class action
Latest
Apple reaches settlement with parents over in-app purchases
Parents whose children purchased in-app items for real money without them knowing are going to receive compensation from Apple. As reported by GigaOM, the company has reached a settlement today in a class action lawsuit filed against it in 2011, and will issue a US$5 iTunes gift card to those who make a claim. If the claim is for more than $5, Apple will add a credit to the person's account, while claims over $30 will be paid in cash. The suit was originally brought against Apple by a Pennsylvania man named Garen Meguerian, whose daughter racked up more than $200 in in-app purchases without his knowledge. For its part, Apple sought to limit such purchases by requiring an account password to be entered for each IAP. In the suit, Meguerian suggested that a second, different password be required for IAPs. Under the proposed settlement, those seeking to receive payment from Apple will have their iTunes purchase histories reviewed to ensure that the purchases were actually made, and must attest that their children made the purchases without their knowledge and without being given the account password. The settlement is currently awaiting approval by a federal judge. [Via Apple Insider]
Google accused of tracking iPhone users, up to 10m could sue in the UK
The Guardian is reporting that Google may be hit with a slew of lawsuits over the company's clandestine monitoring of Britons who use the Safari web browser on iPhones, iPads and Macs. Google admits that it bypassed Safari security settings that blocked sites from tracking user habits through cookies. Last February, security researchers found that Google's DoubleClick ad network was storing cookies on devices even when users had chosen to block them. In the US, Google paid the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) a US$22.5 million fine based on the same privacy invasion. In the UK, the Guardian reports that at least 10 iPhone users have started legal proceedings and dozens more are "being lined up." Plans are being made to form a group to make an "umbrella privacy action." The total class size is estimated at 10 million users. News of the legal action was reported by the Sunday Times of London. Privacy advocate Judith Vidal-Hall was quoted as saying that Google was guilty of "electronic stalking" and was angered "that our data is either being sold or passed on to third parties." Vidal-Hall was one of two signees of a letter before action sent to Google execs in the US and UK.
Instagram target of class-action lawsuit
Photo-sharing service Instagram received a lump of coal in its stocking this holiday season. After Instagram changed its Terms of Service recently with the alleged intention of selling user photos, there was a loud outcry from the user community and many users deleted their accounts with the intention of moving to Flickr and other services. Now Instagram is on the receiving end of a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract violations and was brought by class-action legal firm Finkelstein & Krinsk on behalf of Lucy Funes and others. This is quite interesting, considering that almost immediately after the uproar over photo ownership began, Instagram reiterated to the public that nothing much had changed in the Terms of Service. Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom thinks that people might have misinterpreted a section of the new Terms of Service that stated that the company may try integrating advertising into the service. Indeed, a veritable Twitter storm erupted, with many users (most of whom probably had not read the legal document) believing that Instagram was going to sell user photos without compensation. The new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service for the service don't take effect for another three weeks, so it's certain that this lawsuit and the continued confusion over what exactly Instagram is saying will generate a lot more turmoil.
Blizzard faces class action suit over account authenticators
Blizzard Entertainment is facing a class action lawsuit over the sale of its Battle.net authenticators, which are used to provide security for player account information for games such as World of Warcraft and Diablo 3. The suit, filed by the law firm Carney Williams Bates Pulliam & Bowman, PLLC in the Central District of California, alleged that the authenticators were needed by players "in order to have even minimal protection for their sensitive personal, private, and financial data." The lawsuit referred to an August security breach in which no financial user data was reported to be stolen.The class action suit posited that Blizzard practiced "deceptive upselling," in that it allegedly failed "to disclose to consumers that additional products must be acquired after buying the games in order to ensure the security of information stored in online accounts that are requisites for playing."A Blizzard representative told Forbes that "this suit is without merit and filled with patently false information, and we will vigorously defend ourselves through the appropriate legal channels." The representative said the use of the authenticator tool was optional for players, and offered players "an added level of security against account-theft attempts that stem from sources such as phishing attacks, viruses packaged with seemingly harmless file downloads, and websites embedded with malicious code."Blizzard's statement continued, "the suit's claim that we didn't properly notify players regarding the August 2012 security breach is not true. Not only did Blizzard act quickly to provide information to the public about the situation, we explained the actions we were taking and let players know how the incident affected them, including the fact that no names, credit card numbers, or other sensitive financial information was disclosed."
