A man who took Apple to court after he spotted a crack in his smartwatch has successfully sued the tech giant after a six-month battle.

Gareth Cross, from Aberystwyth, west Wales, bought an Apple Watch Sport for £339 last July but 10 days later he spotted a crack in the glass face.

When he complained, Apple said it was not covered by the warranty.

They said the damage resulted from impact - despite their own official claims that the watch was 'resistant to scratches and impact'.

Gareth Cross, from Aberystwyth, west Wales, (right) bought an Apple Watch Sport for £339 last July but 10 days later he spotted a crack in the glass face (left)

But Mr Cross took them to the small claims court for breach of the Sale of Goods Act - and has now won after a six-month fight.

A judge at Aberystwyth County Court ruled that the company breached the contract of sale by refusing to repair or replace the watch as it had been falsely advertised.

As a result have changed their description and removed their claim that the watch is resistant to impact.

Mr Cross, 32, said: 'I bought my wife Rachel the regular Apple Watch, but I went for the Sport version because I am prone to knocking things about a bit and it said it was impact resistant.

'But I noticed a tiny 4-5 mm crack on the screen just 10 days after buying it - I hadn't even been doing anything strenuous, just sitting around watching TV.

'When I got to work the hairline crack had got bigger and bigger so I called Apple up to get it repaired.'

He said the company was initially apologetic and offered to repair the watch if he sent photos in.

But after seeing the pictures the engineers at Apple said it wasn't covered by warranty as they claimed Mr Cross had damaged it - and refused to repair it.

When he complained, Apple said it was not covered by the warranty. They said the damage resulted from impact - despite their own official claims that the watch was 'resistant to scratches and impact'

The company's One-Year Warranty states that it covers 'defects in materials and workmanship' but not normal wear and tear or damage caused by accident or abuse.

That was the start of a six-month battle between Mr Cross and Apple which involved an exchange of letters and him sending the watch back and forth to their repair centres.

Apple maintained their stance, refusing to send Mr Cross engineer reports and eventually falling silent before he took them to court.

The company was ordered to refund him the cost of the watch and £429 in court costs.

He eventually got the watch back - but it is still unrepaired.

Apple have since removed the literature claiming that the Apple Watch Sport is explicitly resistant to impact.

However, the Apple website says the screen is made from 'aluminosilicate glass - the same material used in the windows of space shuttles and high-speed trains.'

It adds: 'It's fortified at the molecular level through ion exchange, with smaller ions being replaced by larger ones to create a surface layer far tougher than ordinary glass.'

There are other social media reports of similar incidents involving damage to the watch, including one person who says theirs broke after playing tennis.

As far as Mr Cross is aware he is the only one to have taken Apple on over its advertising of the accessory.



