l CLICK here. They took a brand new smart phone and ribbed it with a cotton swab to see if it carried any unwelcome DNA that would make the lady develop a hobbled, weak knee and shaky finger joints that make you nervous and angry, David so you start going to physiotherapy once a month. Phones and Product Liability. In Canada, product liability cases involving electronics typically fall under three legal categories: negligent manufacturing, negligent design, or failure to warn. Most high-profile cases are handled via class actions, where consumers seek damages for battery issues, performance degradation, or privacy breaches. Here are the most notable recent cases and legal developments regarding electronics and phones in Canada: 1. The Apple "Batterygate" Settlement (2024) This is perhaps the most significant recent case for Canadian smartphone users. * The Issue: Several class-action lawsuits (e.g., Crema v. Apple Inc.) alleged that Apple issued software updates (iOS 10.2.1 and later) that "throttled" the performance of older iPhones to prevent unexpected shutdowns as batteries aged. Click here.

 

CLICK here. They took a brand new smart phone and ribbed it with a cotton swab to see if it carried any unwelcome DNA that would make the lady develop a hobbled, weak knee and shaky finger joints that make you nervous and angry, David so you start going to physiotherapy once a month. 

 Phones and Product Liability.  

In Canada, product liability cases involving electronics typically fall under three legal categories: negligent manufacturing, negligent design, or failure to warn. Most high-profile cases are handled via class actions, where consumers seek damages for battery issues, performance degradation, or privacy breaches.

Here are the most notable recent cases and legal developments regarding electronics and phones in Canada:

1. The Apple "Batterygate" Settlement (2024)

This is perhaps the most significant recent case for Canadian smartphone users.

 * The Issue: Several class-action lawsuits (e.g., Crema v. Apple Inc.) alleged that Apple issued software updates (iOS 10.2.1 and later) that "throttled" the performance of older iPhones to prevent unexpected shutdowns as batteries aged.

 * The Result: In March 2024, the Ontario Superior Court approved a settlement of up to $14.4 million. Eligible Canadian owners of iPhone 6 and 7 models were entitled to payments (typically between $65 and $150 per device).

 * Current Status: The claims deadline has passed, and payments are expected to be distributed in early 2026.

2. Samsung Galaxy Note 7 "Thermal Runaway" (Richardson v. Samsung)

 * The Issue: Following global reports of batteries overheating and catching fire, a class action was launched in Ontario (2018 ONSC 6130) alleging that the Note 7 was inherently defective and that the initial recall/compensation package was inadequate.

 * Legal Significance: The case highlighted the "duty to warn" and the manufacturer's responsibility during a recall. While Samsung issued a massive recall and refund program, the litigation focused on additional damages for "economic loss" and inconvenience.

3. Privacy and Data Collection Cases

Electronic liability isn't just about hardware; it's increasingly about how the software operates.

 * **Apple Siri Privacy Class Action (2025/2026): Active litigation is currently underway regarding claims that Siri surreptitiously recorded private conversations without consent and shared them with third parties for "quality improvement."

 * Intel Processor Security Flaw: A class action was initiated regarding "Spectre" and "Meltdown" vulnerabilities in Intel processors, alleging that the hardware design flaw left users' data at risk and that subsequent software patches slowed down device performance.

4. Hardware Component Price-Fixing (2022)

While not a physical "defect" case, this impacted the liability and cost of electronics.

 * The Case: Manufacturers of electrolytic capacitors (components found in almost all electronics, from phones to game consoles) settled for $3.3 million in Canada.

 * The Result: The settlement addressed an international conspiracy to fix prices, which ultimately inflated the cost of consumer electronics for Canadians between 1997 and 2014.

Key Legal Principles in Canada

If you are looking at these cases from a legal or consumer perspective, keep these three factors in mind:

| Principle | Description |

|---|---|

| Strict Liability | Unlike some US jurisdictions, Canada generally requires proof of negligence (that the manufacturer failed to meet a "standard of care") rather than just proving the product was broken. |

| Duty to Warn | Manufacturers have a "continuing duty" to warn consumers of dangers they discover after the product is already on the market. |

| Limitation Periods | In Ontario, the Hennebury v. Makita Canada Inc. (2025) case recently affirmed a 15-year ultimate limitation period. This means you generally cannot sue for a product defect if the product was manufactured more than 15 years ago, even if the injury just happened. |