Blizzard facing class-action lawsuit over Battle.net authenticators
World of Warcraft creator Blizzard Entertainment is on the receiving end of a class-action lawsuit filed this morning by players who allege that the company is unfairly forcing players to purchase Battle.net authenticators in order to keep their accounts secure. The two plaintiffs claim that in lieu of providing account security to Battle.net players, Blizzard puts the burden of protection in the hands of the subscriber and encourages the purchasing of authenticators. The suit alleges that the sale of authenticators has earned Blizzard $26 million and that Blizzard is profiting "unjustly" from players looking to secure their accounts. The suit mentions several examples of Battle.net accounts being compromised, specifically noting the hack of Battle.net that occurred in August and Blizzard's confirmation of a rise in compromises in May. It also notes that the free authenticators for smartphones were compromised, which the plaintiffs say makes buying a physical authenticator the only true way to protect an account from theft. Activision Blizzard hasn't offered a response as of yet. The two plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction that would prevent Blizzard from adding what the suit describes as "undisclosed fees" to ensure the security of Battle.net accounts (in other words, no more selling of authenticators). We'll keep you updated as we hear more.
Class action lawsuit from PlayStation Network hack mostly dismissed
Federal Judge Anthony Battaglia dismissed several key claims of a class action lawsuit leveled against Sony after 2011's PSN hack. Battaglia's order dismissed such claims as negligence, restitution, unjust enrichment, bailment and violations of California consumer protection statutes, Courthouse News reported.Battaglia found that Sony didn't violate consumer protection laws because "none of the named plaintiffs subscribed to premium PSN services, and thus received the PSN services free of cost." Additionally, the privacy policy that all subscribers signed included "clear admonitory language that Sony's security was not 'perfect,'" and "no reasonable consumer could have been deceived."The bailment charge was dropped because "plaintiffs freely admit, plaintiffs' personal information was stolen as a result of a criminal intrusion of Sony's Network," Battaglia wrote. "Plaintiffs do not allege that Sony was in any way involved with the Data Breach."Battaglia offered the class an option to amend its claims for injunctive relief and violation of consumer protection law.
Valve's updated Steam Subscriber Agreement bars class action lawsuits
If you're like most people, when Steam started up this morning you noticed there was an extra pop-up prompting you to click a button that says "I agree" a few times, and you did this without reading much into what you were consenting to. Turns out you don't actually "own" your left hand anymore. Oh, well.Actually, it was an updated Steam Subscriber Agreement altering the legal options available to customers. First, Steam customers may no longer bring class action claims against the service, mirroring similar moves by large distribution and publishing companies, including Sony and Microsoft."We considered this change very carefully. It's clear to us that in some situations, class actions have real benefits to customers," Valve explains. "In far too many cases however, class actions don't provide any real benefit to users and instead impose unnecessary expense and delay, and are often designed to benefit the class action lawyers who craft and litigate these claims."Individual claims will still be allowed, though Valve has now instituted a required process that channels these claims to arbitration or small claims court. Valve will reimburse the cost of arbitration under a certain amount, provided the arbitrator deems the claim isn't frivolous nor the expenses unreasonable.Valve is also opening an office in Luxembourg "to better serve our EU customers and partners," who will sign an EU-specific SSA.Hey, at least you still own your left hand.
More THQ stockholders suing THQ over uDraw
After an initial investigation into whether or not THQ misled its investors about the demand for its uDraw tablet – and a subsequent lawsuit – shareholders have filed another lawsuit against the beleaguered publisher, reports GamesIndustry. The class action suit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by New York law firm Levi & Korsinsky on behalf of THQ shareholders. The complaint alleging that THQ "misrepresented or failed to disclose" that the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of uDraw were not selling and, thus, THQ "lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements" about its current condition.As GI points out, this is the second such lawsuit that THQ has faced in as many months. Shareholders wishing to join the suit may do so by filling out a form on the Levi & Korsinsky website.
