ClassAction
Latest
Apple begins defense against possible ebook antitrust case
Apple is wasting no time beginning to defend itself against the possibility of a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action alleging that the company conspired with publishers to fix ebook prices. Last week, Apple requested that a class action suit alleging price-fixing on ebooks be thrown out. Part of the suit hinges on a comment that Steve Jobs made to the Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg in January of 2010, saying that unhappy publishers might decide to withhold ebooks from Amazon. Lawyers in the class action suit think that Jobs's comment meant that Apple and publishers were conspiring to force Amazon to raise ebook prices. Apple's retort last week says that the lawyers "mischaracterized" the exchange, and that Jobs only meant that Apple had a different strategy in the ebook business than Amazon. Apple says that it wants to sell as many ebooks as possible, which is totally believable since the company is still a relative bit player in the ebook market. As a result, the company would not have an incentive to raise prices on ebooks. But Apple's argument fails to address accusations that Jobs schemed with publishers to slow Amazon's eventual move into the tablet market with the Kindle Fire. Apple's lawyers responded in their court filing last week by downplaying the threat of the Kindle Fire: But this allegation just strings together antitrust buzzwords.. Nor does this "Kindle theory" make sense on its own terms. For example, if Amazon was a "threat" that needed to be squelched by means of an illegal conspiracy, why would Apple offer Amazon's Kindle app on the iPad? Why would Apple conclude that conspiring to force Amazon to no longer lose money on eBooks would cripple Amazon's competitive fortunes? And why would Apple perceive the need for an illegal solution to the "Kindle threat" when it had an obvious and lawful one which it implemented – namely, introducing a multipurpose device (the iPad) whose marketing and sales success was not centered on eBook sales? There are rumors that some publishers are currently in settlement talks with the DOJ. These publishers might be exchanging damning information for a lesser settlement, which could spell trouble for both Apple and other publishers.
Samsung may cough up millions over kaput TVs
A class action lawsuit filed by owners of faulty Sammy TVs has finally reached a settlement. The manufacturer has promised to foot the bill for new repairs, reimburse for previous repairs and hand out up to $300 to customers who no longer possess their broken TVs but can prove they once did. The fault can affects any of the models listed above -- possibly up to seven million sets in total -- and centers on an errant capacitor in the power circuit that stops the TV turning on, makes it slow to turn on, produces a "clicking sound" or makes it cycle on and off. If you think you're affected then check the source link for details on what to do next. Curious to know how much the lawyers got? A cool half-million for their troubles, which means they'll be upgrading to OLED.Update: A Samsung spokesperson offered up the following response, Approximately 1 percent of Samsung televisions sold in the U.S. from 2006 to 2008 have experienced some performance issues caused by a component called a capacitor. Since originally confirming this issue in early 2010, Samsung has voluntarily provided free repairs for U.S. customers with affected televisions. Recently, a nationwide class settlement covering all affected televisions in the U.S. was reached in Russell, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., a lawsuit filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County in the U.S.
iPhone 4 antennagate class-action lawsuit settled, owners to receive $15 or a free case (update)
According to CNET, a class-action lawsuit over the iPhone 4's troublesome antenna, aka Antennagate, has been settled. The planned resolution will net US residents who bought one and presumably either $15 in cash or (another?) free bumper case. CNET quotes co-lead counsel Ira Rothken (who, by the way, also represents Megaupload) saying that he believes the settlement is "fair and reasonable", affecting some 25 million people who will be notified by email and through print ads in USA Today and Macworld. Once they've received the heads up, they can go to www.iPhone4Settlement.com (not up and running yet) to register their claims. When the issue first came to light back in 2010 Apple suggested holding it differently before saying it would tweak its signal display formulas and, eventually, offering the free cases. Hopefully for the company and its users, this resolution puts the issue -- which is not a problem on the new 4S -- to bed.Update: We spoke to an Apple representative who confirmed that the settlement is for those customers who chose not to take a free case or return their phone back in 2010. It looks like holding out didn't get you much more than the option to take $15 cash instead, but we'll simply consider it a much-needed opportunity to reflect on the International Year of Biodiversity that was.
