Apple Did Not Mislead Customers About iPhone Water Resistance, Federal Judge Rules - MacRumorsOpen MenuShow RoundupsShow Forums menuVisit ForumsOpen Sidebar
Skip to Content

Apple Did Not Mislead Customers About iPhone Water Resistance, Federal Judge Rules

A federal judge in the U.S. has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit that accused Apple of misleading customers about the iPhone's water resistance (via Reuters).

Apple iphone 11 water resistant
Apple has extensively advertised the water resistance of the iPhone in its marketing campaigns since the launch of the iPhone 7, including the claim that some models can survive depths of up to four meters for 30 minutes.

Two plaintiffs from New York and one from South Carolina brought a lawsuit against Apple in the Southern District of New York for "false and misleading" misrepresentations that purportedly allowed the company to charge "twice as much" for iPhones than the cost of "average smartphones."

Now, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote has ruled that while the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Apple's advertising could mislead some customers, they did not demonstrate that their iPhones were damaged by "liquid contact" Apple promised they could withstand. The judge also found no evidence of fraud, citing a lack of proof that Apple consciously intended to overstate its water-resistance claims for commercial gain.

It was also ruled that there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiffs relied on fraudulent marketing statements when choosing to buy their iPhones. A lawyer representing the plaintiffs said that his clients were disappointed with the verdict, and there has not yet been a decision about whether to appeal.

Although this case has been dismissed, an Italian judge in late 2020 fined Apple $12 million for misleading customers about the iPhone's water resistance. The ruling explained that Apple did not suitably clarify that its water-resistance claims are only true under specific conditions, such as during controlled laboratory tests with the use of static and pure water, and not in the normal conditions of use by consumers. The regulator also ruled that it was inappropriate for Apple to highlight water resistance as a feature, while at the same time refusing to provide post-sales warranty assistance if the ‌iPhone‌ models in question suffer water damage.

Apple's iPhone 12 and iPhone 13 lineups feature the best water resistance rating on an iPhone to date with an IP68 rating. This means that the devices can withstand water up to a depth of six meters (19.7 feet) for up to 30 minutes. The IP68 water resistance rating means that the iPhone 12 and iPhone 13 can hold up against splashes, rain, and accidental water exposure, but intentional water exposure should still be avoided if possible.

According to Apple, water and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and can deteriorate over time as a result of normal wear. Apple's warranty does not cover liquid damage, so it is best to exercise caution when it comes to liquid exposure.

Popular Stories

Apple Logo 16x9 US Flag Feature

Apple Subpoenas Samsung in South Korea Over DOJ Antitrust Case

Thursday April 9, 2026 4:20 am PDT by
Apple has asked a U.S. court to formally request internal Samsung documents from South Korea as part of discovery in the DOJ's ongoing antitrust lawsuit against the company. The DOJ filed suit against Apple in March 2024, alongside a number of governments, alleging the company used App Store rules, developer restrictions, and control over key iPhone features to stifle competition. After Apple...
Jon Prosser Rainbow

Jon Prosser Still Not Fully Cooperating in Apple's iOS 26 Trade Secrets Lawsuit

Tuesday April 14, 2026 6:57 am PDT by
A joint status report filed yesterday in Apple's trade secrets lawsuit against YouTuber Jon Prosser and Michael Ramacciotti shows Prosser is still failing to comply with discovery, prompting Apple to seek a court order to compel him. The latest filing, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California yesterday, covers developments since the parties' last update in ...
app store blue banner epic 1

Epic Games Wins Reversal of Stay in App Store Fee Legal Battle

Wednesday April 29, 2026 5:05 am PDT by
Apple will not be able to delay a district court battle over fee calculations while it waits to hear whether the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on the latest developments in its long-running dispute with Epic Games. On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier decision letting Apple keep its current zero-fee link-out commission structure in place while it appeals to...

Top Rated Comments

DMG35 Avatar
56 months ago
"We don't cover liquid damage to iPhones" - Apple

Also Apple:



Attachment Image
Score: 34 Votes (Like | Disagree)
56 months ago
My opinion on the matter is simple: if you market your product as being water-resistant, warranty has to cover moisture-related damage, unless it can be demonstrated (by the manufacturer) that the exposure to the water was really excessive.
Score: 31 Votes (Like | Disagree)
ghostface147 Avatar
56 months ago

Judge is splitting hairs using semantics. There’s absolutely zero guarantee that new iPhones will be waterproof- thus nobody can assume they are because some do leak.
Yet Apple advertises that they indeed are waterproof to IP 68 standards - which clearly some of them are not.
Where did Apple say waterproof? Don’t they advertise their iPhones as water resistant? That’s not the same thing.
Score: 20 Votes (Like | Disagree)
nortonandreev Avatar
56 months ago
“The regulator also ruled that it was inappropriate for Apple to highlight water resistance as a feature, while at the same time refusing to provide post-sales warranty assistance if the ‌‌iPhone‌‌ models in question suffer water damage.”

I agree with that tho.
Score: 10 Votes (Like | Disagree)
69Mustang Avatar
56 months ago
Two different judges in two different courts in two different countries render two different verdicts. Both were correct, imo. The US case should have been lost based on what the plaintiffs alleged. Conversely, the Italian case highlighted the problem I have with all phone makers and their advertising of water resistance. Ads show resistance to sea water, beer/liquor, and other liquids. None are covered under warranty and the IP rated resistance is only truly valid under controlled conditions.
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
56 months ago

The regulator also ruled that it was inappropriate for Apple to highlight water resistance as a feature, while at the same time refusing to provide post-sales warranty assistance if the ‌iPhone‌ models in question suffer water damage.
That argument actually makes sense to me. If they’re willing to give customers an expectation of how a product is supposed to perform, there should be a recourse if an individual device ends up not living up to those claims.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Related Apple News: News | Buyers Guide | South Africa | Politics | World News