ClassActionSuit
Latest
Toshiba hit for $87 million in LCD price fixing verdict, maintains innocence
Toshiba decided not to settle when faced with allegations of price fixing, and now the company may have to pay the price. A jury handed down a verdict in the District Court for the Northern District of California today, hitting the company with $87 million in damages as part of a class action suit. The civil suit, separate from the criminal charges some of its alleged co-conspirators faced, wrapped today with the decision to award consumers $70 million and gave $17 million to manufacturers who purchased the company's panels. Toshiba may not actually have to pay up, however, thanks to settlements struck by others caught up in the same scandal, which could cover the damages. Regardless, the company maintains its innocence and actually plans to pursue "all available legal avenues" to reverse the decision. For more of Toshiba's response, check out the PR after the break.
Sony taken to court over PS3 'Other OS' removal
Sony forced PS3 owners into a tough decision with the mandatory 3.21 firmware update: either lose online play, or forgo Linux support. On Tuesday, Anthony Ventura chose door number three -- and filed a lawsuit in California, asking the judge for class-action status. The complaint quotes Sony executives on numerous occasions saying how vital and important the "Install Other OS" feature was to the game console (it's a computer, remember?) and claims breach of contract, false advertising, and several other causes of action against the entertainment giant. Sure, a lawsuit was bound to happen, given the number of angry PS3 owners out there, but here's the thing: there's no telling whether the court will grant a class-action certification here, and even if the case gets that far it's pretty unlikely to force Sony to turn the feature back on -- instead, customers will probably receive a token amount in damages while the lawyers get their full fees. For example, a rare, successful class-action suit against Palm -- filed in 2004 -- got Treo 600 owners only $27.50 in store credit, five years later. Meanwhile, we hear European PS3 owners just have to ask for their money back -- which, we promise you, is the fastest way to put an end to your Linux-based PS3 nightmares. Either that, or just wait for Geohot to make it all better.
Attention Sprint Treo 600 owners: you're owed $27.50
Sure, Sprint and Palm are hoping the Pre turns the page on their relatively dark recent past, but karma's a bitch sometimes -- the other Palm news this week is that Sprint and Palm have settled a class-action lawsuit alleging the two companies misled customers into thinking there'd be WiFi and Bluetooth accessories for the Treo 600. Remember how crushed we all were when nothing ever hit the market? The pain was almost immeasurable -- unless you're a class-action settlement attorney, in which case you instinctively know anyone who bought a Sprint Treo 600 before October 27, 2004 is owed either a $20 Sprint service credit or a $27.50 credit to be used in Palm's online store. So, anyone still have their Treo 600 receipts from 2004? Yeah, we didn't think so.[Via TamsPalm]
Best Buy sued for violating its Price Match policy on purpose
Last Thursday, the U.S. District Court, Southern District approved a motion for a class-action suit filed by plaintiff Thomas Jermyn in New York State against Best Buy. Essentially, this suit will claim that Best Buy is in "extreme" violation of its own Price Match policy, and that it uses the advertised policy as a way to scam consumers into the stores and purchase gear. Best Buy's Price Match policy is "undisclosed," meaning that we don't know how it actually operates -- and the suit claims that the company routinely denies the Price Match policy -- as a matter of a lesser known, less cooler policy. The law offices charged with filing the suit are asking that consumers who have been affected by the policy get on the bandwagon. Next up: we file suit against them for using the name "Best Buy" when they are totally not.[Via IGN]
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.
Apple hit with two new class-action lawsuits
Apple, despite (or because of) all its successes and odds-beating triumphs, still can't shake the occasional class-action suit being thrown its way. This week is no different, as the company sees not one, but two separate claims laid on its doorstep. The first hails from Florida, where two righteous citizens have filed suit against Apple alleging the company has "recklessly disregarded" consumers' rights. According to the suit, a law which prevents credit card information from being displayed on receipts has been ignored by the company, and if Apple is found to be in the wrong, it could be responsible for compensation to any buyer affected by its practices (that means you). The second suit comes from a man in Michigan, who claims that the Cupertino computer-maker has violated patents he owns for the inclusion of status lights on rechargeable laptop batteries. If his claim proves successful, Apple could find themselves accounting for lost profits and paying triple the awarded amount for the patent infringement. Of course, Steve Jobs loses money like that in-between his sofa cushions... right?
Fall update class action suit against MS?
In a recent Xbox.com forum post -- noticed by TeamXbox -- an Xbox 360 owner from California claims to have filed a class action suit against Microsoft for damage caused to his 360 by the fall update. The plaintiff, Gamertag REDRUM6622, has leveled three accusations at Microsoft: breach of contract, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and negligence. Granted, a forum post is not official confirmation that such a suit actually exists, but the language is very detailed. Frankly, we wonder why the claims are so specific. After all, 360s have been breaking down since long before the fall update. We know that a lot of 360 owners have had problems with the fall update -- we posted what became a very lengthy thread on the subject -- so a lawsuit may actually be justified. Do you think it would be fair?See the claim after the break.