DOJ investigation yields fresh evidence against Google, Apple in antitrust lawsuit
Back in 2009, a small controversy began swirling around Google and Apple, amid allegations that the two companies had struck an informal agreement to not poach each other's employees. The Department of Justice launched an investigation into the matter in 2010, but details of the case were only made public for the first time yesterday. TechCrunch was the first to sift through the documents, and has uncovered some ostensibly incriminating evidence against not only Google and Apple, but Pixar, Lucasfilm, Adobe, Intel, and Intuit, as well. According to filings from the US District Court for the Northern District of California, these companies did indeed enter "no poach" agreements with each other, and agreed to refrain from engaging in bidding wars. The documents also suggest that they collectively sought to limit their employees' power to negotiate for higher salaries. Some of the most apparently damning evidence derives from archived e-mails, including one that Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen penned to Steve Jobs in May 2005. In the message, sent under the subject "Recruitment of Apple Employees," Adobe's SVP of human resources explains that "Bruce and Steve Jobs have an agreement that we are not to solicit ANY Apple employees, and vice versa." Pixar's Lori McAdams expressed similar sentiments in an internal e-mail from 2007, writing: "I just got off the phone with Danielle Lambert [of Apple], and we agreed that effective now, we'll follow a Gentleman's agreement with Apple that is similar to our Lucasfilm agreement." This would suggest, as the DOJ writes, that there's "strong evidence that the companies knew about the other express agreements, patterned their own agreements off of them, and operated them concurrently with the others to accomplish the same objective." The DOJ announced in September that it had reached settlements with the six implicated firms, but a class-action lawsuit is scheduled to get underway next week in San Jose.
Samsung, Sharp, Hitachi and others settle LCD panel price fixing consumer class action for $539 million
'Tis the season for settling antitrust lawsuits, folks. Earlier this month, Sharp, Samsung, Hitachi and other LCD panel producers settled out their price fixing lawsuit with direct purchasers (read: TV and computer monitor manufacturers) for $388 million. So the story goes, the companies colluded to assure higher prices on LCDs sold between 1999 and 2006. Now, those same seven companies have settled up with indirect LCD purchasers -- aka the folks buying TVs and PCs -- to the tune of $539 million. Samsung, Sharp and Chimei are dishing out the lion's share of settlement dollars at $240 million, $115 million and $110 million, respectively, with the other companies kicking in between $2.8 and $39 million for their (allegedly) anti-competitive ways. Of course, the settlement isn't final until it receives the court's blessing, but you can see what the judge will likely be rubber-stamping at the source below.
Federal judge dismisses class-action suit against Sony, 'Other OS' feature remains dormant
Last year, a group of disgruntled gamers filed a class-action lawsuit against Sony over its decision to remove the "Install Other OS" feature from its PS3 firmware. Last week, though, their case was dismissed by US District Judge Richard Seeborg, on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to actually state a claim. In a ruling issued Thursday, Seeborg said he sympathized with the gamers' gripes, but ultimately determined that they had failed to demonstrate any legal entitlement to the feature, thereby neutering their arguments. "The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were [un]willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable," Seeborg wrote. "As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable." He went on, however, to point out that the users "have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable" post-PS3 purchase, effectively ending the litigation.
Sharp, Samsung and other LCD makers agree to pay $388 million in price fixing case
The companies still aren't admitting to any wrongdoing, but Sharp, Samsung, Chimei Innolux, LG and four other LCD manufacturers have now reached a settlement in a price fixing case that began back in 2007 with a class action lawsuit. That suit specifically covers LCD panels sold between 1999 and 2006, which the companies are alleged to have driven the price up on, in turn driving up the prices on products that use them. The group has agreed to pay a total of $388 to settle the claims, with Sharp shelling out the largest single amount at $105 million -- Samsung is next at $82.7 million, followed by Taiwan's largest display-maker, Chimei Innolux, at $78 million, and LG at $70 million. As Bloomberg notes, this follows a criminal price fixing case a couple of years back, in which LG and Sharp were forced to pay $585 million in fines.
