ClassAction
Latest
iPhone AT&T exclusivity lawsuit granted class-action certification, every AT&T iPhone customer included
Hey, remember that iPhone class-action lawsuit we poked around in a couple months ago and discovered Apple's lawyers confirming the original five year AT&T exclusivity agreement? Well, get ready to hear about it a lot more in the months to come, as the judge in the case has officially certified the case as a class action, meaning it now officially includes anyone who's ever bought an iPhone on AT&T. If you'll recall, the argument is that iPhone customers signed up for a two-year contract without being told that AT&T had an exclusive for five years -- thus in reality being held to the carrier for an additional three years without recourse. Sure, that sounds a little silly, but if you bought the first-gen iPhone and wanted to stick with the platform it's the truth -- discounting the fact, of course, that no one's required to buy another Phone after two years, and even then you have to sign a new contract. While we're definitely curious to see if the plaintiffs can get past that little logical hurdle and win something more than a token settlement, we're far more interested to see if they can get any more documentation from Apple nailing down its actual agreement with AT&T. Should be juicy -- we'll keep you in the loop.
Google to disclose WiFi snooping data to regulators amid allegations it was collected intentionally
And the mess gets messier. A class action lawsuit filed against Google in Oregon has now been enriched with the allegation that Google willfully collected personal data with its Street View cars, rather than doing so accidentally, as it claims. It's a bold accusation, whose primary basis is a patent application, filed by Google in November 2008, for a "computer-implemented method of estimating the location of a wireless device." A subsidiary claim references the "obtaining [of] one or more packets of data transmitted" from one wireless device to another to help estimate accuracy of location results. That's the supposedly damning verbiage that shows Google intentionally created WiFi-snooping software, and it's also what's being relied on to show that Mountain View couldn't have been ignorant of the data collection going on. Yes, it's quite a stretch, but that's what lawyers are for: mental gymnastics. Over in Europe, Google is doing its best to placate local regulators, some of whom are contemplating criminal charges against the multinational company, by agreeing to hand over all data that was collected by its vehicles. France, Germany and Spain will be first to peruse the info, though presumably there'll be an open door to other nosy governments as well. Doesn't that strike you as weird -- having your private data protected by letting a bunch more people look at it?
Confirmed: Apple and AT&T signed five-year iPhone exclusivity deal -- but is it still valid?
The term of Apple and AT&T's iPhone exclusivity deal has long been a mystery -- although USA Today reported a five-year arrangement when the original iPhone came out in 2007, that number has never been independently confirmed, and it's been looking suspect in recent weeks as Verizon iPhone chatter has gotten louder. But we've been doing some digging and we can now confirm that Apple and AT&T entered into a five-year iPhone exclusive in 2007, based on court documents filed by Apple in California. Read on!
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.
