Apple's locked iPhones the subject of new class-action suit

The Apple class-action party continues folks, this time featuring a disgruntled New York State customer named Herbert H. Kliegerman, who claims that the Cupertino giant failed to adequately disclose information pertaining to the "locked" nature of the iPhone and the roaming charges which might be incurred if a user was to take the device overseas. According to the 9-page suit, which was filed Monday in a New York Supreme Court, Kliegerman traveled to Mexico a few weeks after purchasing the phone, where he proceeded to check e-mails and make calls, blissfully unaware (or so the suit tells us) that AT&T would be charging international roaming fees for the usage. Apparently, when Mr. Kliegerman received his bill, he was shocked to discover $2,000 in the aforementioned fees. The suit argues that if he had been allowed to unlock the phone and use a foreign SIM card, the costs could have been avoided. As a result, Mr. Kliegerman is seeking a judgement which bars Apple from selling locked iPhones, plus an order for the company to offer unlock codes to all current owners. Perhaps Mr. Kliegerman should call these dudes.

[SiZe6 @ Aug 28th 2007 11:34AM]

"Judge, here is a copy of the contract Mr. Kliegerman signed with AT&T."
"Case dismissed."

[akijikan @ Aug 28th 2007 12:00PM]

Nailed it on the head.

[Matt @ Aug 28th 2007 12:12PM]

It's called unconscionability. Look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionable

[James @ Aug 28th 2007 12:36PM]

That's funny, when I switched to T-Mo a few months ago, I read my contract quite carefully, and I'm pretty sure they didn't disclose the fact that my new Nokia was going to be locked into their network. I'm technically literate, so I assumed it would be, but plenty of people wouldn't know that sort of thing offhand. Now, he should have been given material with his contract to show exactly where he was and was not roaming (hint: different country, probably roaming), as well as what the roaming charges were -- I'd be shocked if he could prove he wasn't told about those. But he could probably succeed in arguing that he didn't know the phone was locked to AT&T, though I'm unsure that he'll get any injunction as a result.

[tyfoff @ Aug 28th 2007 3:10PM]

Not likely to get the contract ruled unconscionable. He had too many other options for phones and carriers. He didn't have to buy the iPhone or go with at&t.

Also, just because you don't read a contract, doesn't mean you can claim ignorance. You are held responsible for having read every contract you sign.

[33scottie33 @ Aug 28th 2007 1:18PM]

It does not even have to go this far, just give the judge his IQ! Case dismissed!

[Christopher Bibbs @ Aug 28th 2007 3:06PM]

James,

T-Mo will, in most cases, unlock your phone if you've been a customer for a few months and you tell them you're going over seas. I did it myself earlier this year when I was going to France for a few days on business. I believe that's the reason you didn't find anything in your contract saying you were locked in.

[Nick @ Aug 28th 2007 3:08PM]

James... i think because you are "technically literate" you know that a person can take a phone for cingular and get it to work on another carriers network using that carriers SIM card in addition to things. I think most people who use cellphone (non tech blog readers) just assume that if they get a phone for their carrier.. that the phone will only work with that carrier.

[BandB @ Aug 28th 2007 11:36AM]

Why Apple, isn't ATT responsible for the roaming charges?

[pingpong @ Aug 28th 2007 3:42PM]

Yes, but Apple is responsible for the software that locked his phone, therefore making it impossible to switch to a foreign SIM card. If he could have switched cards, those AT&T charges could have been avoided. I think there's a bit of dual responsibility here.

[BandB @ Aug 28th 2007 5:16PM]

I see you point with the software being Apple's responsibility. But then you would take the next logical step and infer that the "broken" software is a result of a contractual aggrement with ATT. Then the ball is back to ATT with the legality of such a arangment (forced or not) with Apple.

