, the function of the camera stil works. Thats because the processor is doing the image processing, the camera is just the sensor providing the image to the processor. Apple has lost its ways. They are no more costumer oriented. If apple doesn’t change their ways, soon they will be worth nothing.

    • hodar0 - 8 years ago

      The fingerprint sensor is a hardware device in the direct pathway between the actual fingerprint, and the CPU that stores and compares the incoming fingerprint and the encrypted known “good” fingerprint. What is to prevent someone from installing a hardware device into an Apple phone, that is intended to hijack or in some other way, to hack the security system that Apple built into the iPhone and the fingerprint enclave?

      I would imagine that if someone successfully hacked into the fingerprint enclave, and was successful in retrieving a stored fingerprint – you would be all for a class action lawsuit against Apple for poor security in that case too? Damn Apple for being TOO secure! How dare they have hardware security provisions on their secure hardware! I would imagine that if you were to take apart most any security system, you would find custom hardware/software built into the security system to prevent this very thing from being done by un approved or unknown agents.

  10. jimhillhouse - 8 years ago

    So, how many of the attorneys who filed and even managed to bring to trial consumer violation complaints against Apple have been successful? The ratio must be something like 1:200 or 1:300 and maybe even 0:200 or 0:300.

    Filing a complaint in the U.S. has no downstream negatives and cost very little–just the lawyer’s time drafting the complaint and the court fees. So these fly like angry avians here.

    I recall that Great Britain has a loser-pays tradition to keep frivolous complaints from clogging the court dockets, but that may have changed or I might be mistaking it for German courts.

    Going to trial can cost $500K – millions. I’m sure that’s why the barrister will hope to get the gov’t or a very rich and non-risk averse client involved.

    But I think Apple will beat this. Here’s why. Do any of you really want the finger-print reader of a device that keeps some of your most precious secrets to be replaceable with 3rd party items with components the operation of which may not be just to make the Home button to work?

    The question posed to Apple as to whether it will unlock iPhones with such 3rd party replacements sounds like it answers itself. Put another way, “Hey Apple, will you override your finger-print security input so I don’t have to get one of your replacements?” Ummm…no.

    Luxury car manufacturers require that the keys be sourced only from them. Just try to break in to a Range Rover, Jaguar, or Mercedes Benz without a manufacturer’s made key. Talk about being locked-out! I don’t see their customers filing lawsuits because they can’t bypass that with cheaper keys.

    And I think Apple’s legal staff is pretty good.

  11. Gareth Morgan - 8 years ago

    The Police and Justice Act 2006 amended the Computer Misuse Act 1990 as
    below.

    36 Unauthorised acts with intent to impair operation of computer, etc
    For section 3 of the 1990 Act (unauthorised modification of computer
    material) there is substituted?
    ?3 Unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to
    impairing, operation of computer, etc.
    (1)A person is guilty of an offence if?
    (a)he does any unauthorised act in relation to a computer;
    (b)at the time when he does the act he knows that it is unauthorised; and
    (c)either subsection (2) or subsection (3) below applies.
    (2)This subsection applies if the person intends by doing the act?
    (a)to impair the operation of any computer;
    (b)to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer;
    (c)to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any
    such data; or
    (d)to enable any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above to
    be done.
    (3)This subsection applies if the person is reckless as to whether the act
    will do any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection
    (2) above.
    (4)…
    (6)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable?
    (a)on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term
    not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum
    or to both;
    (b)on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not
    exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or
    to both;
    (c)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
    ten years or to a fine or to both.?

    The question may be whether the phones owner or user authorised Apple to
    carry out such acts. I suspect that they wouldn’t, so why doesn’t this law apply?

  12. b9bot - 8 years ago

    Good luck with that. Apple doesn’t authorize 3rd party retailers to do service for there iPhone screens. It takes a special machine to make displays work properly and that’s why if you get one of those junky 3rd party screens you will ultimately end up with error 53. Apple didn’t screw anything up, but those 3rd party fix places screwed there customers.

  13. Just curious, where would these third party repair shops be getting the Touch ID Home button in the first place? Can’t be Apple. Are they salvaging broken phones? Or worse, using stole phones for parts? Personally if the Home button broke on my 6S I’d trek to an Apple Store or a Authorized Repair shop. Especially considering its still under warranty. As for older phones (those that didn’t purchase AppleCare), you paid a lot for that device. Make sure the right people fix it. I wouldn’t trust a local repair shop go fix the computer system in my car (yeah, I know cars don’t get bricked.)

  14. HiroiSekai - 8 years ago

    Give me a break. You know who doesn’t have this problem? Everyone that follows the standard process. It is painfully obvious to anyone that tampering with your device voids your warranty that YOU agree to when setting up your device, and instead of going into a resource that is readily available officially, you get a shoddy third party installation on something as function-heavy as a screen or home button/Touch ID sensor.

    Of course Apple aren’t going to service it. Their motto is to provide great service for what they know best, Apple products. The second you stick something else on it, the Geniuses could potentially make it worse with little to no knowledge of what the third party item does directly to the devices.

  15. Hamed Razai - 8 years ago

    Law firms consider suing Apple after malicious third-party home buttons lead to widespread Apple Pay theft.

  16. pdixon1986 - 8 years ago

    If you are having a security feature installed by a 3rd party, it should be an apple approved party (just like the designed for apple products)… Otherwise it is classed as tampering with the product – which voids the warranty.

    It’s just like with any electrical products – as soon as the product is opened, the warranty is void unless by an approved party — although it will usually work, there is no guarantee…

    Personally, for a security feature such as this, that is used for unlocking my phone and accessing my personal data, i would expect this… it shows that apple are serious about our privacy.

    How can you or apple be certain that this homebutton youre having replaced by a 3rd party is 100% legit… it could be a lookalike from china aimed at accessing your data.

  17. kevinhancox - 8 years ago

    @Rich Davis, the issue here is not that people use 3rd party repair centres, it is that the way in which they have locked the phone down is illegal, as they never did this in previous versions or made it clear that changing the home button would activate security they set a precedent that has made there software cause damage to the phone, and rightly so people will pursue this. It will cost Apple in the end, as they cannot legally do this.! There has always been the right to have your item repaired at your own cost should you choose to do so at the repair centre you choose to do so… Like it is Apples right not to touch it after it has been repaired at an unauthorised service centre if things go wrong. But to implement software that bricks the phone is criminal after the fact..!

  18. dave (@dcast777) - 8 years ago

    I hope the judge tells these people to kick rocks. Don’t get your phone fixed by some jerk off in a mall kiosk and it will work fine.

Author

Avatar for Ben Lovejoy Ben Lovejoy

Ben Lovejoy is a British technology writer and EU Editor for 9to5Mac. He’s known for his op-eds and diary pieces, exploring his experience of Apple products over time, for a more rounded review. He also writes fiction, with two technothriller novels, a couple of SF shorts and a rom-com!


Ben Lovejoy's favorite gear