Plaintiff withdrawn in iPod antitrust lawsuit
One of the two named plaintiffs in the long-running class-action lawsuit over Apple's FairPlay DRM was withdrawn on Friday by their attorneys, just one day after the revelation that neither plaintiff may be a member of the class they represent.
Plaintiff Melanie Tucker was removed from the case after it was discovered that her iPod purchases did not fall within the span covered by the lawsuit, according to the New York Times. Tucker purchased an iPod touch in 2010 and an iPod in 2005, while the lawsuit addresses purchases between Sept. 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009.
The standing of the remaining plaintiff, Marianna Rosen, is still in question. Apple told the court on Thursday that the serial number on Rosen's iPod indicated that the device was purchased in July 2009, though Rosen insists that she purchased another iPod touch in 2008.
"I am concerned that I don't have a plaintiff," Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers said when told of the complications. "That's a problem."
There is no word on when the judge will rule on Rosen's eligibility, an issue that could torpedo the entire suit. The class is seeking $350 million in damages, alleging that Apple's FairPlay DRM allowed the company to create a de facto monopoly with the iPod and iTunes Music Store.
Plaintiff Melanie Tucker was removed from the case after it was discovered that her iPod purchases did not fall within the span covered by the lawsuit, according to the New York Times. Tucker purchased an iPod touch in 2010 and an iPod in 2005, while the lawsuit addresses purchases between Sept. 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009.
The standing of the remaining plaintiff, Marianna Rosen, is still in question. Apple told the court on Thursday that the serial number on Rosen's iPod indicated that the device was purchased in July 2009, though Rosen insists that she purchased another iPod touch in 2008.
"I am concerned that I don't have a plaintiff," Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers said when told of the complications. "That's a problem."
There is no word on when the judge will rule on Rosen's eligibility, an issue that could torpedo the entire suit. The class is seeking $350 million in damages, alleging that Apple's FairPlay DRM allowed the company to create a de facto monopoly with the iPod and iTunes Music Store.
Comments
This is impressive (for Apple).
I read they have until Monday to prove the other Plaintiff qualified.
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/12/05/apple-ipod-antitrust-case-thrown-into-doubt/
"Woof!"
It gets worse...
So her husband's law firm purchased the iPod? Helping to find a class plaintiff? Or trying to manufacture evidence of being in the class? Someone should be going to jail over that. But, you know they won't.
Wheeeeee!
Oh President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho... you never fail to get a chuckle out of me.
Why believe Apple? Perhaps for the same reason we believe people on the other side of the lawsuit.
It reminds of me of the Telsa Motors case when the New York Times made false claims about the vehicle's performance that were contradicted by the car's own logs.
A warning to the swindlers who have not yet adapted to the modern world: electronic devices and Internet servers keep logs.
I found video of the proceedings.
I hope Apple sues for attorney fees, and general "Thanks for wasting everyone's @#$*% time" fees.
Seriously, these lawyers tried to fish anyone with a complaint and had nothing. The judge needs to make an example of these lawyers and get them disbarred. Honestly, this is a sham to begin with.
So...apparently, Plaintiff Rosen was so upset about the iPod she purchased in 2008 that she bought another in 2009?
They really oughta toss this case.
Sounds like these are ambulance chasing attorneys. They actually have no plaintiffs who were harmed. As in most product class action cases, the big money in class action settlements go to the attorneys, while the actual plaintiffs get pennies.
I wonder if Apple's attorneys knew this from the beginning and let these bozos spin their wheels for a decade.
They're likely on retainers anyway, so it's not like it cost Apple any extra.
So...apparently, Plaintiff Rosen was so upset about the iPod she purchased in 2008 that she bought another in 2009?
They really oughta toss this case.
I love that this case has been spinning for YEARS and this is all they have to show for it.