Premature discharge of the Nexus 6P battery
This class action seeks to compensate all persons who have purchased a Nexus 6P in Québec. The action alleges that the battery of the device manufactured by Huawei discharges prematurely.
On May 11, 2020, the Court of Appeal overturned the judgment of Judge Gary D.D. Morrison of the Superior Court and authorized the class action. You can read the judgment of the Court of Appeal here. We are therefore beginning the trial preparation phase.
Conditions to be part of this class action
You are part of the class action if you have purchased a Nexus 6P in Quebec.
You can register to receive information on this class action. We will keep you informed of important developments as the case progresses.
For more information on how to become a member of a class action, read our What are class actions page.
Summary of the class action
The Nexus 6P is a high-end cellphone commercialized in Canada since November 2015.
Despite its high cost, after only a few months of use, the phones turn off even if the pictogram on the screen indicates that there remains battery, even 30 or 40% battery. The phone can only turn on again if it is connected to a charger. The display screen turns on again, showing the same remaining battery level as when it was turned off. The battery will empty again very quickly as soon as it is disconnected.
Deficiencies in Nexus 6P cell phones seriously affect the purpose for which they are normally intended, including wireless communication. The battery life of the Nexus 6P is unreasonable in comparison to a typical battery for a phone of such high value.
The premature discharge of the Nexus 6P’s battery is directly related to a faulty battery design. It is a serious hidden defect under both the Consumer Protection Act and the Civil Code of Québec.
On March 23rd, 2018, Ricky Tenzer filed an application to be authorized to bring a class action. Judge Gary D.D. Morrison of the Superior Court dismissed the application and refused to authorize the class action, but Mr. Tenzer appealed that decision and the Court of Appeal ruled in his favour.