Sorry your iPod nano got so scratched five years ago, here's your $37.50
Hey, remember five years ago when the first-gen iPod nano came out and everyone in the world (literally) was sad because it scratched so easily? And then Walt Mossberg was sad, too? And then, inevitably, there was a class-action lawsuit filed, even though the lead plaintiff was like, "no, really guys, I'm cool?" No? Well shake off those cobwebs and get ready to party in a moderate way, because your check for $37.50 is in the mail. Yep, that's all individual consumers get in the settlement, which first started processing claims in December -- we're guessing the plaintiff's attorneys managed to score themselves a little more than that, because they worked so hard defending our interests. But hey -- one thirteenth of an iPad ain't so bad, right? And you wonder why we rarely cover class-action lawsuits. [Thanks, Phil]
AT&T settles ETF case for $18m
Hey, if you're a New Jersey AT&T subscriber and you paid a flat-rate ETF between January 1, 1998 and November 4, 2009, you've got a tiny bit of $18 million coming your way. That's the settlement amount AT&T's agreed to in this latest ETF class action -- as usual in these cases, it's far cheaper for AT&T to just throw out some cash than it is to fully litigate this thing, especially with the FCC breathing down its neck. Expect individual settlements to be relatively minor, while all the lawyers receive platinum underpants trimmed with only the finest jewels. Update: It's for all AT&T subs, not just the kids from the Shore. Update 2: AT&T just sent us a statement about the settlement -- the carrier wants to highlight that it's the old ETFs that are involved here, and not the new pro-rated ones that we hate just as much. Check it: We strongly deny any wrongdoing, and no court has found AT&T Mobility committed any wrongdoing regarding these fees. However, we have agreed to settle to avoid the burden and cost of further litigation. It's important to note that the litigation involves old early termination fee policies of the old AT&T Wireless and Cingular. In 2008 we introduced a new, more flexible early termination fee policy, in which we pro-rate the ETF if you are a new or renewing wireless customer who enters a one- or two-year service agreement. Cool -- now let's talk about how customers who pay full price for handsets should pay a lower monthly fee that doesn't include an equipment subsidy. That's a policy we could totally get behind. [Thanks, David]
Appeals court sides with Apple in iPod hearing loss dispute
Well, it looks like that iPod hearing loss lawsuit that's been nagging Apple for the past couple of years may finally be going away (in its current form, at least), as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has now affirmed a 2008 district court ruling and rejected a class-action lawsuit that sought to hold Apple responsible for hearing loss allegedly caused by iPods. While that may be a possibility, the court said that the "plaintiffs do not allege the iPods failed to do anything they were designed to do nor do they allege that they, or any others, have suffered or are substantially certain to suffer inevitable hearing loss or other injury from iPod use" -- further adding that, "at most, the plaintiffs plead a potential risk of hearing loss not to themselves, but to other unidentified iPod users," which doesn't quite make the grade for a class-action suit. Not surprisingly, neither Apple nor the plaintiffs are making any comments on the verdict, and we're pretty sure that Apple would like to keep it that way.
Banned Xbox modders get a class-action lawsuit to call their own
You had to know someone out there would try and profit off Microsoft's recent mass bannination of modded Xbox 360 consoles from Xbox Live, and although the eBay scammers arguably got there first, we're awarding the style trophy to AbingtonIP, an Oklahoma law firm that's trying to gin up a class-action lawsuit. Why? Because even though the XBL terms of service expressly prohibit modded consoles, AbingtonIP thinks it's not fair for Microsoft to have timed the ban to coincide with the release Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, and it also thinks it's unfair for an XBL ban to affect "Xbox functionality not associated with piracy" like Netflix, arcade games, and DLC. A noble cause, to be sure, but if you're a modder who didn't think there was a chance you'd be booted from Live at some point, you're not a very smart modder -- and Microsoft isn't under any obligation to time its bans for the convenience of people breaking its terms of service. The firm is just at the generating-interest phase and hasn't filed anything yet, so we'll see how far these freedom fighters get -- we'd guess this one dies on the vine.
First Sidekick class-action lawsuits predictably get underway
Our usual rule is to ignore attention-seeking class-action lawsuits until they make it past the critical step of being certified by a judge, but we think it's pretty wild that the Sidekick debacle has already resulted in two separate suits in two different states. That's a turnaround time of just a few days, really -- and now that Microsoft is saying it can restore most of the lost data, it'll be interesting to see if these cases can push on past the early stages. Both the California and Washington state cases allege that T-Mobile misled customers into thinking their data was secure, but for some reason we're particularly amused at the California case filed by a mother whose aspiring model and singer-songwriter daughter lost "photos and song lyrics" she'd entrusted to her Sidekick -- honestly, what judge can't relate to her situation?
