Apple, AT&T get sued for misleading 3G claims, again
By Donald Melanson 
posted March 20th 2009 1:58PM
posted March 20th 2009 1:58PM
Is there a better way to ring in the first day of spring than with another lawsuit aimed at Apple and AT&T? Probably, but apparently not for Damone Dickerson, who has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that again takes aim at the pair over allegedly misleading claims about 3G speeds. According to Dickerson, he has only be able to connect to the 3G network a "fraction of the time," and when he was able to connect it did not provide "full and continual service." As a result, he's leveled a whole host of charges against the two companies, which he hopes will result in them changing their advertising and, of course, allow him to "recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages." No word from Apple or AT&T, naturally, but Apple has recently asked that a similar case in New York be dismissed.
There are 3 places where my iphone drops calls (really, depends on how fast i'm going, but i know where they are), two of them are under highway overpasses and one is around these HUGE grain silo's. Since i'm pretty sure they arent made of marshmallows. Concrete, sheet metal, and a steel grid and/or I-beams, I think I understand why something like that would happen.
i've had att wirelss, sbc, cingular, att again... basically, I dont ever want to know what i've paid the company for the past 12 years... but the coverage and customer servces has been excellent! thats why I stay with them.
I really dont understand why everyone hates att.
the guy is an idiot for trying to "sue", what he should do is work with a supervisor to get some kind of discount/deal for his account!
greed. thats all it is
yup, to reference my previous reply to a post earlier, I know of a few 3G deadzones, but they're all related to the surrounding geography (buildings, overpass, parking structures, etc.).
Attention, angry posters:
The grammar police have been notified of the flagrant crimes contained in the posts for this article. Rather than investigate and/or arrest any offenders singly, they wish you to be informed that this area will be firebombed in 10 seconds. It is the hope of the grammar police that any survivors will learn from this incident, and actually read their comments before submitting.
Your/you're usage confusion makes my head hurt. Of course, I'm an old fart, so GET OFF MY LAWN!!!
Rogers, you are up next! Get your lawyers ready...
I have an iPhone 3G. Got it late August of last year. Only place I had service issues, was at home, inside. I live in a "bowl" at the bottom of a hill. As soon as I get out of the house, problem resolved. I had a 30 day return policy and decided to just stick it out. I loved the phone and never had an issue anywhere else. I am happy I still have it today. Service has increased and still, no issues to this day.
I don't understand why people need to sue all the time. It does nothing. I also have Verizon. I have had the worst customers service with them than I ever care to have again. AT&T, never an issue. It's all about coverage and your area. That's all it is. I have had 3G since day one. The only time I lost 3G and switched to EDGE was when I was out in the boonies and my phone STILL worked perfectly.
This guy needs to get a life. If something does not perform, you return it - get your money back and go elsewhere. You don't sue.
"....[The] Only place I had service issues, was at home, inside....
That's OK then. Just tell all your friends that when you can't be reach, you can be got at home.
You idiot. Did you check your contract to see if it said "you won't get reception if you live in a bowl" ? Was there a specific disclaimer for that ?
You are the type of person that has allowed Japan to become so great. You settle for bullshit. The Japanese don't. They have great product and great service.
Thank God for the Japanese !
@kccboy2004
Looks like you didn't read the entire post and are just blurting out words without comprehension. Seems the intrawebs has run rampant with pre-pubescent boys that don't have any common sense yet.
It's ok. I forgive you - for now. :)
America: the place where you can sue everyone for every piece of shit. Even a dog.
I didn't know Apple had two stimulus packages in the works!
I guess its his time of the month
I have a iPhone 3G and if I'm in the City, Sydney It's fantastic. Soon as I'm out of the city its back to GSM - It's not the iPhones fault it's the fact that there are no 3G Vodafone towers out of the city. If you live outside the city you have to go with Telstra. -- in Australia
Man some of you are dead wrong and are not taking certain things in to account.
