Nobody in America cares about pixel loss caused by iPhone notch, says judge

Posted:
in General Discussion
A California federal judge has declared that "there doesn't seem to be anyone in America" who cares about the iPhone pixel count being down because of rounded edges and the notch.

iPhone XR in Coral


A class action suit launched in December accused Apple of making fraudulent claims about the size and pixel count of its OLED displays. The argument is, quite literally, about cut corners. The suit was launched by plaintiffs Christian Sponchiado and Courtney Davis.

The suit asserts fraud because Apple misrepresents the screen size of the iPhone. The allegation points out that Apple fails to factor in the rounded corners in the diagonal measurement of the screen, as well as the notch.

It also claims that Apple has overstated the pixel count to mislead consumers about the screen quality.

U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr, however, is skeptical. "There doesn't really seem to be anyone in America who seems to be concerned about it," he said, according to Law360. Judge Gilliam still thinks Apple's disclosure defeats allegations of fraud and unjust enrichment.

Apple's legal counsel, Tiffany Cheung of Morrison & Foerster LLP, argued that the screen size claims are defeated by multiple disclosures on the packaging of the iPhones in question. She went on to state that the plaintiffs allege Apple is miscounting subpixels, though Apple makes no representation about subpixels in its marketing.

C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group PLLC, representing the plaintiffs, argued that Apple could have told consumers the advertised pixel count is "not true pixels," which would reduce the overall resolution.

Judge Gilliam remained skeptical, and believes that other judges have set precedent barring the plaintiffs from asserting class consumer protection. However, he said that he would take the arguments under submission.

The suit accuses Apple of being misleading about the screen size of the iPhone X, declared as 5.8 inches. According to the filing, the screen is actually "only about 5.6875 inches," and takes issue with the 5.8-inch measurement "pretending that the screen does not have rounded corners."

Shortly after this declaration, the suit claims an image proves "the phones themselves display their false diagonal screen sizes," with the Compare iPhone page of the Apple website shown on the iPhone X's screen. Also shown in the photograph alongside the screen size is an asterisk, indicating further detail is available down the page explaining how the measurement takes into account the corners.

The suit calls for an injunction against the offending practices, plus damage payments directed to everyone participating in the class action.

«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 63
    thttht Posts: 3,312member
    Oh, oh, do the plaintiffs know that on the OLED iPhones, the “pixels”only have 2 subpixels versus the 3 subpixels on LCDs and other displays in the past? They are missing out on 1/3rd of the subpixels they should have.

    Or was that in a prior lawsuit?
    randominternetpersonphilboogiewatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 63
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,979member
    Just another case of trying to sue one of the richest companies, on the thought that it’s worth the effort, because just maybe they can get something out of it.
    tmaylkruppMplsPnetmagechaickaSpamSandwichStrangeDaysargonautwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 63
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 1,726member
    So do these class action law firms go looking for people to list as a plaintiff so they can file their suit? These people are no better than the patent trolls, in my opinion. 

    This is no different than tv screen measurements, or multiple other products. Furthermore, it’s standard across the industry, so comparisons between products are equal, which is what really matters. 
    netmagemwhitewatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 63
    Frivolous lawsuits should have consequences.  

    Pay for wasting the courts and Apple’s time...
    EsquireCatsDAalsethTomEmike1netmagerandominternetpersonmwhitemac_dogargonautflyingdp
  • Reply 5 of 63
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,267member
    Well some people cared: The leeches lawyers.
    EsquireCatscornchipMplsPphilboogieargonautflyingdp
  • Reply 6 of 63
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 763member
    Frivolous lawsuits should have consequences.  

    Pay for wasting the courts and Apple’s time...
    Yes, I've come to support Loser Pays all expenses in these kind of suits. I understand the arguments against the model, but I've come to feel that the benefits outweigh the costs.
    JonInAtlelijahgnetmagenetroxpscooter63flyingdpwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 63
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,103member
    DAalseth said:
    Frivolous lawsuits should have consequences.  

    Pay for wasting the courts and Apple’s time...
    Yes, I've come to support Loser Pays all expenses in these kind of suits. I understand the arguments against the model, but I've come to feel that the benefits outweigh the costs.
    I agree. Apple gets dinged lots of money when they lose a judgment against them but when they win, they never seem to really get any money. If the court system was actually fair, the lawyers would have to pony up a substantial amount of money to cover court costs and then would have the option of including "everyone" (all two people who were part of the official class action. I have an OLED iPhone and nobody ever contacted me about this lawsuit so no way can these leeches (not crossing out that word) include me.