Sprint details proposed $14 million ETF class action settlement
It's a far cry from the $1.2 billion number that was bandied about at one point, but it looks like Sprint could still be taking a fairly sizable hit over those pesky early termination fees, at least if a proposed class action settlement plays out as it seems likely too. As Sprint itself announced today, the company's reached a $14 million settlement in the case, which will be placed in a common fund to be distributed accordingly to all the parties involved, which is where you come in (assuming you're a current of former Sprint, Nextel, or Sprint Nextel customer, that is). The short of it is that you can either sign on to the class action suit or opt out of it by hitting up the site linked below, and then you'll have to wait for the final approval hearing now scheduled for October 21st, which should actually settle the settlement once and for all. Details on the exact payout amounts to customers are buried in the documents on the settlement website, but it looks like the majority of customers will be receiving between $25 and $90 depending on their contract, plus some free bonus minutes.Read - Sprint ETF Settlement websiteRead - Sprint statement[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
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]
AT&T / Cingular class action gets go ahead from federal court
This one goes back a little ways, but a U.S. District Court in Seattle has now given the go ahead to a class action lawsuit brought by former AT&T Wireless subscribers, who have complained that their service went downhill after the company was bought by Cingular and ultimately became the new AT&T. They're also not too happy that they were forced to pay to get new Cingular phones, and they're now asking that AT&T pay back all those extra charges, plus the usual damages, of course. For its part, AT&T isn't saying anything more than that it "respectfully" disagrees with the court's decision, and that it's now studying the ruling and considering its options.
Original iPod nano owners benefit from scratch settlement
The first generation of iPod nano models may have been small and sleek, but they also apparently had an image problem -- mainly, that it rapidly grew difficult to see the screen after the nicks and scratches began to accumulate on the face of the player. As far back as 2005, users expressed their displeasure over the nano's likelihood for damage, including cracks in the screen in some cases.Thanks to a now-settled class action lawsuit, nano owners who experienced the scratchies can apply for a refund of $15 (if the iPod shipped with a slip case, as later ones did) or $25 (for no-case shipments). You can get all the details from the settlement website. Refunds may take up to a year (!) to arrive.[via AppleInsider]
Apple reaches $22.5 million settlement for scratched iPod nanos
It's been a few years and a couple of different nano generations since the first lawsuits started flying, but it looks like those that found themselves with the scratch magnet known as the first-gen iPod nano may soon be able to get a bit of payback for their troubles, as Apple has reached a $22.5 million settlement following a class-action lawsuit. Under the settlement, Apple would pay out $25 to each person that bought a first-gen nano that didn't include a slip case, and $15 to those that bought one after Apple started including free slip cases, not to mention the usual attorney fees and other litigation expenses. All of that is still subject to a judge's approval at a court hearing on April 28th, however, and it could possibly be further delayed by appeals, but those looking to get in on the action (and willing to wait) can find all the necessary details at the link below.[Via AppleInsider, thanks Mark]
Documents suggest Microsoft knew Xbox 360 could damage discs all along
Microsoft long ago fessed up that the Xbox 360 was capable of scratching discs, and it even offered a (somewhat limited) exchange program for damaged games, but some recently unsealed documents from an ongoing lawsuit now suggest that the company was well aware of the issue for about as long as the console has been around. According to The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Microsoft first discovered the problem in September or October of 2005, and it even went so far as to send a "team of engineers" to stores across the US to determine the best course of action. Apparently, they came up with three options, two of which proved to be impractical, and one of which (installing small bumpers in each and every console) proved to be too expensive, leading Microsoft to offer the disc exchange instead. What's more, the documents apparently also revealed that some Microsoft employees thought that the warning labels on the console were insufficient, and that the company has received complaints about the problem from more than 55,000 customers as of April 30th of this year. No word on any movement just yet in the lawsuits themselves just yet but one of them, filed back in July of 2007, is seeking class-action status on behalf of everyone that's bought an Xbox 360.[Thanks, Lyons]
