In 2010, the iOS 4 update all but crippled the iPhone 3G. A subsequent update fixed most of the issues, but as is inevitable in a persistently litigious culture, California resident Bianca Wofford filed a lawsuit against Apple claiming "Apple knowingly and intentionally released what it called a system software 'upgrade' that, in fact, made hundreds of thousands of [iPhones] 'useless' for their intended purpose."
When I examined the law brief, I found it to be utterly without merit and full of tremendous errors in logic. My conclusion: "I hope that whatever judge sees this brief is smart enough to throw it out before it even makes it to court. The suit's claims are all but impossible to prove."
A year later, that's exactly what has happened; Judge Anthony J. Battaglia dismissed the case because the claims made don't fall under California's Consumer Legal Remedy Act. Since the iOS 4 software update was offered free of charge, the judge ruled that it qualified as neither a "sale or lease" or "good or service" under the Act.
Ms. Wofford's lawsuit sought US$5000 in damages for iPhone 3G owners, free upgrades to the iPhone 3GS or iPhone 4, and $150 in credits for lost services. Since the judge has ruled her case is not covered under the Consumer Legal Remedy Act, none of those damages will be brought against Apple. Wofford has the right to appeal or amend her suit, but the case was so completely lacking in merit that it's unlikely the appeal will move forward.
The hardest thing to believe about this case? It's already been a whole year since we first heard about it. Time sure flies.