Ip68 iPhone 11 taken to Genius Bar & no support given

If you got your iPhone wet and it was damaged as a result, it is NOT covered by Apple Warranty, so you should not have expected Apple to support a damaged iPhone due to liquid intrusion.

If is spelled out in Apple Warranty for iPhone.

That's under lab controlled situations, not real life. The phone is water resistant, NOT waterproof. Whether you got it wet intentionally or not makes no difference. If it got wet and it was damaged as a result, it is not covered by warranty.

This is a user to user only forum. We have nothing to do with Apple warranty exclusions.

Let Apple know your thoughts by using this feedback link --> Feedback - iPhone - Apple

Maybe this will help you understand.

https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-250002708

The short version is that no device rated at less than 50 meters water resistance should EVER be submerged.

Anything less is just splash resistant.

Shab72 wrote:

Erm…. I never got it wet deliberately … IP68 states that the iPhone 11 is water resistant 2 meters with a 30 minute time scale…

It's like a lot of things where you need to read the fine print.

About splash, water, and dust resistance of iPhone 7 and later - Apple Support

Splash, water, and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. Liquid damage is not covered under warranty, but you might have rights under consumer law.

Several class-action lawsuits contending that the advertising/marketing was a guarantee of water resistance were thrown out in the United States, including one over Samsung's claims.

https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/tech/court-tosses-consumers-samsung-galaxy-s7-water-resistant-marketing-suit/

There are a lot of things that could reduce water resistance, including normal wear and tear. That the same for anything, including watches.

Shab72 wrote:

Why have lab controlled experiments &

then pass it off for real life event..?

what’s the point putting a label on something claiming it’s something is not..?

They are not trying to pass it off a "real life".

They are quoting the criteria used for testing and certification.

Honestly, I think it's a bad idea to cite that as the vast majority of consumers don't understand it. However, it is accurate and the courts have upheld it.

Shab72 wrote:

If a product states it’s water resistant up to 2 metres for 30 minutes & it fails that in real life then that’s miss representation & goes against the 1968 Trade descriptions act..

”The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 made it an offence for businesses or salespeople to sell a product or service based on misinformation. The Act forced them to be more truthful about their service or product and not deliberately mislead consumers into spending their money on a false claim”

Sorry. You're wrong. This issue has already been litigated. If you want to try yourself, good luck. Not only does Apple have better lawyers than you, but the precedent has already been set. You will lose.

Water resistant is NOT "waterproof".

Liquid damage is not covered by the warranty.