[MarkA @ Aug 28th 2007 11:37AM]

It's amazing how stupid people are. Blaming AT&T for his stupidity....he should have known before hand what the charges would be...I know if I was traveling out of the USA, I would check with AT&T on how I would be charged. It's just easier to sue I guess then getting a clue. Like the IPhone is the first phone in the world to be 'locked' by a carrier. Unreal.

[Zach @ Aug 28th 2007 12:20PM]

because you're a computer geek; we know what happens when you go overseas and when you roam, and when you turn the 110V switch on your PSU to 220v.

However, most are unaware truly of the terms they're signing up for.

[Ronald McD @ Aug 28th 2007 2:42PM]

Zach is dead on. Most of the people posting on Engadget are tech geeks. What is common sense to you may be completely foreign to others. How much do you guys know about gardening, fashion, bodybuilding, etc.? Go to any special interest forum and you'll always see users mocking the lesser-informed. People have a habit of taking their own knowledge for granted. Simply, you can't expect everyone to know everything. I would not call this case frivolous nor would I call this guy stupid.

[Dale @ Aug 28th 2007 3:03PM]

At least in the UK, the practice of locking phones is commonplace - and it's not just the technologically literate who know about it, hence the abundance of small businesses making a killing by unlocking handsets to work on networks other than that they were intended for.

[James Daniels @ Aug 28th 2007 11:38AM]

This is ridiculous. I cannot imagine this holding up in court.

[Luigi @ Aug 28th 2007 11:43AM]

Cheers to this man. I don't care if he knew or didn't know about the roaming fees beforehand, it's time to put an end to locked phones and one-sided mobile contracts.

[rob @ Aug 28th 2007 11:50AM]

well, it's idiotic, you should always check, this will not stand up in any court.
However, I agree that the iphone should not be locked like that : )

[FreeRange @ Aug 28th 2007 11:51AM]

As this man's lawyer, I don't think it's appropriate for you to be posting here!

[lhs @ Aug 29th 2007 1:39AM]

Okay, as much as I dislike locked phones, has anybody realized that the roaming fees are all data charges? Even though this is pretty silly of AT&T (I think that unlimited data should allow unlimited roaming data), this illuminates one fact: Even an unlocked iPhone set up to use EDGE would not help. In fact, it would make things worse! The iphone is heavily reliant on internet connectivity. It eats data for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The only thing an unlocked iPhone would do is allow you to shut off EDGE altogether with whatever carrier. The real solution is to get AT&T to wave roaming data like they should be doing, since a regular iPhone config doesn't let you escape EDGE.

Btw. I'm writing on an iPhone and bringing this home to Canada. I'll be losing my phone capability because Rogers, like most carriers worldwide don't have unlimited data plans. Even an unlocked iPhone would have to go EDGE-less or even in the US, your data bill would be huge! In one week, I ate up about 50MB of data. Multiply by 4 and see if that fits in just about anyone else's data plan for the same price as AT&T's.

[akijikan @ Aug 28th 2007 12:06PM]

Not reading your contract you sign and being aware of roaming fees is not the same issue as selling phones carrier-locked or unlocked. This sounds like he knew about the fees, used the phone anyway and is now trying to use the locked/unlocked issue to add leverage to his case. This guy is either stupid or trying to weasel out of paying his bill. Either way, he had better lose his case.

[Mandarin @ Aug 28th 2007 11:51AM]

And the dummy-of-the-year-who-doesn't-read is.....

[brassready @ Aug 28th 2007 11:51AM]

Dude just doesn't wanna pay his bill. Who goes to a diffrent country an thinks they'll get away without roaming charges.

It would however... be really sweet if he wins though...

[Brad @ Aug 28th 2007 11:51AM]

If this guy was so "shocked" at his $2000 bill after getting back from Mexico, then why would he care if the phone was locked ? If he wasnt aware of the high roaming charges, why would he want to use other providers SIMs to reduce this high cost in the first place?!

