class action
Latest
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.
Lawsuit filed against Sony's anti-lawsuit provision
A class-action suit filed in a California court late last month seeks to reverse Sony's forced prevention of class-action suits, which the company buried in a mandatory PSN update, following the PSN security breach earlier this year. Gamespot reports the suit claims Sony engaged in unfair business practices by forcing consumers to choose between giving up access to PSN or the right to a class-action lawsuit over hardware they purchased. The suit also calls out Sony for only allowing consumers to opt-out of the class action provision by snail mail, rather than any modern communication method. We've contacted Sony for an official statement about the suit. Update: A Sony representative informed us, "We don't comment on pending litigation."
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.
New Xbox Live terms of service prevent class action lawsuits against Microsoft [update: opting out not allowed]
You can now add Microsoft to the growing list of companies including anti-class action lawsuit language in their terms of service. Following in the footsteps of EA and Sony, the latest Xbox Live terms of service requires that United States users agree to a "class action waiver." As the language suggests, the waiver bars any user from entering a class action lawsuits against Microsoft, requiring instead that all disputes be solved by "informal negotiation." Should said negotiation fail to solve the dispute, individuals may enter into binding arbitration with the company. Microsoft certainly isn't the first company to add such language to its terms of service, as mentioned above, and it likely won't be the last. The company has dealt with the looming specter of class action lawsuits before, one as recently as 2010. As with other similar terms of service changes, users may choose to reject it by sending a letter (a paper one) to Microsoft Corporation, ATTN: LCA ARBITRATION, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052-6399. We've embedded the relevant sections of the terms of service after the break. Update: It turns out that you actually can't opt out of the arbitration agreement, at least not if you want to keep using Xbox Live. Microsoft has informed Kotaku that the ability for customers to reject changes only applies to future changes to the arbitration agreement. From now on, individuals wishing to file a dispute may do so by visiting xbox.com/notice, filling out a form and mailing it – again, an actual paper letter – to Microsoft. Should the dispute not be satisfactorily resolved in 60 days, users can submit an arbitration claim (PDF), an onerous process requiring fees, multiple copies of forms and, not least of all, an attorney.
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]
EA facing class-action lawsuit over lack of BF 1943 in BF3
Remember how EA originally planned to include a free copy of Battlefield 1943 with every new PS3 copy of Battlefield 3? So do a lot of other people, and they're so upset over EA's replacement "bonus" that they've filed a class-action lawsuit against the publisher, according to Kotaku. Rather than monetary compensation, the firm representing those involved with the lawsuit (Edelson McGuire) is looking only for the free copies of Battlefield 1943 originally advertised; a promise which EA "could not, and never intended, to keep," according to the firm. As is the way with any legal proceeding involving the entertainment industry, it'll likely be years before any sort of progress is made in either direction.
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?
Service helps users opt out of EULA class-action prevention
If you're looking to opt out of the class-action lawsuit prevention clauses inserted by certain companies like Electronic Arts for Origin and Sony for PSN, a new service is seeking to streamline the process. The trick about opting out is consumers must send something known as a physical letter and use a "stamp" (an antiquated method of payment, we understand, to facilitate this analog-mail). Because this letter-mailing artform has been lost to time, GamersOptOut.com will help.
New website provides online opt-out services for game EULAs
If you're like most of us, you don't read the giant wall o' legalese that serves as a speed bump on the way to your favorite virtual world. A group of Redditors has, though, and has set up a new website designed to assist gamers in opting out of the clause that prevents participation in potential class action lawsuits leveled against gaming service providers. Apparently opting out requires that a physical letter be mailed to the gaming company in question, and GamersOptOut.com purports to do the tedious work for you (either for free or for a voluntary donation). The catch is that you'll need to provide personal information, including your name, address, and game account name. The website's creators page lists the online handles (as well as Xbox Live, PSN, and Twitter identities) of those responsible, but given the anonymous nature of the site and the privacy concerns raised by providing your personal info, we suggest you proceed with caution. Currently the website features an opt-out form for Sony's PlayStation network and Electronic Arts' new Origin digital delivery service.
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.
Former QA tester files litigation against Take-Two, seeks class-action suit
Ex-Take-Two Interactive employee Aaron Martinez believes he was mistreated while employed by the publisher, and he's suing. In a notice sent to other QA employees, the former Visual Concepts (currently known as 2K Sports) quality assurance tester claims "Take-Two Quality Assurance Testers were not paid for all hours worked, were not provided required off duty meal and rest breaks, and were not paid all wages due at the time of termination." Resultantly, he's trying to gather other employees/ex-employees together in a class action suit. For its part, Take-Two denies all claims, but the presiding court in California has yet to determine much about potential future legal actions. When we spoke with Martinez's lawyer, Michael Righetti, earlier today, he explained that his client has filed a punitive class action suit, and that the letter popping up online (seen in part above) was sent out last week as an act of compromise between Martinez and Take-Two, as well as to notify other employees of the suit. Martinez was employed by Visual Concepts/Take-Two beginning in December of 2006, and it is unclear when his time with the studio ended. Bizarrely, in order to solicit contact information of other employees at Take-Two during Martinez's time of employment, the letter had to be sent by a third party working as an intermediary. Those receiving the letter have until Sept. 25 to opt out of having their information released, at which time their contact information will otherwise be given to the complainant's legal counsel. The original complaint was filed by Martinez way back in June of 2010, and given the snail's pace at which the suit has proceeded thus far, we don't expect to hear much more anytime soon. With all that extra time, however, we suggest you pore over the latest version of the filing, in the gallery below.%Gallery-132200%
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]
PSN breach and restoration to cost $171M, Sony estimates
In the lead-up to its fiscal year 2010 earnings report this Thursday, Sony today released a revised forecast -- forewarning a $3.2 billion loss (yowzah!) -- for the twelve months ending March 31, 2011. Having occurred in late April, the PlayStation Network attack and subsequent data theft and outage fall outside of that period, but the company nonetheless addressed "the impact" of the event during an investors call today, "since there have been so many media inquiries about this incident." "As of today," said Sony, according to its call script, "our currently known associated costs for the fiscal year ending March 2012 are estimated to be approximately 14 billion yen on the consolidated operating income level." That's roughly $171 million -- a "reasonable assumption," says Sony -- that the company expects to spend throughout the current fiscal year on its "personal information theft protection program," in addition to "welcome back programs," customer support, network security "enhancements" and legal costs. Sony noted that revenue loss from the outage and recovery, which also spans its Qriocity and Sony Online Entertainment services, had been factored into the cost, as well. "So far, we have not received any confirmed reports of customer identity theft issues, nor confirmed any misuse of credit cards from the cyber-attack," the company added. "Those are key variables, and if that changes, the costs could change." And what about the class action suits? Sony qualifies them as "all at a preliminary stage, so we are not able to include the possible outcome of any of them in our results forecast for the fiscal year ending March 2012 at this moment."
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.
