From the second part of your question, it sounds like you're focusing on the "wire," when your answer lies in focusing on the "fraud."
It can't be applied to "any activity done with electronic device[s]," unless that activity is to trick people into giving you money in exchange for a bogus or nonexistent product or service.
As in the text of the law in a sibling comment, the rules parallel "mail fraud," which is the same: if you send a magazine offering to sell someone a fancy tool kit for $200, and they send a check and you send a box of dirt, you've committed mail fraud.
If you do the same thing over the phone or internet, it's wire fraud.
In this case, the fraud went the other way: Apple says "if you bought a thing from us, you can return it," students say, "we bought this thing, please give me money back," but really, they didn't buy it, because this thing was a fake.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's the lying about the counterfeit nature of the item returned is what makes it a crime. Focusing on whether it's wire or mail or some other kind of fraud, or what other kind of device activity is covered under the statute, is not as relevant as the lying part.
The elements of wire fraud, per the DOJ criminal resource manual:
> The elements of wire fraud under Section 1343 directly parallel those of the mail fraud statute, but require the use of an interstate telephone call or electronic communication made in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576, 583 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)); United States v. Frey, 42 F.3d 795, 797 (3d Cir. 1994) (wire fraud is identical to mail fraud statute except that it speaks of communications transmitted by wire); see also, e.g., United States v. Profit, 49 F.3d 404, 406 n. 1 (8th Cir.) (the four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud are: (1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and (4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used) (citing Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Eighth Circuit 6.18.1341 (West 1994)), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2289 (1995); United States v. Hanson, 41 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir. 1994) (two elements comprise the crime of wire fraud: (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud; and (2) use of interstate wire communication to facilitate that scheme); United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 771 (5th Cir. 1994) (essential elements of wire fraud are: (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) the use of, or causing the use of, interstate wire communications to execute the scheme), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 193 (1995); United States v. Cassiere, 4 F.3d 1006 (1st Cir. 1993) (to prove wire fraud government must show (1) scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses, (2) defendant's knowing and willful participation in scheme with intent to defraud, and (3) use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of scheme); United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("Wire fraud requires proof of (1) a scheme to defraud; and (2) the use of an interstate wire communication to further the scheme.").
It's a fairly broad statute, but to answer your question, it depends on whether the "activity" in question meets all of the elements of wire fraud.
Laws like this drive me nuts. Why isn't it simply fraud, full stop? Degrees of fraud are fine, depending on the egregiousness of the fraud. Special cases for the type of harm are fine (fraudulent phone vs fraudulent life-saving medication). Why the hell do we need "mail fraud" and "wire fraud"? It's just noise.
> Why the hell do we need "mail fraud" and "wire fraud"?
Mail fraud and wire fraud are federal crimes where the federal Constitutional power justifying federal law is the postal authority and the interstate commerce clause via the national character of the covered telecommunication networks, respectively.
The US federal government has no Constitutional authority for a general fraud law.
That aside, there are various ways specialized domains create risks of particular conduct that might carry the same general problem as fraud in general, but where the context makes it important to define the prohibited conduct differently than is appropriate for general fraud laws.