[seraphaxg @ Aug 28th 2007 11:51AM]

Here ... here ... I use my phone for business and travel all over the world- if offered a local provider with SIM by my business I will always take this option rather than paying the extortionate roaming fee's charged by my home provider.

These people are selling nothing more than air- no need to charge upwards of $2000 just because the air is not in the country that the phone was bought.

Apple signed the exclusivity deal with AT&T making it impossible for consumers to exercise their rights to fair trade- I believe Apple are at fault.

Apple- Wise up !!!

[Leo @ Aug 28th 2007 11:53AM]

All this iphone stuff is getting rediculous.

[Casper Kao @ Aug 28th 2007 11:59AM]

Did that hurt your ability to spell words correctly? :p

[Leo @ Aug 28th 2007 2:23PM]

Thanks... now I will never get it wrong again.

[Al @ Aug 28th 2007 11:55AM]

Wow this is really absurd in my opinion. While I understand the whole problem with the locked iphones, there's a huge fault in the logic. APPLE isn't the only one selling locked phones! almost all, if not all phones sold on ATT are initially locked to ATT, and well in those cases, there have been known ways of unlocking the phone. Therefore, I just don't see the whole problem with selling locked phones ... Maybe (far shot still) they can argue that they didn't let consumers know that at this point there wasn't any known (or published) way of unlocking the phone ... but realistically ... he should have known it was locked to ATT, as there have been numerous postings online and talk about it. Also, the whole roaming issue? It's one thing to know about the roaming and do something about it, but still get charged a lot (the $3k bill thing) ... vs this guy just thinking he wouldn't be roaming in Mexico. Um... yeah. Maybe there wasn't enough wording regarding how data would be handled internationally, but that would be ATT's fault for not wording it properly! Sure maybe the judge could say, find a way that you can unlock the phone and provide it to ATT... but I find it hard for any judge to force Apple to sell their phone unlocked when other companies are allowed to sell their phones locked... And also, I am wondering if there was an agreement between ATT and Apple regarding locking / unlocking the phone? I also just thought of this. If he was blissfully unaware that he would be charged international data, why would he have saved money by putting in a foreign sim card? he was "blissfully unaware" ... meaning he wasn't thinking about it! Anyways.. it's just silly, and I don't see this class action lawsuit going anywhere beyond maybe a suggestion by the judge, if anything.

[Mark Schenkel @ Aug 28th 2007 11:58AM]

there is NO way that he will rule to unlock every phone...at BEST they will get their charges paid...no way in hell (i may only be a 1L, but i think it's pretty obvious nonetheless)

[Matt @ Aug 28th 2007 10:42PM]

1Ls may only speak when spoken to.
Shouldn't you be in class?

[JBo @ Aug 28th 2007 11:58AM]

If he could afford the $500 for a vanity-phone, he can afford the roaming charges that are clearly disclosed.

This is exactly why I will not purchase a locked phone or sign a contract with any carrier. The iPhone is actually kind of cool, but unless I can get it unlocked and with no contract I will never even consider buying one.

[Sebastian Siminovich @ Aug 28th 2007 11:59AM]

After thinking that MEXICO is OVERSEAS???? He should be in jail.

Over = Accross
Seas = Large amount of water

US - > Mexico - No water between.

Basic Geography Gentlemen.

[Matt @ Aug 28th 2007 12:07PM]

There's a river.... overrivers?

[Siddharth @ Feb 5th 2008 6:09AM]

LMFAO. But anyways... I doubt this dude's gonna win his lawsuit. But seriously this is exactly why I'll never buy an iPhone until the day Steve sells those beauties unlocked!