Nintendo faces class-action lawsuit, hotter-than-ever sales for Wii
Nintendo's fended off class-action lawsuits over "defective" Wiimote straps in the past, and if you remember, they also replaced about 3.2 million of the straps (a/k/a "all of them") around the same time too -- way back in December of 2006. Well, the same lawyer's back for round two with a new, nearly identical suit, but this one also alleges that Nintendo knew that the defect existed and was negligent in their failure to report the problem to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Nintendo's probably not stoked about the news -- but we've got a feeling that the company's record-breaking sales will balm the wounds a little. According to NPD data just released, the company sold 2 million Wiis and 1.56 million DS units in November, an all-time hardware sales record for a month other than December. Yeah, who cares about a few busted up TVs and black eyes in the face of those numbers?[Via Gamecyte]Read - Nintendo Slapped with Strap Lawsuit Once AgainRead - Wii and Nintendo DS Set Historic New US Sales Records
More "Vista Capable" emails unsealed, revealing sassy civil war
Remember when Microsoft was hit with a lawsuit over its "Vista Capable" stickers? How about when the judge unsealed emails revealing that after a long battle to promote Vista's graphics-intensive Aero UI, it capitulated and lowered the requirements for the sticker so Intel could keep on selling its graphically-challenged (i.e., WDDM noncompliant) 915 chipset? Yeah, that was awesome. Connoisseurs of corporate drama should appreciate the latest development -- the judge has made public a second batch of emails revealing that MS execs were at odds about that decision. Senior VP Will Poole apparently made the call to appease Intel, but co-President of Platform & Services Jim Allchin (along with many others who had been fighting for the other side for months) was "beyond being upset," saying "this was totally mismanaged by Intel and Microsoft. What a mess." The mess he was referring to: an unhappy partner in HP, which had spent millions to meet the old standards... and presciently, the lawsuit we're watching now. Alright, maybe not so awesome for everyone.
NVIDIA details settlement for price fixing fiasco
Way back in December of 2006, NVIDIA and AMD were both pegged for potential price fixing, and nearly two years later it seems it'll finally be paying the piper. A settlement agreement is detailed in a recently filed 8-K form, which asserts that NVIDIA would pay $850,000 into a total fund of up to $1.7 million, with AMD / ATI probably left to make up the rest. Of note, the 8-K filing does mention that all of this is still "subject to court approval," but it's likely that the green light will eventually be given. Outside of that, we're also informed that NVIDIA will be handing over $112,500 to the individual plaintiffs who brought the case to court. Well, we're glad that's settled.[Via CustomPC]
More lawsuits for Apple over 3G data speeds
In an oddly prescient lawsuit filed yesterday, a San Diego man claims that Apple and AT&T knowingly oversold the iPhone 3G, and overloaded the network, causing slow data throughput. We may never know if this morning's outage was in any way related to the claims the man, William J. Gillis, makes in his filing. He is seeking class-action status for the suit. It follows a similar one filed in Alabama which questioned claims that 3G data speeds are twice as fast, as Apple advertised. Gillis, a local "corporate entertainer" and "world renowned Master Magician" (according to his website), says the iPhone's packaging does not warn buyers that its performance may not meet customers' expectations. That SUV won't actually drive straight up a cliff face, you know. Newsflash: Every mobile provider oversells the capacity of its network. Witness attending a convention or during a disaster: it's hard to make a call, because everything's jammed with people trying to make calls. It's the cornerstone of the mobile phone industry, and it's probably not going away because of this lawsuit. Just add this one to the growing pile of work to do for Apple's corporate lawyers. [Via AppleInsider]
Woman sues Apple, claims false iPhone advertising
A Birmingham, Alabama, woman has sued Apple, claiming its television advertisements about the iPhone 3G being twice as fast as its predecessor are false. She also claims her handset is defective. The woman, Jessica Smith, is seeking class-action status for her suit. According to The Birmingham News, Smith's iPhone connects most often to the slower, older EDGE network, and not the 3G network that the advertisements claim. Apple has a policy of not commenting on pending litigation, but Apple is, as Macworld puts it, "repeatedly sued" over a variety of complaints. [Via Macworld.]
