Calgary Woman: Apple Lacked “Due Diligence” in Replacing Stolen iPhone


A Calgary woman is fighting her local Apple Store to get a replacement iPhone after the device she reported stolen ended up being replaced at the store when a third party showed up with the damaged unit, reports CBC News.

Diane Nash bought an iPhone for her 18-year old daughter which ended up being stolen. Soon after she reported it as stolen to AppleCare and her wireless carrier Telus.

Fast forward a month later and someone showed up at an Apple Store with her stolen iPhone—damaged in this case—and ended up getting a replacement. Nash says Apple will not provide her with a replacement iPhone.

“I’m out of a phone and whoever took my phone has a new one. I don’t think it’s right,”

“I think Apple should have done their due diligence and actually checked into the serial number of that phone to see that I had reported it stolen with the Apple Care.”


image via CBC News

Calgary police say they are investigating the theft but mentioned there is no sign of a phone laundering scheme at play.

We contacted Apple Canada for comment on this story and a spokesperson responded via email to say there was no comment on this story.

Last September, the CWTA launched a national stolen cellphone blacklist program to combat cellphone theft. You can follow these tips on how to protect your iPhone. One consumer tip to add is Apple retail stores will not service iPhones unless Find my iPhone is turned off.


  • mcfilmmakers

    How can Apple state they have no fault in this? Clearly they lacked due diligence. She will definitely win the case.

  • Reasonable human

    What is Apple supposed to do ? What if someone “bought” that phone from the theif? Who are they to be blamed? Confiscate the phone and put that person out several hundred? Look to reasoning.

  • tim

    I know when I took my phone in to be replaced, they could not do it until I turned off ‘Find my iPhone’ which required me to enter my Apple Id password. So, I wonder if the phone was damaged to the point it could not be turned on.

  • Sven L

    There is reasoning behind this. Bottom line is, when you purchase second-hand market items, you take the risk of handling “hot” items. Ignorance of the status of that doesn’t change the fact that police have the authority to confiscate that item without compensating you. Reference: possession of property obtained by crime. You may not be criminally responsible since you don’t have the intent to launder in stolen goods, but it certainly doesn’t vindicate you of any civil liability. Your only recourse would be to use the person who sold you the goods in the first place.

  • Peter Pottinger

    Ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law. Repeat that in your head until you get it. Ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law.

  • definingsound

    Innocent until proven guilty. Write it down. If the daughter sold the broken phone, in embarrassment for having broken it, to pay for a replacement Android (or for a pair of shoes etc), there is no guilt in taking legally obtained hardware to a supplier to have it replaced under a warranty program. Indeed, if the phone was stolen, it is up to the Calgary Police to pursue due diligence. There is no need for Apple to be involved with the legal side of things. Apple’s only contract is to provide warranty services, not police services.

  • Peter Pottinger

    Unfortunately for you are you 100% wrong. The covernment CAN compel private businesses to adhere to due diligence. I work for an ISP and we are obligated to prevent hosting or provide services to illegal activities.

  • definingsound

    I believe that the reason ISP’s are required to prevent hosting illegal activities, is that the ISP is the entity that provides the illegal data / code / service. They are party to the crime, because the crime is contained within and served from the ISP’s sphere of influence – their data storage drives. If the ISP is serving illegal images to clients, they are complicit in the crime – in that the ISP itself is performing the distribution of illegal images. So of course the law will require an ISP to keep a lid on things that they distribute during their role as a service host.

    Contrast that to a mother that believes her teenage daughter’s explanation for a missing iPhone “it was stolen, Mom, I don’t know where it went”. There is no proof of illegality in having possession of that phone. A teenage girl’s excuses are not the same as illegal images / copyrighted works. One is illegal, the other is an accusation only. I stand by my statement earlier, it is not Apple’s requirement to determine the ownership of the phone. It is simply their requirement to honour a warranty on that same hardware. If the device was indeed stolen, then the Calgary Police won’t give the phone back anyway – it is evidence of a crime and will be retained as such until destroyed.