AUO, LG, Toshiba pay $571 million to settle LCD price fixing lawsuit, broken record keeps skipping
The way LCD price fixing lawsuits keep popping up and settling in short order, you'd think they were going out of style. The latest motley group to face a reckoning includes AU Optronics, LG and Toshiba, the combination of which has agreed to pay a total of $571 million to eight separate American states to either avoid the legal wrath of a class action lawsuit or to pay an outstanding fine. Allegedly, the trio kept LCD prices artificially high between 1996 and 2006, hiking the prices of PCs and TVs in the process. There's a slight twist here: while keeping the display builders honest is the primary goal, the class action status will net some direct rewards for the public. Americans who claim to have been wronged in the scandal can get "at least" $25, which goes a lot further towards buying an LCD than it did six years ago.
Sharp settles LCD price fixing dispute with Dell and others for $200 million
In an LCD panel price fixing tiff that's been raging on for what seems like time incarnate, Sharp has settled with Dell and two unnamed companies for $198.5 million to make it go away. Japanese panel makers like LG, Samsung and Toshiba are also defendants in the legal dragnet, and numerous fines and settlements totaling more than a billion dollars have already been paid out to the likes of AT&T and the US Department of Justice. This decision comes hot on the heels of an $87 million setback in court for Toshiba -- a ruling that may have taken the edge off of Sharp's defense.
Toshiba hit for $87 million in LCD price fixing verdict, maintains innocence
Toshiba decided not to settle when faced with allegations of price fixing, and now the company may have to pay the price. A jury handed down a verdict in the District Court for the Northern District of California today, hitting the company with $87 million in damages as part of a class action suit. The civil suit, separate from the criminal charges some of its alleged co-conspirators faced, wrapped today with the decision to award consumers $70 million and gave $17 million to manufacturers who purchased the company's panels. Toshiba may not actually have to pay up, however, thanks to settlements struck by others caught up in the same scandal, which could cover the damages. Regardless, the company maintains its innocence and actually plans to pursue "all available legal avenues" to reverse the decision. For more of Toshiba's response, check out the PR after the break.
Judge refuses request to dismiss ebook class action suit
Apple received a legal slap on Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Denise Cote rejected a request to dismiss a class action lawsuit against Apple and five publishers. Cote scoffed at the idea that Apple and the publishers acted independently in coming up with what's known as agency pricing, their defense to the charges that they were price-fixing ebooks. Not only that, she accused Steve Jobs at being at the center of it all. Parts of the opinion, as excerpted by paidContent, reads: In short, Apple did not try to earn money off of eBooks by competing with other retailers in an open market; rather, Apple 'accomplished this goal by [helping] the suppliers to collude, rather than to compete independently.'" "Finally, the fact that Apple might have had different motivations for joining the conspiracy, and was involved in only a portion of it, does not undermine the existence of the conspiracy itself or Apple's role as a participant. Cote also cites ongoing investigations against Apple, including the antitrust suit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, as other reasons to maintain the class action suit, filed in August 2011.
iPod owners notified of RealNetworks-related lawsuit's class action status, given chance to cash in (updated: not Real)
Remember the 2005 lawsuit over Apple's effort to keep RealNetworks' Harmony DRM off of the iPod, calling the countermeasures an abuse that locked customers into Apple's FairPlay copy protection and the iTunes Store? You're forgiven if you don't -- the complaint was filed in 2005. Even with iTunes having gone primarily DRM-free over three years ago, though, owners of iPods bought between September 12th, 2006 and March 31st, 2009 are just now getting notices that they qualify for a slice of any damages if they register and Rhapsody's former owner the class action group wins in court. Of course, there's no guarantee that RealNetworks former Rhapsody users will win and get you music money to feed your iPod, iPod classic, iPod nano or iPod touch, but unless you're planning to sue Apple yourself, there's no penalty for a legitimate claim. Update: RealNetworks has chipped in to let us know that it's "not involved in any way" with the lawsuit, which is actually an independent complaint centered around the Rhapsody users themselves. RealNetworks hasn't embroiled itself in a legal fight with Apple to date.