Everyone seems to want great coverage yet no one wants a cell tower visible from their home/neighborhood.
If a Home Owners Association blocks the construction of a tower, it is the HOA that is responsible for your iphone not receiving 3G coverage/speeds in that area, not ATT or Apple. If a local town/city does not grant a permit for a new tower, then you have them to blame for a lack of coverage. ATT can not force a neighborhood or town to allow new cell towers, if they can not force this then that means coverage in certain areas is OUT OF THEIR CONTROL. If it is out of their control, then you can not sue due to spotty coverage in a certain location.
It is not slick lawyer fine print, it is covering your ass for scenarios when tower construction is blocked and then people want to sue for millions over poor reception.
The fact that this guy is seeking compensatory, statutory and punitive damages is a rather plain & clear indication of money chasing rather then being about false advertising. If anything ATT should add some more clarification to their TOS Under no circumstances should this LOSER receive a cash settlement. He is an ambulance chasing attorneys best friend.
as reactionary as suing the whole fucking company because your call got dropped?
why cant we delete our own comments!?!?!?! supposed to be a reply to something else...
i'm suing engadget for its misleading comment system...
@Plushdog
My friend welcome to suburbia...Where we don't want towers/poles or anything that makes our comunity look ugly..Yet we want all the services. and thats is just sad. On my gf town(Fair Haven NJ) they had this issue for years, where they wanted the service yet no to towers or poles and they kept figthing with the cell companies in the end the old town rules(yeah they acted like they ruled a kingdon) Lost the local election and finally the new council voted yes but if the cell companies installed their service on utility poles own by the eletric company. Now my gf service is way better she has a BB and is fast even on edge.
ps I also agree Apple should not be sued since all they do is make the phone and install a standard 3g chip like every other phone maker.
3G is not even available for AT&T Customers in Southeastern Michigan where
I live so I didn't even bother to upgrade from my 1st Generation iPhone.
AT&T has great customer service and informed me of this at there local store.
However, had I went to the apple store or even an out of town AT&T then I would
have unknowingly upgraded my device and paid for a 3G I couldn't use.
I will say that my reception and coverage really sucks and I was hoping that
2 years would have been plenty of time for them to up the antie on that but they
haven't.
I may have to look into the Pre since Sprint is on the ball in Michigan and a friend
of mine has 3G speed on his devise from Sprint.
well, they do say "3G not available in all areas"
Wah wah wah I can't read contracts, it's too hard.
I absolutely agree, they say the have the fastest 3G network and when they tested the iPhone 3G and the Blackberry Storm from verizon, AT&T looked like a liar hah!! offering what they can't provide its their way of getting costumers.
they who? where are the test results?
I'm what's sometimes called an apple fanboy. But my iPhones (first & 2nd gen) wouldn't get or hold a signal at one of two places i spend time: a suburban part of heavily developed saint petersburg, fl (in the densest-populated county in the state, so we're not talking weak signals in a remote rural area). It wasn't the phones' problem, as they both grabbed four bars and worked superbly at a kentucky residence.
ATT kept promising to "fix the tower" which was responsible for a known abyss of coverage, but never delivered. I bought a $300 booster to make my phone work. I'd have been glad if someone had successfully sued ATT to provide adequate service. I was within a mile of one of their "more bars in more places" billboards. That kind of failure is unconscionable, and if a court could motivate them to provide adequate service, i say go for it.
With so many people are suing-happy, why nobody is suing AT&T for provider-locking the iPhone?
I completely agree. I said this waay back on the 1st page. Posting again because I really believe this and it's relevant here too.
"The cellular world would be a much better place if all companies could carry all of the available cell phones and other devices.
Besides, I seem to remember something I read awhile ago.. something about a.. um.. I dunno.. Oh, that's right.. A law against monopolies?
