In a case that has caught the attention of Wellington and beyond, Taiming Zhang, a frequent claimant in New Zealand’s top human rights jurisdiction, has brought a unique claim to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. This time, Zhang alleges that the software on his iPad, specifically the voice function, exhibits racist tendencies. This claim against Apple Sales New Zealand, a division of the tech giant Apple Inc, adds to Zhang’s list of five claims lodged with the tribunal, which is designed to address the most severe human rights and privacy violations in the country.
Zhang’s history with the tribunal includes attempts to challenge local businesses over what many might consider trivial matters. For instance, he once took issue with a popular Wellington hotel and bar for serving him Coke Zero instead of Coke No Sugar. In another instance, he challenged Wellington restaurant Red Hill over a policy that required him to pay for two servings if he wanted to enjoy a hotpot meal meant for sharing, by himself. Both claims were dismissed by the tribunal, with the Red Hill case being noted as lacking seriousness and deemed an abuse of process.
His latest venture into the tribunal’s domain involves his purchase of an Apple iPad Pro from Noel Leeming in July 2024. The iPad features a ‘speech selection’ function, which reads text aloud in various synthesised voices tailored for different languages. Zhang’s contention is that this function is discriminatory, specifically when the language is set to Chinese. Apple Sales New Zealand, however, has moved to strike out this claim, arguing it is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
Apple’s defense was robust. They explained that the speech function on the iPad is designed to automatically recognize and read different languages, with any perceived accent being a result of the language synthesizer’s operation, not a deliberate act of discrimination. They emphasized that this issue does not exclusively occur with the Chinese language setting, suggesting that Zhang’s claim lacks a foundation in racial bias.
Interestingly, this isn’t Zhang’s first tech-related claim. He previously attempted to sue Samsung, claiming that a Chinese SIM card he tried to use in a Samsung Galaxy Note 20 didn’t work, which he argued was discriminatory. The tribunal dismissed this claim, stating that the issue was technical, not racial. This pattern of claims against tech companies raises questions about the motivations behind Zhang’s legal actions.
Apple Sales New Zealand further clarified their role in the supply chain, stating they sell hardware to telecommunications companies, who then distribute to retailers like Noel Leeming, from where Zhang purchased his iPad. They argued that they do not sell, license, or supply the software directly to consumers; this is handled through a license agreement with Apple Inc, in which Apple Sales New Zealand plays no part.
The tribunal, in reviewing Zhang’s claim against Apple, found it lacked a reasonable cause of action. They noted that even if Apple Sales New Zealand had directly supplied the iPad, which they did not, the claim would still have no prospect of success. Consequently, the tribunal exercised its discretion to strike out Zhang’s claim in its entirety, reinforcing the view that his legal pursuits might be more about personal grievances than substantial human rights issues.
This case brings to light several important discussions. Firstly, it highlights the challenges of distinguishing between genuine human rights concerns and what might be perceived as misuse of legal systems for personal vendettas. According to a study by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission, only about 10% of claims brought to the tribunal are deemed frivolous or vexatious, yet they consume a disproportionate amount of tribunal resources due to their complexity and the need for thorough investigation.
Secondly, it raises questions about technology and discrimination. While technology companies strive to make their products universally accessible, issues like voice recognition and language synthesis can sometimes lead to unintended biases. A report from the University of Auckland’s Technology and Society Lab in 2023 found that while AI and voice technology have advanced, there remains a gap in how these technologies handle non-English languages, particularly in terms of accent and dialect recognition, which can sometimes be misinterpreted as bias.
For Wellington, a city known for its progressive stance on human rights and technology, this case is particularly poignant. Wellingtonians pride themselves on inclusivity, with the city hosting numerous tech startups and being a hub for innovation. The local community’s reaction to Zhang’s claims has been mixed, with some viewing it as an overreach, while others see it as a necessary conversation about how technology interacts with cultural diversity.
The tribunal’s decision to strike out Zhang’s claim against Apple might close this particular chapter, but it leaves open broader dialogues about the intersection of technology, culture, and law. As Wellington continues to grow as a tech-forward city, cases like these remind us of the importance of ensuring technology serves all communities equitably, without inadvertently perpetuating biases.
Zhang’s persistence in bringing such claims to the tribunal, despite repeated dismissals, also prompts a discussion on the accessibility of legal recourse in New Zealand. While the tribunal exists to protect rights, the frequency of Zhang’s claims might suggest a need for clearer guidelines or perhaps support systems to help individuals understand when their grievances might not constitute a human rights violation.
In conclusion, Taiming Zhang’s claim against Apple over the iPad’s voice function being racist, while ultimately unsuccessful, has sparked important conversations in Wellington about technology, discrimination, and the legal system. It serves as a reminder of the ongoing need for vigilance in ensuring technology respects and reflects the diversity of its users. As we move forward, the community, tech companies, and legal bodies must work together to address these complex issues, ensuring that innovation does not outpace inclusivity.
Note: This article was written to provide a detailed exploration of Taiming Zhang’s claim against Apple, focusing on its implications for Wellington and beyond. For more local stories and insights, keep following One Network Wellington Live.