Apple Watch Buyer Wins in Court vs Apple over Cracked Display

An Apple Watch customer from West Wales has won a court case against Apple, proving that it is actually possible for a common person to beat the Cupertino tech-giant in a legal battle.

Gareth Cross, of Aberystwyth, Wales, sued Apple for breach of contract of sale after he spotted a scratch on the screen of his new Apple Watch Sport which he had bought for £399, according to The Daily Mail (via App Advice).


Cross got his Apple Watch in July last year, and only after 10 days of use, he noticed a crack in the glass face of his new smartwatch. When he reported this to Apple, they told him that the damage was not covered under warranty, despite official claims that the Apple Watch face was “resistant to scratches and impact”. Apple has however removed any statements about the Apple Watch being resistant to impact from its website since the incident.

Cross engaged in a six-month battle with Cupertino, involving an exchange of letters and him sending the Apple Watch to the tech giant’s repair centers on several occasions. Apple eventually fell silent, refusing to repair the device, so Cross took the company to small claims court. In the court’s verdict, Apple was ordered to refund Cross the cost of the watch and an additional £429 in court costs.

Apple Watch comes with a standard one year warranty, which states it covers ‘defects in materials and workmanship’ but not normal wear and tear or damage caused by accident or abuse.

Sounds like it was not worth Apple’s legal costs in court, and better off for the company to settle replacements costs for the Apple Watch display.

“Technology runs through my veins...” | Follow me: @DrUsmanQ usman@iPhoneinCanada.ca

  • Kyle Mitton

    If I bought the watch after reading about the watch being resistant to scratches and impact. Would they refund me for the watch?

  • My watch got scratched within the first 24 hours of use from blowing and brushing some fine saw dust off it. I was shocked and disappointed. Googling around at the time, there was multiple threads with many user complaining about easily scratched watches. It appears the sport model wasn’t so resistant after all, or so it seemed. However I still use it today.

    At the end of the day, damage is damage even if it’s so easily done so. I’m surprised this guy won, because it’s hard to prove that the crack was a defect caused crack.

    We all know, everyone who wants to return a damaged item always have the same story, “oh, I woke up and it was like this. I don’t know what happen” too embarrassed to admit, nor wants to admit fault and not get an exchange because they dropped or hit the phone. Lol

  • CanucksGoals

    Apple watches are like toy watches to me with a ridiculous price tag. However, this case helps out consumers a lot if anything happens to their watches or hardware bought from Apple.

  • BigCat

    I think what gave this guy a strong case was that Apple put out the statement “resistant to scratches and impact” on their website as part of the product advertisement. However, they never qualified or defined this statement. Based on just the statement the product did not resist scratches and impact.

    Apple should have just given this guy a new watch for exposing the lack of fine print. The person at Apple who actually allowed this to go to court really made a poor decision. I am sure it did not go unnoticed.

  • Yeah, I think you’re probably right. An interesting read for sure though.