Apple hit with class action lawsuit over iTunes double-billing
Apple has been hit with another class-action lawsuit for double billing customers in the iTunes store. New York resident Robert Herskowitz claims Apple charged him twice for the single "Whataya Want from Me" by Adam Lambert. Herskowitz says he contacted Apple and got an automated response telling him his request was being reviewed. The message he received from Apple wasn't so friendly. "Your request for a refund for 'Whataya Want from Me' was carefully considered; however, according to the iTunes Store Terms of Sale, all purchases made on the iTunes Store are ineligible for refund. This policy matches Apple's refund policies and provides protection for copyrighted materials." So, the lawsuit is underway, and Herskowitz is looking for others who claim they have been similarly unfairly charged. You can read the lawsuit online at Justia.
Facebook under fire over virtual currency architecture; lawsuit seeks $5 million
Glynnis Bohannon is none too happy with Facebook right now. She argues her son – who purchased Facebook Credits for use in social games – did not know he was spending real-world money, and is looking for a refund. She's also trying to get Facebook to give back money to all the minors in the US who had laid down cash, and is looking for funds exceeding $5 million, court documents show.Bohannon says Facebook's currency system goes against consumer protection laws in California. Minors from the age of 13 on can create an account on Facebook and purchase Facebook Credits, though there are warnings that individuals under the age of 18 must have permission from a parent. No specific apps were mentioned in the filing.
Antitrust suit carries on against Intel, Apple, Google and others
They can hope and pray all that they want, but Google, Intel, Apple, Adobe, Intuit, Pixar and Lucasfilm will soon be facing some serious accusations in a courtroom under the Sherman Antitrust Act and California's Cartwright Act. After years of trying to dodge legal action over an "informal agreement" to not pinch each others employees, and an effort to have the case dismissed, the seven defendants will have to stand trial as ordered by District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California. In her decision Koh said, not only was there evidence that these agreements were made at the highest levels of the company but, that six such deals were struck in secret in such a short time frame "suggests that these agreements resulted from collusion." There's still time for yet another deal to be struck, however, this time between the defendants and the DOJ. Otherwise it looks like all seven will have to stand trial in June of 2013.
Game on: NFL likeness lawsuit against EA moving forward
A motion filed by EA to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed against it by 6,000 retired NFL players has failed, reports Gamasutra. As you'll recall, the players that filed the suit claimed that their likenesses were used in Madden 09 without permission or compensation. While the player's names and numbers were changed, vital and identifiable statistics were left unchanged.Rather than argue that it in fact didn't replicate real-world players without authorization, EA's motion to dismiss postulated that Madden 09's use of player likenesses was covered by the First Amendment, and therefore did not require consent or compensation. Since this motion was denied, the case will move on to court. Plaintiffs are seeking legal fees, damages and all profits generated through the use of said plaintiffs' likenesses.
iPhone 4 owners who refused a free bumper case can now claim $15 settlement
iPhone 4 owners who didn't accept a Bumper case as part of a class-action suit regarding the device's antenna are now eligible to receive US$15 from Apple, AppleInsider reports. Apple initially offered free Bumpers in 2010 for a brief period. Those eligible for the settlement had to have been the original owner of an iPhone 4 before February 17. The settlement offer is good through August 28.
iPhone 4 owners can register for $15 antennagate settlements (updated)
The official website for the iPhone 4 "antennagate" class action settlement is live, as pointed out by co-lead counsel on the case Ira Rothken. Of course, speaking of cases, if you're an iPhone 4 owner who has taken advantage of the free bumpers Apple's been offering since 2010 then you're not still eligible for the $15 settlement. Customers who meet the requirements (experienced antenna issues, couldn't return your phone without incurring costs, don't want to put on a bumper or case and either completed troubleshooting or no longer own the phone) can opt for the payout and file their claim at the website linked below. Of course, assuming you're not a stickler for that skin-to-metal and glass feel the case is probably the better deal overall, but as long as this issue is finally dead and buried we can probably all walk away happy.Update: Turns out it doesn't matter if you scored yourself a free bumper or not, so long as you don't actually use it you can still register for your share of the settlement. So, if you took the consolation prize offered at the time, but have grown to hate it, now's your chance to make $15.
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.