[Sebastian Siminovich @ Aug 28th 2007 12:34PM]

Over/wall/wire/guns/dirt/drugs/lights/etc...

but no seas :-)

[Rick @ Aug 28th 2007 6:22PM]

Not necessarily true! If he flew from Miami to Mexico, then he did, indeed, go over seas (or, at least, I would think he would... I don't know flight routes...). =)

[Brandon @ Aug 28th 2007 12:04PM]

The best this guy can hope to achieve is a check for $2000 to make him go away. Apple and AT&T aren't releasing their deathgrip on the iPhone anytime soon. As a T-Mobile user, I would love nothing more than to have an iPhone for myself, but I can't say I blame Apple or AT&T for flexing their muscle on this one. When you have a product... or in this case *the* product, you can get away with nearly anything you want. And as others above have said, carriers locking phones aren't to blame for individual stupidity.

[Stan Winstone @ Aug 28th 2007 12:09PM]

Isn't RTFM a reasonably unassailable defense for Apple?

[marc @ Aug 28th 2007 12:10PM]

Ok what a frivolous waste of time, taxpayer money and resources. If Mr. Kliegerman wasn't aware of the contract he signed with AT&T that is not Apple's fault. It would also seem obvious to me that if Mr. Kliegerman were aware of what an unlocked phone offers then he wouldn't have been silly enough to use the iPhone when roaming in Mexico. I hope the Judge fines Mr. Kliegerman for the costs of the wasted courts time!

[John Gegier @ Aug 28th 2007 12:53PM]

How is this tax payers money?

If it is in some way using the money I pay in taxes then for once it is a good cause. Carriers selling phones for twice or 4 times what they are worth then locking you into unfair contracts is certainly Unconscionable in my book.

[JC @ Aug 28th 2007 1:28PM]

How is wasting the valuable time of the courts (which you DO pay taxes for) not wasting your tax dollars?

[marc @ Aug 28th 2007 1:39PM]

Taxpayer’s money is used to run the court systems the last time I checked.

Besides no one made anyone buy this phone from Apple or sign a AT&T contract. It is a free market after all and there are lots of options and alternatives available. So blaming Apple for not knowing about what the terms of a contract you signed is simply no excuse.

[mr-slice @ Aug 28th 2007 12:15PM]

Bunch of illiterate losers. Oh such a huge surprise that you can't unlock the phone or change the battery. IDIOTS. The court system is a joke to even entertain this crap. And lawyers are money sucking whores.

[Smittie @ Aug 28th 2007 12:25PM]

With regard to locked phones, unlocked versions of most cell phones are available. Not the iPhone but most other phones. So, all of you complaining about locked phones, stop buying them.

iPhone is unique in that an unlocked version is not available, a two year contract is required and AT&T is not subsidizing the phone in anyway. I suspect that this is the issue this man is trying to raise. Using an iPhone requires a two year contract with AT&T AND paying full price for the phone. It's really pretty amazing that people buy it.

Smittie

[Miranda Priestly @ Aug 28th 2007 12:25PM]

stupid people need to read their contracts before signing them. ignorance isn't an excuse. AT&T offers roaming plans, and all of their rate plan brochures disclose this. DUH

[john easton @ Aug 28th 2007 12:31PM]

What difference does it make if he was on a different phone provider? If he roams your going to get charged with any company!!
As for the $2000 bill?! woah! wtf was he doing? downloading movies? lol

[Siddharth Chatterjee @ Aug 28th 2007 12:35PM]

He my friend..... Was downloading Mexican porn to view on his damn-cool iPhone screen!

[Sebastien @ Aug 28th 2007 12:36PM]

This man is NOT stupid! Don't you guys realize he's fighting for us??? Of course he knew he would be roaming while in Mexico. He is just looking for a case here, that's it. I think what he's doing is great.

[Michael @ Aug 28th 2007 2:08PM]

Wow you're the first person in over half a page of comments to get that fact. Congrats.
This guy is not an idiot, the only idiots are the people who honestly believe he was dumb enough not to know?!!! The guy was out the sue from the start. Isn't that blatantly obvious from this ridiculous lawsuit?!!!

I don't usually like these lawsuits, but hey if he can get Apple/AT&T to unlock the iPhones then more power to him. Fat chance it will happen though.