According to plaintiff Kenneth Sciacca's lawsuit, first spotted by Patently Apple, the defect can begin to surface within days or weeks after the Apple Watch is purchased, even when the user has done nothing wrong.
The Plaintiff further states that Apple knew that the Watches were defective at the time it began selling them to the public, and that the consumers started complaining about the Defect nearly immediately after Apple released the Series 0, Series 1, Series 2, and Series 3 Watches. For example, in April 2015, immediately after the release of the Series 0 Apple Watch, customers complained that screens were detaching from the timepiece's body. Filed in California, the lawsuit is for a relatively small amount - $5 million - but seeks class certification on behalf of all Apple Watch owners and is attempting to raise awareness of Apple's alleged efforts to hide the defect from customers.
Further, Apple's conduct, when confronted with the Defect, indicates that its internal policy is to deny the existence of the Defect, claim the Defect is the result of "accidental damage" caused by consumers, and then refuse to honor its Limited Warranty on those grounds.
The lawsuit is aiming to achieve $5 million in damages. It would probably have been better off to replace watches with broken screens than to suffer the bad PR that comes with yet another lawsuit. "As a result of the Defect in the Watches and monetary costs associated with fix, replacement, or lost use of the Watches, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury in fact, incurred damages, and have otherwise been harmed by Apple's conduct". One possibility is that screen issues are actually connected to battery problems, since components are so tightly packed in any given Watch that a swelling battery could put too much pressure on the display.
Apple Watch hasn't been without fault. And while it's unclear what might have caused the screen to detach in some circumstances, an expanding battery could cause the problem.
"Owners of defective Apple Watches are faced with unenviable - and expensive - options", reads the lawsuit.