ClassAction
Latest
AT&T retailer accused of pawning used Nokias as new
Notice that your freshly-purchased N75 smells more like a week-old head of cabbage than a bundle of brand new plastic, glue, and circuitry? That's gross, and no, we don't want to touch it (seriously, get that thing away from us). Turns out you may not be alone, though -- a new class-action suit filed in federal court alleges that CommClub, an independent retailer in California, was selling used Nokias for AT&T's network as brand new devices. For whatever reason, AT&T and Nokia are also named as defendants in the suit, though we're not sure exactly what role they played in CommClub's potentially nefarious dealings; at any rate, the class is looking to bring home some bacon for "injuries" suffered as a result of the bait-and-switch. You're going to go smell your N75 now, aren't you?
Verizon settles ETF class action suit for $21 million
It's a far cry from the $1 billion potential pay-out we heard about initially, but it looks like Verizon will still be forking over a hefty chunk of cash as a result of that class action lawsuit over early termination fees -- $21 million, to be exact. Verizon still isn't about to admit to any wrong doing, however, with its spokesman saying simply that the suit "was a distraction," and that "this was a quick way to resolve it." As Dow Jones points out, the resolution of suits like these could well put a renewed focus on FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's efforts to curtail carriers' ability to charge ETF fees, which he hopes will eventually be governed by some national rules.[Via Phone Scoop]
AT&T pays out for shady third-party charges
It's just the tip of the iceberg for the legal fallout from deceptive charges rung up by cellphone users hoping for a shot a free ringtones, wallpapers, and winning shots at contests simply by sending off a text message or an online form with their mobile number. Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and others are likely going to have to end up taking it on the chin after AT&T was taken to task -- first by the state of Florida and now by a series of class-action lawsuits that the carrier has chosen to settle (without admitting any wrongdoing in the process, for the record). It seems that customers will be able to file for refunds for such charges rung up between January 1, 2004, and May 30, 2008, for a total of up to three bill cycles' worth. AT&T will be sending out notifications of the settlement to its subscribers shortly; meanwhile, the lawyers involved in the suits collect a nice paycheck of $4.3 million -- a shade more than the average class action member is liable to get, we'd imagine.[Via Phone Scoop]
Creative could pay class-action settlement over exaggerated MP3 capacities
Couldn't fit those last two Oingo Boingo albums on your Zen when you thought you had enough space? Get ready for payback, because if you own a Creative Labs MP3 player made between May 5, 2001 and April 30, 2008, you could be entitled to a class-action settlement over this very issue. The proposed settlement -- not the first of its kind -- will force Creative to "make certain disclosures regarding the storage capacity of its hard disc drive MP3 players" and give a 50% discount on a new 1GB player or 20% off any item purchased at Creative's online store, if it's approved by the court. For its part, Creative denies any wrongdoing, but it looks like it's offering up the settlement to smooth thing over with consumers -- but you know it's going to fight the $900,000 requested by plaintiffs' attorneys in fees. Applications are due by August 7, 2008, so start digging up those serial numbers.[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Vista Capable sticker lawsuit gets class-action status
It looks like that little lawsuit over "Vista Capable" stickers on PCs could now be about to get quite a bit bigger, as a federal judge has now bestowed class-action status on the suit, which accuses Microsoft of misleading marketing. More specifically, as the AP reports, the suit alleges that the "Vista Capable" stickers slapped on PCs during the 2006 holiday season created an "artificial demand" for the computers, and "inflated prices for computers that couldn't be upgraded to the full-featured version of Vista." As we've seen, those stickers even took in at least one higher-up at Microsoft itself, who has made his thoughts on the program quite well known. While things are still obviously in the early stages, the law firm that filed the suit is now looking for others that feel they've been burned by the stickers, and ComputerWorld has the details on you can get involved at the link below.[Via ComputerWorld]
Blast from the past: come get your Treo 600 / 650 settlement!
For most, the Treo 600 and 650 are old enough so that we don't really remember if we had troubles with 'em or not -- but apparently we did, and some owners are now entitled to a little chunk of cash to show for it. A class action lawsuit filed against Palm "claimed that the Treo 600 and Treo 650 smartphones had certain defects, failed at unacceptable rates, and that Palm made misrepresentations concerning the Treo 600 and Treo 650 smartphones," and Palm just decided to settle the whole tiff rather than take it to trial. This means that if you owned a Treo 600 or 650 that required two or more repairs and ended up purchasing a new device within a certain period, you get a little spending money -- or you're entitled to some free repair work, even if your Treo didn't require two or more trips to the shop. Naturally, there are some rules and regs involved -- this is a legal matter, after all -- so head on over to the site to figure out whether you're affected and how you can cash in.[Thanks, Michael G.]
Microsoft faces class action lawsuit due to Xbox Live outages
It appears that a sincere apology and the promise of a free arcade game aren't enough to satisfy the unbridled rage of some Xbox Live users suffering from frequent outages -- three Texas residents slapped Microsoft with a class action lawsuit yesterday, claiming that the disruption of the service over the holidays is a breach of the Xbox Live Terms of Use contract. The suit claims the damages suffered from the outages exceed $5 million.While we usually scoff at class action lawsuits for seemingly petty reasons, the plaintiffs have an excellent point -- Microsoft must have expected an influx of server-taxing Xbox Live subscribers around the holidays, yet they "failed to provide adequate access and service to Xbox Live and its subscribers." The ball appears to be in your court, Microsoft -- that better be one hell of a free arcade game.