Apple, Samsung, others sued over Carrier IQ scandal
While the tech world was buzzing last week about Carrier IQ, one group of lawyers was busy preparing a class action complaint. The complaint was filed in Federal Court in Wilmington, Delaware by three local law firms: Sianni & Straite of Wilmington, DE; Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow & McElroy of Edison, NJ; and Keefe Bartels of Red Bank, NJ. The complaint asserts that several wireless companies and cell phone manufacturers violated wiretap and computer fraud laws when they included Carrier IQ software on their phones. The suit names wireless carriers T-Mobile, AT&T and Sprint as well as mobile phone manufacturers HTC, Samsung, Motorola and Apple. The Carrier IQ controversy hit the internet last week when 25-year-old Trevor Eckhart posted a video of Carrier IQ in action. Carrier IQ is diagnostic software that's present on a variety of phones (including at least some editions of the iPhone, though Apple says it has pretty much eliminated Carrier IQ in iOS 5). Several wireless carriers use it to troubleshoot network or device problems. Eckhart detailed in several blog posts and a video how the software allegedly logs and transmits keyboard input, website URLs and other potentially sensitive information. The company denied allegations that it violates wiretap laws, but that has not stopped the lawsuits. With the US Senate asking questions about Carrier IQ and now several lawsuits, we are going to hear a lot more about this controversy before it is all ironed out. Until then, iPhone owners can rest easy. Even though Carrier IQ is present in iOS 5, the software is turned off and should be inert. Apple also said it recently stopped using Carrier IQ and promises it will remove any remaining traces of the software in a future update. [Via The Loop]
Apple reaches settlement in MagSafe class action suit, dodges fireball
Apple's MagSafe has been veritable boon to the clumsy, saving MacBooks from accidental drops since 2006. The magnetic solution, however, hasn't been exactly great when keeping those same notebooks spark free. Those who weren't able to convince a Genius to part ways with a replacement gratis should know that Cupertino has just settled a class-action relating to the original's propensity to fray. Provided they fill out the necessary paperwork, those who paid for replacements out of pocket will be reimbursed $79 within the first year of the computer's purchase, decreasing to $50 and $35 respectively in the years that follow. Claims can be submitted up to three years after the original purchase, or until March 21, 2012 -- whichever occurs first. And to those of you rocking the pre-2008 "L" shaped redesign, might we recommend some flame retardant socks?
Daily Update for September 26, 2011
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get all the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes, which is perfect for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the inline player (requires Flash) or the non-Flash link below. To subscribe to the podcast for listening through iTunes, click here. No Flash? Click here to listen.
iPhone privacy class action case thrown out
It appears that Apple has one less legal headache to worry about. According to Eric Goldman's Technology & Marketing Law Blog, a class action suit alleging that Apple, app developers, and mobile advertising companies violated the privacy rights of iPhone users has been dismissed for lack of standing. The court order actually deals with several class actions that were consolidated into a single lawsuit -- "In Re iPhone Application Litigation". TUAW first reported on two of these lawsuits (Lalo vs. Apple and Freeman vs. Apple) last year. The lawsuits dealt with the collection and unauthorized sharing of private user data with third-party advertising networks, and stemmed from a Wall Street Journal investigation that revealed that several iOS and Android apps were transmitting age, gender, location and device identifier information to those advertising companies. That information was mined by the recipients, then used to serve up in-app advertisements. The exchange of information was done without the knowledge or consent of the users, and the hidden nature of the data exchange caused outrage among privacy advocates. In the dismissal notice filed on September 20, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California brought up a number of reasons to dismiss the consolidated case, including the fact that not one plaintiff had actually suffered an injury as a result of the alleged privacy breaches, nor was there any direct injury traceable to Apple of the other defendants. Apple's legal team still has its hands full with a number of other patent-infringement lawsuits, but the company should be relieved that at least one lawsuit has been thrown out the door by the courts.
Apple involved in class-action lawsuit over ebook pricing
On today's episode of The Daily Lawsuit: law firm Hagens Berman has filed a class action lawsuit against Apple and five of the major book publishing houses. The suit claims Apple and these publishers have conspired to raise prices on ebooks. According to the suit, Amazon's loss-leading pricing for ebooks, designed to drive sales of its Kindle e-reader device, may have led to consumers having an established expectation of low ebook pricing. Allegedly, Apple and the major publishers named in the suit have colluded to raise ebook prices significantly over Amazon's lower prices under the so-called agency model. Under the agency model, ebooks are sold directly to consumers (rather than being sold to retailers as under the old model), with retailers splitting revenues from sales. In the case of Apple's iBookstore, Apple's cut is the same as for most of its other online services: 30 percent. The suit alleges that Apple's pushing of the agency model has meant that competitors like Amazon are now unable to price ebooks lower than Apple's set prices, which has resulted in driving the price of ebooks higher than ever before -- in some cases, electronic media is more expensive than traditional printed copies. We've looked at iBookstore pricing before, but the situation in 2010 didn't seem to reflect what's described in this suit. The price of ebooks certainly isn't higher than the cost of printed copies in many non-US countries, either; in New Zealand, I could buy three ebooks off the US iBookstore for the cost of one trade paperback from a brick-and-mortar retailer. That pricing situation is the same or worse in the UK and Australia. According to Hagens Berman, "The lawsuit seeks damages for the purchase of e-books, an injunction against pricing e-books with the agency model and forfeiture of the illegal profits received by the defendants as a result of their anticompetitive conduct, which could total tens of millions of dollars." Well, good luck with that; from what we've been seeing so far, the iBookstore hasn't exactly been a smashing success.
