“The money had to be returned to consumers”: An application was filed in the Central District Court in Lod for approval of a class action lawsuit in the amount of NIS 2.5 million against IconCroup, the official importer and distributor of Apple products in Israel, and its iDigital marketing network, which owns, among other things, Apple products.
According to the lawsuit, which was filed through attorneys Ido Kosover and Adv. Shalom Even, Idigital and Icon Group have not yet provided a replacement service for Apple’s wireless headphones, AirPods Pro, on which the technology giant issued a call for a global recall (replacement program) in early November.
According to Apple’s official announcement, the recall program is valid for two years from the moment of purchase and will allow users to replace the defective headphones with the official importers in Israel – including Idigital, which has launched a dedicated website where you can register for the replacement service online.
“The respondents did not fulfill the responsibility they undertook, did not repair the headphones within the time limit set by law and did not have spare parts in Israel for the purpose of repairing or replacing the headphones,” the lawsuit filed in court said. “They even announced a ‘recall’, but in practice, they do not carry it out (or at least drag their feet in its execution), with those who bear the costs being the same group members who bought a defective product with the best of their money.”
The lawsuit further alleges that Icon Group and iDigital misled consumers “by not letting them know there was no spare parts available in Israel,” and that “they had to reimburse the group members for the consideration paid for the headphones immediately and not act as they did.”
In addition, according to Adv. Kosover and Adv. Shalom Even, the two misled section 2 of the Consumer Protection Law: “The respondents misled the group members by not letting them know that there is no stock of spare parts available in Israel and thus not letting them know the nature of the full warranty. . In doing so, the respondents misled the members of the group in material matters in the transaction, as defined in section 2 of the Consumer Protection Law. “
Edigital responded: “We are learning the details and we will respond accordingly.”