Personally, I believe this sort of thing should be covered under this (if it isn`t already and the FTC is just too lazy to do anything about it). How many of us would like to go and buy a new computer and be told that it can only be used if it's connected with Time-Warner? Not knocking Time-Warner here, but what if you wanted to use Verizon? or lived in a location that wasn't serviced by Time-Warner? You'd be out of luck and probably pretty damn pissed off. Especially if Verizon had a better deal.
You can buy an iPhone from anywhere, as long as it's unlocked. But, of course, you can only use it if you pay AT&T for the privilege. This is complete crap and should be addressed immediately. And the iPhone obviously isn't the only culprit here either. The G1 can only be used if you're willing to sign on with T-Mobile. And we can say the same about almost every mobile device that has ever been created! After all (to use the example) if we had the ability to use our iPhones on more than just AT&T`s network, AT&T would be forced to upgrade and fix the problems. Otherwise, they`d pretty much be telling their customers to move to a competitor. All of the federal funds that are currently being used to pad CEO pockets should be more devoted to ensuring that we have choices when it comes to the companies we deal with. End of story.
There should be a class action lawsuit, but not against Apple or AT&T. It should be against the government agency that has allowed this whole thing to happen. If Microsoft can be sued for having a media player preinstalled in Windows (and we`re NOT EVEN BEING FORCED TO USE IT!) then this should NEVER be acceptable."
Just move out of Jersey! lol
I am new with regard to posting on this site, however, I've been reading the comments for a few weeks now. Thank you very much to Patrick and Aaron who mentioned this galling situation with AT&T and Apple having the exclusive contract between them. This one fact is incredibly frustrating and I cannot understand how it is allowed to exist here in the US. It seems that Apple and AT&T have created a way to control the consumer on a few different levels, albeit a consumer who does have the free will and ability to purchase any product or service. I try to thoroughly research these things before purchasing so that I know what I'm getting, and agreeing to, and this iPhone/AT&T exclusivity issue is where the frustration begins for me. (I was stunned when the exclusive AT&T thing was first announced, AND they force a 2 year contract. I also read that Verizon was approached and would not agree to Apple's demands. Not sure if that is true.) The iPhone, in my opinion, is a far superior product, (even with the obvious room for improvement) hands down, feature for feature, than any other device currently on the market. I thought the idea is to make money. Wouldn't Apple be selling many, many more of these phones if the consumer was then free to use the carrier of their choice? Wouldn't it also possibly mean more converts to their other products? I had AT&T and left them due to the never ending service issues, and what I believed was a lot of embellishment in advertising. Eight years with Verizon, never a problem and I do travel extensively around the US. I would very much like an iPhone. I will not change from Verizon. And I am someone that would have paid full price (so Apple could give AT&T their take), if I were offered the luxury of the choice, because I believe this product and it's capabilities are the future of mobile communications. It is my opinion that with this type of business decision Apple shows only disdain and condescension toward their customers. I'm certain this does not bother them. Too bad for me I guess.
Maybe AT&T will change there advertising to be instead of "More bars in more places" ... to ... "More bars in more places (but less bars everywhere)" ... because that is truly what represents there network service. I can't believe that Apple chose to go with AT&T, one of the worst networks.
Americans on one of their suing trips again...
I suppose he can sue, does he really believe sprint and verizon will have 100% 3g/evdo connections 24/7? Maybe I'm lucky but I generally get 3-5 bars 3g 90% of the time. My friend has the storm ( I know hah ) and he usually has the same reception as I do. No one I know has sprint so I'm not sure about them. This seems like it's the norm. ATT/Verizon/sprint should just say there are no blanketed areas.
It isn't only about 3G - I can't get EDGE in lower Manhattan or downtown Brooklyn. How do you explain that? I never had the problem with Verzion. I've had to give out my desk phone number at work because no one can call me - or hear me if the call does go through, the quality is so awful.
I've called AT&T and they gave me a $25 credit for this month - but NOTHING can be done otherwise, so I'll need to eat the $150 and break the contract.