Apple forced to cough up cash over iPhone location tracking in South Korea
You probably thought all the drama surrounding the iPhone location tracking fiasco was over. Oh, how wrong you were. In fact, the controversy seems ripe for a resurgence after a Korean court ordered that country's Apple arm to pay 1 million won (about $946) to Kim Hyung-suk. The payment was awarded last month, but now Kim's law firm is prepping a class action suit that could put further pressure on the Cupertino crew -- especially in the home of Samsung. This could just be the first in a series of pay outs, as even American courts may look to the decision when considering the fate of other plaintiffs looking to ring a few bucks out of iDevice purveyors. Hit up the source link for a few more details and a host of non sequiturs. [Thanks, Wesley]
Lawsuit says AT&T overcharging users for iPhone, iPad data
A new class action lawsuit claims that AT&T "systematically overstated data usage by 7-14 percent and sometimes up to 300 percent" on users' iPhone and iPad data plans, according to MSNBC. The lawyers for the suit have said that they have spent over US$80,000 testing iPhones on AT&T's network to prove AT&T's overstating data usage. As part of the testing, the lawyers turned off every feature on the iPhone that could use 3G data. Even after shutting off all 3G data connections, there were still 35 transactions for data usage on the lawyers' AT&T bill. The lawyers say that while the cost to some affected users is relatively small -- $10-15 a month -- AT&T is illegally reaping huge profits from overstating data usage on the bills of millions of iPhone users. AT&T has responded to the claims, calling them "without merit." The company says that the lawsuit doesn't take into account "automatic app updates in the background that customers may not be aware of." However, unless they are talking about push notifications, apps don't automatically update. Plus, if 3G is turned off as it was in the lawyers' tests, there is no reason any "automatic app updates" should incur data usage fees.
Antitrust class action lawsuit filed against Apple, others over anti-poaching agreements
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein has announced that they have filed a class action lawsuit against Apple and other major tech companies on behalf of a Lucasfilm employee. The lawsuit alleges that the tech companies took part in illegal "no solicitation" agreements that barred them from poaching each others employees. These anti-poaching agreements led to "eliminate competition and cap pay for skilled employees" according to the lawsuit. MacRumors notes that in addition to Apple, the suit names Adobe, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm, and Pixar as defendants. Former Lucasfilm software engineer Siddharth Hariharan said in a statement, "My colleagues at Lucasfilm and I applied our skills, knowledge, and creativity to make the company an industry leader. It's disappointing that, while we were working hard to make terrific products that resulted in enormous profits for Lucasfilm, senior executives of the company cut deals with other premiere high tech companies to eliminate competition and cap pay for skilled employees." The lawsuit goes on to say the the anti-poaching agreements first took place among Pixar and Lucasfilm in 2005. Shortly thereafter, Apple, Adobe, Google, Intel, and Intuit all joined in. The anti-poaching agreements were allegedly in place until 2009.
US Supreme Court says companies can force arbitration on class-acting consumers
Before today, Californian consumers were free to ignore the arbitration clause tucked in the fine print of every AT&T service contract because state law had declared them unconscionable -- which kept the courthouse doors open to class-acting consumers. However, in a ruling that no doubt pleases AT&T and others of its ilk, the highest court in the land has stripped the states of their power to so avoid arbitration with its ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. In an opinion penned by Justice Scalia (pictured), the Supremes said that the Federal Arbitration Act was passed to promote arbitration's quick and easy dispute resolution, and they couldn't have California (or any other state) contradicting the will of Congress by allowing lengthy group litigation when parties already agreed to private arbitration. That means companies are free to force customers to arbitrate their claims individually instead of joining together to file high-dollar class-action lawsuits, no matter what state laws say. Guess those large-scale litigation lawyers will have to look elsewhere to find the funds for their next Ferrari.
