First, I think it is more likely to win the case.

Nowadays, every one of us can't live without mobile phones, which play an important role in our lives and are updated very quickly. Generally 1 to 2 years, a new mobile phone will be replaced, and the function of the mobile phone is becoming more and more powerful. Mobile phones can replace many other household appliances. One thing we must be very clear about is to buy a new mobile phone, which has a charger, although some brands of mobile phones do not have their own chargers. Some people find that there is no charger attached to the Apple mobile phone after buying it, which is very inconvenient, because the charger of the Apple mobile phone can't be used with chargers of other brands, causing various inconveniences. Many people find that there is no matching charger after buying their mobile phones, so they can only endure it silently. It is also reasonable for some students to boldly stand up and sue the mobile phone company. I think there is a good chance of winning, and I support them very much.

Second, the mobile phone does not send a charger, which infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.

Apple's mobile phone now clearly indicates that it does not contain a charger, and the reason given is to reduce carbon emissions, which is to protect the environment. Although their starting point is good, they confuse the concept. Buying a mobile phone without a charger itself infringes on the rights and interests of consumers, because consumers do not feel any preferential price. After buying the mobile phone, they need to buy another charger, which adds an extra burden to everyone. Moreover, after buying a mobile phone, the merchant will directly send the mobile phone and the charger together, and there will be no waste of resources and logistics. Therefore, cooperative consumers hope that mobile phone companies can integrate mobile phones and chargers as before, and don't let consumers spend more money.