Principle	Description
Strict Liability	Unlike some US jurisdictions, Canada generally requires proof of negligence (that the manufacturer failed to meet a "standard of care") rather than just proving the product was broken.
Duty to Warn	Manufacturers have a "continuing duty" to warn consumers of dangers they discover after the product is already on the market.
Limitation Periods In Canada, the link between electronics and "disease" (long-term biological harm) is a high-stakes area of product liability law. Unlike physical defects (like a battery exploding), these cases often focus on latent injuries—diseases that develop over years of exposure. The legal landscape currently revolves around Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, Toxic Substances, and Blue Light. 1. Smartphone Radiation & Cancer (Arial v. Apple & Samsung) The most prominent case in recent history is a class action launched in Quebec (Tracey Arial et al. v. Apple Canada Inc. & Samsung Electronics).  * The Allegation: The plaintiffs argue that many smartphone models emit RF radiation at levels exceeding Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 limits when used close to the body (e.g., in a pocket).  * The "Disease" Claim: The suit claims that chronic exposure to these levels of non-ionizing radiation can cause neuromas (tumors), cellular stress, and genetic damage.  * Legal Status: As of 2026, this litigation remains active. It focuses heavily on "Failure to Warn," arguing that manufacturers did not clearly state that phones should be kept a specific distance (e.g., 5mm to 15mm) from the body to remain within safety limits. 2. Toxic Substances & Electronic Waste Electronics contain heavy metals (lead, mercury, cadmium) and flame retardants (PBDEs). Liability here usually arises in two ways:  * Occupational Exposure: Cases involving workers in electronics manufacturing or recycling who develop chronic illnesses (e.g., cancers, reproductive issues) due to inadequate safety protocols regarding toxic dust and vapors.  * Environmental Torts: If a company improperly disposes of electronics, leading to groundwater contamination and subsequent community health issues. In Canada, this is heavily regulated by the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA), which allows the government to recall products that "pose a danger to human health." 3. Circadian Rhythm & Vision Issues (The "Blue Light" Frontier) While not yet a major source of multi-million dollar "disease" settlements, there is growing legal interest in Blue Light liability.  * The Claim: Extended exposure to high-energy visible (HEV) light from screens suppresses melatonin and disrupts circadian rhythms.  * The Potential Liability: Lawsuits are emerging (mostly in the form of consumer protection claims) regarding "digital eye strain" and potential links to macular degeneration or mental health disorders (depression) caused by sleep disruption.  * Current Defense: Manufacturers currently rely on the fact that scientific consensus is still developing, making it difficult for plaintiffs to prove causation—a critical requirement in Canadian tort law. Challenges in "Disease" Cases vs. "Defect" Cases In Canada, suing for a disease caused by an electronic device is significantly harder than suing for a physical burn. | Feature | Physical Defect (e.g., Fire) | Latent Disease (e.g., Cancer) | |---|---|---| | Causation | Easy to prove (the phone burned the hand). | Extremely difficult. Must prove "but for" the device, the disease wouldn't exist. | | Timeframe | Immediate. | Decades (often exceeding limitation periods). | | Science | Simple physics/engineering. | Contested medical studies and "battle of the experts." | | Regulation | Violation of clear safety standards. | Devices often technically comply with current (but possibly outdated) federal limits. | 4. Medical Device Electronics (The "Smart" Medical Case) Liability is much more established when electronics are embedded in the body.  * Insulin Pumps & Pacemakers: There have been several Canadian class actions (e.g., involving Medtronic or St. Jude Medical) where electronic glitches led to incorrect dosages or heart failures.  * The Legal Difference: Because these are "Active Medical Devices," the standard of care is much higher than for a consumer smartphone, and the link to injury is more direct. Feature Physical Defect (e.g., Fire) Latent Disease (e.g., Cancer) Causation Easy to prove (the phone burned the hand). Extremely difficult. Must prove "but for" the device, the disease wouldn't exist. Timeframe Immediate. Decades (often exceeding limitation periods). Science Simple physics/engineering. Contested medical studies and "battle of the experts." Regulation Violation of clear safety standards. Devices	In Ontario, the Hennebury v. Makita Canada Inc. (2025) case recently affirmed a 15-year ultimate limitation period. This means you generally cannot sue for a product defect if the product was manufactured more than 15 years ago, even if the injury just happened.