Steve Jobs ordered to provide antitrust deposition
There are some days when it feels like Steve Jobs is the only person who works at Apple, judging by the number of times his name is cited when anyone has a complaint against the company. Now, a US judge has ordered him to answer questions relating to monopolistic behavior over the iPod and the iTunes Store back in 2004. Then, Apple made changes to the iPod software which disrupted RealNetwork's Harmony software, designed to allow songs purchased from the RealNetworks online store to be transferred to the iPod. Thomas Slattery, who filed the class action suit against Apple in 2005, said this violated antitrust and unfair competition laws. At worst, lawyers can force Steve Jobs to spend two hours answering questions for a deposition on the matter, although Apple lawyers are pushing to have the whole case dismissed next month -- parts of it have already been dismissed. Today, you can put music downloaded or ripped from just about anywhere on your iPod, iPhone or iPad via iTunes, and music tracks sold in the iTunes Store no longer come with DRM. "The court finds that Jobs has unique, non-repetitive, firsthand knowledge about the issues at the center of the dispute over RealNetworks software," said magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd in San Jose, California. Like I said, some days Steve Jobs is the only person who's ever worked at Apple. [Via Macstories]
Google's deal for book digitization rejected by judge, Books plans sent back to drawing board
It's taken a long, long time to fully consider Google's proposed $125 million settlement with publishers and authors of out-of-print works, but now the ruling has been handed down and it's not the one the Mountain View team wanted. Circuit Judge Chin, who had preliminarily approved the deal back in November 2009, has returned with the new conclusion that actually it goes "too far" in Google's favor. The origins of this settlement stem from a class action lawsuit filed against El Goog for a book digitization project it began back in 2004, and it's important to note that terms were agreed way back in 2008, before a bunch of external objections made them revise the document to its current state and refile it with the court in '09. Since then, the Department of Justice has had a look at antitrust concerns relating to Google potentially having a monopoly on orphan works (those whose author cannot be identified) and Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo have all piped up to say it's a bunk deal. Now, the one man standing between us and a whole ton of web-accessible reading materials has agreed with them. He does leave a pretty large door open for reconciliation, however, should Google be willing to accede to less favorable terms. Let's just hope whatever else transpires doesn't take another year and a half to do so.
Lawsuit claims AT&T "systematically" overcharges iPhone, iPad owners
A lawsuit filed in California federal court claims AT&T "systematically" overcharged iPhone and iPad owners by inflating the amount of data downloaded by each customer and tacking on "phantom traffic" to the month-long tally. The lawsuit was filed by Patrick Hendricks who asserts AT&T charged him a $15 overage fee that was the result of this artificially inflated data. Hendricks cites AT&T's alleged practice of overestimating data traffic by as much as 300 percent in what is described as "a rigged gas pump that charges for a full gallon when it pumps only nine-tenths of a gallon into your car's tank." The complaint also mentions phantom data charges that were added to his bill, but never started or experienced by Hendricks. The complainant hired a private firm to track his data usage on AT&T, and they reported usage of 2.2 MB during a week when the iPhone had all push notifications turned off, all location-based services turned off, no active applications running and no email account setup on the handset. Hendricks is seeking class action status on the complaint and is asking for restitution and class damages. AT&T responded by saying it would vigorously fight the lawsuit.
NVIDIA reaches settlement in class action suit affecting Apple, Dell, HP laptops
Some folks may have long forgotten about the issue by now, but anyone that was hit by those defective NVIDIA GPUs a couple of years back will likely want to take notice -- the company has finally reached a settlement in the class action lawsuit spurred on by the issue, and anyone with an affected Apple, Dell or HP laptop is eligible for some form of compensation. In the case of Apple and Dell laptops, that includes a replacement of the GPU or MCP, while users of an affected HP laptop will actually get a full replacement laptop "similar in kind and value." Anyone that has already paid to have their laptop repaired due to the GPU issue is also entitled to a full reimbursement provided they have the necessary documentation for the repairs. Even if you are covered, however, you'll still have to wait a bit longer to actually get any compensation -- a final hearing is scheduled for December 20th, and claims will only begin sometime after that. In the meantime, be sure to hit up the source link below for the complete details, including a list of all the models affected. [Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