Details on proposed Seagate class action settlement revealed
It looks like those that bought a Seagate hard drive in the past few years could possibly be in store for a few freebies or a bit of cash, at least if a proposed class action settlement goes ahead. According to a recently-launched website for the settlement, the suit centers on alleged misleading sales and marketing by Seagate, which stated that "purchasers of the drives would receive approximately 7% more usable storage capacity than they actually received." To make up for that allegedly egregious offense, the settlement proposes that anyone who purchased a drive between March 22nd, 2001 and September 26, 2007 (which wasn't pre-installed in a system) receive either some free backup and recovery software or a cash payment equivalent to five percent of the price paid for the hard drive. To get in on that potential windfall, however, you'll have to sign yourself up as part of the class action on the website linked below, where you can also opt out of the suit if you so choose.[Thanks, Joey]
Apple, AT&T served with class action suit over iPhone locking practices
It goes without saying that if you sell enough of pretty much anything, you're going to eventually get someone riled up over a missing feature, a broken feature, or in this case, an unwanted feature -- and that someone might just happen to know a lawyer (or worse yet, be one). The latest class action suit against Apple and AT&T over the iPhone, filed in California, reads like a what's-what of complaints we've heard since before the phone was even released: the carrier shouldn't be charging an early termination fee for a phone that isn't subsidized, its international roaming plan is a total ripoff compared to a prepaid SIM that you'd normally buy to use with an unlocked handset, and most notably, that neither AT&T nor Apple have the right to purposefully damage (via firmware update) or void the warranty of a "lawfully" unlocked iPhone. All told, the suit rocks the two companies with a grand total of six counts -- alleging violations of a garden variety of state and federal laws -- each asking for between $200 and $600 million in cold, hard cash. Anyone who's bought an iPhone and "sustained damages" from it is entitled to participate, so put on your lawyerin' pants and enjoy the courtroom action.[Thanks, Mark]
Apple hit with class-action antitrust lawsuit over bricked iPhones
Apple has obviously made some enemies over this whole iPhone firmware situation, and clearly not everyone wants to follow the straight-and-narrow when it comes to the company's factory-limited and locked device. Now, at least one California resident named Timothy Smith has decided to bring the fight to the Cupertino monolith's doorstep -- and he showed up with lawyers. According to papers filed last week, the angry iPhone owner is suing Apple in hopes of barring the company from selling locked phones, and forcing the Mac-maker to provide warranty service for customers even if they've bricked their phones via third-party software -- though there seems to be no definitive evidence that Apple's update is the source of the brickings. The suit claims that, "Apple forced plaintiff and the class members to pay substantially more for the iPhone and cell phone service than they would have paid in a competitive marketplace either for the iPhone or for AT&T's cell phone service," and that the company, "Acted in defiance and without sufficient consideration of consumers' rights to unlock their iPhones because it knew that the probable result of its update would be to render unlocked iPhones inoperable." The lawyers in the case have set up a website where owners can join in on the suit -- so if you're feeling slighted, maybe they can help.
Man to sue over 1.1.1 iBricking
ComputerWorld reports that Timothy Smith, an iPhone owner in California, plans to sue Apple for violating antitrust law. His claim rests on the fact that Apple forces consumers to use AT&T as their sole wireless carrier and that the 1.1.1 update bricked phones that were unlocked for other carriers. This sole agreement with AT&T is, according to his suit, anticompetitive, forcing customers to pay more for their phones and for the cell phone service than they would in a competitive market. The suit goes on to add that Apple knew that the probable result of the update would brick unlocked iPhones. If you're feeling in a litigious mood or if you just want to rubberneck to see what the fuss is about, check out this website set up by the Law Offices of Van Smith and Fernandez. It's got some spiffy photos at the top with a guy on a phone (it's probably not an iPhone) and a couple of lawyers talking (probably neither Van Smith or Fernandez).
Canadian court certifies class-action lawsuit against carriers
If you're sick and tired of wireless carriers charging an arm and a leg for so-called "system access fees," you aren't alone. As wireless carriers up north rack in close to $800 million a year in said fees, they continue to brand the fees as required by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission -- even though the Government says that fees are no longer valid and don't need to be charged. Carriers were whacking Canadians with charges ranging from $6.95 for Rogers and Telus and up to $8.95 for Bell customers. Naturally, that kind of apparent overcharging can only lead to one thing: a class-action lawsuit. Get in while the gettin's good!
Apple and AT&T hit with third class action suit over iPhone battery
Apple's lack of a roll-your-own battery replacement for the iPhone seems to be causing quite a stir with Apple and AT&T's legal departments as a third class action lawsuit has been thrown at them. Plaintiffs Zoltan Stiener and Ynez Stiener cite breach of contract, fraud, and violations of California law for not letting users know that the replacement costs can be upwards of $100 -- we're assuming this includes the cost of a rental replacement iPhone. Apple has settled in previous cases of this type -- well, in an iPod case at any rate -- so we'll have to wait and see how it all comes out before jumping on any class action bandwagons.
