class-action lawsuit
Latest
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]
Google agrees to pay $8.5 million to make Buzz privacy lawsuits go away
Remember back when Google's Buzz social networking app shared user's private information without their consent? Heck, do you remember Buzz at all? Suffice it to say that some unhappy folks sued, and it looks like they're about to accept a hefty settlement in place of their day in court. Though no money's exchanged hands quite yet and a judge has yet to approve, Google's agreed to drop $8.5 million and "disseminate wider public education about the privacy aspects of Google Buzz" as part of a class-action settlement, according to court documents. While there's certainly a chunk of dough potentially being doled out here, we have to imagine individual Gmail users won't be seeing much -- most will go to "organizations focused on Internet privacy policy or privacy education" -- which makes us wonder if $8.5 million isn't a small price to pay to get Buzz back into the national news feeds. In related (or possibly completely coincidental) news, Google took the opportunity today to revamp its master Privacy Policy. Read all about it at our more coverage link, if you're into that kind of stuff.
iPad class action lawsuit heats up
I guess when you're the big guy in town, everybody paints a target on your back. First, Apple and AT&T were sued for the data plan change on the iPad, and now another class action lawsuit about the iPad is underway in California, claiming that the tablet overheats way too quickly when held or placed in warm sunlight. The lawsuit alleges that the iPad "does not live up to the reasonable consumer's expectations created by Apple," and that it "turns off, sometimes after just a few minutes of use," when used in bright sunlight. The suit, filed in Oakland, seeks "unspecified damages," and as far as I can tell, it's still in the earliest preliminary stages. All of Apple's devices tend to overheat to a certain extent when used to their full potential, and anyone who's left an iPhone or an iPod in a hot car knows that there's a limit on what these things can take. But at the same time, even when I've had my iPhone overheat on me, it usually just takes a few minutes of sleep or standby to bring it back to normal -- hardly an inconvenience worth suing over. We'll have to wait and see what happens with this one.
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.
Verizon loses ETF class action lawsuit, ordered to pay $21 million
Congratulations Verizon, you're the latest wireless provider to lose a class-action early termination fee-related lawsuit! It's a dispute that's been circulating in courts since 2008, and while the settlement was agreed upon quickly, there were a few lingering appeals that have taken this long to get cleared up -- and not in VZW's favor. The issue at hand was the company's $175 flat early termination fees, behavior that has proven legally naughty again and again when the same fee is levied regardless of whether you were one month or 20 months into your contract. Each customer named in the suit will receive approximately $87.50 for their troubles, a total of $21 million Verizon will have to pay out. That's a bit more than AT&T got hit with back in January, but a whole heck of a lot less than Sprint's massive $73 million fine.
Sony slapped with two more class-action suits over Other OS removal
As if one lawsuit regarding the removal of the Other OS functionality from the PlayStation 3 wasn't enough, two more class-action suits have been filed against Sony, reports IGN. Earlier this month, Todd Densmore and Antal Herz (of Georgia and California, respectively) filed a class-action suit against Sony, alleging that firmware update 3.2.1 (which removed the Other OS feature) made various features of the console unusable -- features that the suit claims weren't allowed to be removed without compensation, per the console's Terms of Service and System Software License Agreement. Furthermore, a group of five US citizens filed a second suit in late April, also claiming "lost money" given the removed functionality. Both suits can be found in full here and here (warning: PDF links), and for its part, Sony reps have said "the company does not comment on pending litigation." Potentially, if the first of these two suits were to get anywhere, the implications would be rather large, as the "class" in this case includes "anyone who purchased a PlayStation 3 from November 17, 2006 to March 27, 2010 and folks who continue to own their console as of March 27, 2010."
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.
Thousands of images apparently captured by spying school district, more details revealed
Legal proceedings are getting underway in the case of Philadelphia's Pennsylvania's Lower Merion School District -- you know, the one accused of remotely turning on webcams on its student's laptops inappropriately? We knew that district IT folks enabled the webcams 42 times in total, capturing pictures every 15 seconds, but now we're learning that over 400 images were retrieved of a single sophomore and that there are thousands more of other students. There is also seeming proof of use of the webcams even when laptops were not reported stolen, like when a student failed to pay the school's hardware insurance premiums. The district is apparently not standing behind its two IT employees who had the necessary permissions to enable this remote viewing, technology coordinator Carol Cafiero and technician Michael Perbix, and from what little we can tell now it's not looking particularly good for them. In a deposition Cafiero refused to answer any questions, citing her Fifth Amendment rights, but an alleged e-mail exchange between the two saw Perbix calling the pictures "a little LMSD soap opera," to which Cafiero replied "I know, I love it!" That doesn't sound entirely appropriate... Update: We've received a few comments and e-mails about calling this "Philadelphia's Lower Merion School District" when, in actuality, the school is outside of the city limits, and county limits too, so we've corrected that above. Apparently nobody wants to be associated with these guys.