New iPhone class action filed in NY over iPhone SIM lock-in, international roaming fees
You know what they say: let the good times class action lawsuits roll! Or something like that. The latest in what I'm sure is to be a long list of iPhone-related class action lawsuits was filed in New York today over the iPhone's SIM card lock-in, as well as what the plaintiff alleges is Apple withholding of information on roaming data charges. The plaintiff, Herbert H. Kliegerman, wants the iPhone unlock code, and he also wants to restrain Apple from selling iPhones without disclosing both that the included SIM cards are locked to AT&T, and that users could incur roaming data charges when traveling internationally. We have a PDF of the lawsuit (sent to us directly by the plaintiff), but considering the facts that: Kliegerman's complaints seem to have much more to do with AT&T's practices than Apple's US SIM cards, to my knowledge, are always locked to their particular provider, meaning travelers have always had to purchase some kind of other phone service or an international SIM There's plenty of information available at AT&T's site about their international roaming practices, as well as extra plan options to provide for international calls and data usage I don't think Kliegerman has much of a leg to stand on. Plus, he sent this to us himself, which reeks of digging for 15 seconds in the spotlight - but who am I to shoot down his hopes? Anyone, particularly those who travel and know more about US mobile phone company practices, care to place some bets as to how far he'll get with this?
Good news: you can still sue AT&T
If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling holds up, that is. Basically, the court found that a clause in AT&T's (Cingular's at the time, actually) customer contract forcing customers to arbitrate instead of sue via class action was uncool -- "unconscionable under California law" was their exact wording, but you get the idea. We guess AT&T was looking to avoid having to make pesky public statements about lawsuits filed against it, and hey, who can blame 'em? Nice try, guys! [Warning: PDF link][Via Wired]
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?
Sony to cough up $8.5m settlement, devs finally get paid
The law offices of Shapiro, Haber & Urmy have publicized the settlement terms of a class action lawsuit filed against SCEA in February 2005, which alleged that the company failed to compensate a number of game developers for overtime work. The settlement will see $8.5 million paid out to current and former employees involved in the suit, and, along with the overdue checks, Sony will "reclassify" Associate Artists and Artist 1s as nonexempt (from overtime pay) job positions. Under the terms, Sony will uphold its denial of the allegations, admitting to no wrongdoing. Ah, formalities...The settlement is still pending court approval. Regardless, the deal would be called off if for some unimaginable reason (it's "free" money, people!) enough class members opted out.
Netflix sued for antitrust violations over patenting activities
Here in lawsuit-crazy America there's only one thing to do if you don't like a lawsuit: file another suit, claiming that the basis for the original claim was illegitimate. That's the case with a recent filed class action lawsuit against Netflix, which argues that the company's lawsuit against Blockbuster violates antitrust law because the company fraudulently concealed prior art related to patents used to sue Blockbuster. Techdirt points out that this new lawsuit highlights prior art that Netflix knew about, but failed to include in its original patent applications, something it was required to do. Yeah, that's right, the whole affair hinges around the ineffective patenting system, which is the background for dozens of other technology related lawsuits. If this class action is successful, then Netflix will be left regretting ever filing against Blockbuster; if it's not, then the company's still got a whole lot of paperwork to do in its case against Blockbuster. As always, there's one group left lovin' the whole situation: the lawyers.
Wireless insurance class-action lawsuit settled
We know that having your phone stolen or lost can be a traumatic experience, however if you subscribe to wireless insurance through your carrier it makes the process a little less painful. Except when your wireless insurance provider tells you that one dreaded word you don't want to hear: You're getting a "refurb." The problem occurs when people pay the $50.00 deductible and more often the cost of the refurbished phone is less than the deductible. Last week a federal judge approved an initial settlement between Asurion and Lock\line that affects approx 15 thousand customers and soon they will be receiving the details of their settlement. Signal Holdings, the other major cellphone insurance company, is waiting their trial date to be issued. [Thanks, Sergio]
Class action lawsuits filed against Apple
Just when you think Apple's financial woes have begun to recede, Forbes.com alerts us to a slew of recently filed class action lawsuits that all have the big fruit in their sights. First up is yet another complaint alleging that Apple has created a monopoly by tying iTS purchases to the iPod and only the iPod. Even though suits like this have come and gone, the court has interestingly denied Apple's motion to dismiss. Next in line is a suit over the MacBook's iBook G4's "abnormally high rate" of logic board failure. This suit was filed Nov. 7th, and Apple still has time to respond. A third suit is coming from PhatRat Technology LLC, who is calling patent infringement on the Nike+iPod product. A response from Apple is still pending here as well. Last (though possibly not least?) is a securities class action suit against the company and "certain current and former officers and directors" over all this backdated stock option grant business. That's about everything Forbes has on the Apple lawsuit list for now. Think it's still worth it to wish Apple a happy new year?