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]
Spying school district update: turned on webcams 42 times, FBI isn't sure that's legal
Remember the Pennsylvania school district that was accused of remotely flipping on the webcams of students' laptops? As if the civil suit filed on behalf of those students wasn't going to be enough trouble for the Lower Merion representatives, now it seems the FBI wants to know just what's going on, launching an investigation into the practice. For its part the district said that it remotely activated the cams 42 times, and that it only did so with the bestest of intentions: when trying to locate a missing laptop. It would also like to point out that only two employees had the power to flip the switch, and that they only captured images -- never sound. Because, you know, surreptitiously watching your kids is so much less menacing when there's no audio involved.
Class-action suit charges Microsoft with fraud
[Image credit: bloomsberries] In a lawsuit filed by Philadelphia-area lawyer Samuel Lassoff, Microsoft is being sued for allegedly taking money from consumers for Microsoft Points that were erroneously used during "incomplete and/or partial downloads of digital goods and services and refused refund of same." The Horsham, Pa. resident claims that "an invoice he received early this month from Microsoft included charges for purchases he couldn't complete due to a balky download system," according to an InformationWeek.com report. Furthermore, he contends that this was no accident on Microsoft's part. When we called Mr. Lassoff's law office for comment, we were met with a disconnected number message. However, the lawsuit's Facebook page (it's a brave new world, folks) calls the suit a "class action on behalf of several million US customers exposed to Microsoft Point fraud." Citing "fraud, breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices," Lassoff seeks a "full refund to all US consumers of all Microsoft Points fraudulently charged to consumers for incomplete or partial downloads of purchased digital goods and services." Aside from his current lawsuit, Mr. Lassoff previously sued Google, Yahoo, and IAC Interactive in 2006 -- all three suits were eventually dropped. [Thanks, Zo]
Rockstar quietly settled class-action lawsuit with 'over 100' ex-Rockstar San Diego employees
In April of 2009, Rockstar Games settled out of court with with "over 100" Rockstar San Diego employees to the tune of $2.75 million (approximately $27,500 per person). The case, "Garrett Flynn, et al. v. Angel Studios, Inc./Rockstar Games et al.," was filed on August 21, 2006, by ex-Rockstar San Diego 3D artists Terri-Kim Chuckry and Garrett Flynn on behalf of themselves and fellow 3D artists, alleging that Angel Studios/Rockstar San Diego had "failed to pay overtime compensation ... to certain Angel employees whose primary duties are or were to create, produce, copy and/or install images into video games, using commercial or in-house software computer programs." Sound familiar? That's likely due to the past week's barrage of Rockstar Games employees speaking out against alleged quality of life issues at the developer's various studios, including claims of "numerous non-exempt designers and artists have had their overtime pay cut as a result for being 'too senior.'" In a press release issued after the settlement, Rockstar Games refuted the lawsuit's claims. "Angel denies the allegations in the lawsuit and admits no liability or wrongdoing in settlement." The settlement document (obtained earlier today by Joystiq) also spells out Rockstar's reasons for settling the suit, saying "further litigation would be protracted and expensive for all parties." Unsurprisingly, the company also contested in the settlement that a ruling against it was "relatively unlikely" for a number of reasons. That said, when a multi-billion dollar corporation settles a suit with its employees out of court and awards them nearly $3 million in compensation, that's quite a statement unto itself -- regardless of the great lengths at which the final court settlement goes to deny that claim. We've contacted Rockstar Games for comment and haven't heard back as of publishing.
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]
Square-Enix sued over "hidden fees" in Final Fantasy XI
A class action lawsuit has been filed earlier this week against Square-Enix North America for intentionally deceiving customers regarding hidden penalties and fees associated with the PlayOnline and Final Fantasy XI service.The suit, filed on behalf of Esther Leong of San Francisco, is seeking over 5 million in damages. The suit also goes on to specifically list the penalties for the late payment of fees, the interest charges for unpaid fees, charges that occur while the game account is suspended, termination of game service for unpaid fees, and the termination of game data due to the late payment of fees as the specific causes of this lawsuit.In Square-Enix's defense, however, the suit also lists the standard monthly subscription as being intentionally decieving. Final Fantasy XI's case does, in fact, say that additional online fees would be required and it also has a large sticker announcing "Free subscription for 30 days!" on the front of the box -- something more than most online games provide regarding their subscriptions.We have contacted Square-Enix, and are currently waiting for their response to this matter.[Via IGN.com]
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.
Fitness guru prepares to launch Wii Fit class-action suit, radio show
Well, this was probably bound to happen. A fitness "expert" named Michael Torchia says he's now preparing a class-action suit against NIntendo which will apparently seek to remove its Wii Fit from the shelves unless they add warnings to the product. The offense? Torchia claims that the Wii Fit actually contributes to obesity, essentially because it claims to be something that it's really not -- namely, a fitness tool -- and discourages people from doing more traditional exercise. He also, however, seems to be concerned that the Wii Fit is dangerous -- mostly because it doesn't stress warming up enough, and users can do the exercises wrong, straining or injuring themselves. Now, we're not going to delve into the validity of his claims (though, how do you explain this dude? Just saying), but we should note that Torchia is apparently getting ready to launch his airwave-rocking AM radio show, "Shape Up, America," and we figure he's looking to drum up some buzz for himself, so we'll be watching to see if he ever actually brings his suit against old Mario and Sons. Step on.[Via Joystiq]