    I totally agree people with valid claims should be able to have their time in court but as others have said, as well as the judge (for once), almost nobody cares about the ridiculously high number of pixels or if Apple measured the diagonal size of the display at the corners of the rectangular screen before removing a little bit to give it rounded, and safer, corners.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 63
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 1,014member
    I agree that loser pays should be applied in cases like this, where the case is obviously frivolous. It would reduce enormously the number of ridiculous lawsuits. How the lawyer thought this would get anywhere is beyond me, idiots.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 63
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,454member
    MplsP said:
    So do these class action law firms go looking for people to list as a plaintiff so they can file their suit? These people are no better than the patent trolls, in my opinion. 

    This is no different than tv screen measurements, or multiple other products. Furthermore, it’s standard across the industry, so comparisons between products are equal, which is what really matters. 
    Yes, absolutely. I have actually seen ads on TV by law firms seeking clients for possible litigation. 
    mwhitewatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 63
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,267member
    DAalseth said:
    Frivolous lawsuits should have consequences.  

    Pay for wasting the courts and Apple’s time...
    Yes, I've come to support Loser Pays all expenses in these kind of suits. I understand the arguments against the model, but I've come to feel that the benefits outweigh the costs.
    Sometimes lawyers (actually the plaintiffs) are ordered to pay, it depends on the specifics of a case. Apple right now is demanding recompense from one of the companies who had brought a frivolous case against them and lost,  and so far the judge has looked favorably on it. 

    Loser pays as a general rule of law tho would not be a good idea IMO. 
    edited October 4 muthuk_vanalingamargonaut
  • Reply 11 of 63
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,454member

    DAalseth said:
    Frivolous lawsuits should have consequences.  

    Pay for wasting the courts and Apple’s time...
    Yes, I've come to support Loser Pays all expenses in these kind of suits. I understand the arguments against the model, but I've come to feel that the benefits outweigh the costs.
    But, but, but, then “poor” people wouldn’t be able to sue anybody because lawyers would no longer take on contingency cases with the knowledge it could cost them really big bucks. Don’t you know.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 63
    thttht Posts: 3,312member
    MplsP said:
    So do these class action law firms go looking for people to list as a plaintiff so they can file their suit? These people are no better than the patent trolls, in my opinion. 

    This is no different than tv screen measurements, or multiple other products. Furthermore, it’s standard across the industry, so comparisons between products are equal, which is what really matters. 
    Yes, the lawyers go looking for people.

    You take the good with bad. There are ethical companies and unethical companies just as there are ethical and unethical people. Companies do lie about the features of their products. The marketers feel they could get away things because of semantics or industry “standards”, but in the end, advertising still needs to be truthful in layman’s terms.

    What matters is that features are advertised in layman understandable terms, right? Not technically disclosed in small print. Apple’s case here is ambulance chasing, but companies do cross the line.

    In the CRT days, display manufacturing often advertised the size of their displays by the diagonal length of the tube, but the viewable diagonal of the display was typically 10% smaller. A monitor advertised as being 17” really only had 15.5” to 16” diagonal. In terms of area, that would be 15% to 20% less. The OEMs knew that advertising the smaller number meant lower sales, and that the larger number would make their displays more attractive, and that people would interpret their advertising of the vacuum tube diagonal as the diagonal of the viewable display.

    There are a lot of misleading advertising. I recently looked at energy plans and many providers advertise the ¢/kWHr if you use 2000 kWHr. They had an clickable asterisk, which expanded to show that if you used 500 kWHr, the price was 25% higher for lower usage. They can get away with it because they disclosed it, but how close to the line are they lying here? Or like the carrier plans advertised as “unlimited”, but it is really “unlimited up to x GB, then throttled, then cancelled if the carrier doesn’t like your usage” plans.


    chaickaelijahgwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 63
    Loser pays has its attractions, but I think that the petitioner should always pay court costs up front, based on the filed award.  If they're asking for a million dollars, they pay x% to the court.  If they don't get that much, too bad.  And nobody gets any of that back.  Ever.  For any reason.  If the petitioner wins, they get their award, and that's it.  If they lose, the defendant gets half their up front.

    Still has problems I'm not qualified to solve...
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 63
    Because PIXEL LOSS MATTERS...LOL
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 63
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,718member
    What a waste of resources. Losers should pay court costs. Here’s an idea, look at the phone before you buy. If rounded corners bother you, don’t buy it. 
    netmagechaickawatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 63
    elijahg said:
    I agree that loser pays should be applied in cases like this, where the case is obviously frivolous. It would reduce enormously the number of ridiculous lawsuits. How the lawyer thought this would get anywhere is beyond me, idiots.
    The problem with the “loser pays” idea is that it would have a prohibitively chilling effect on legitimate claims as well. 

    Even in totally legitimate cases, it’s an uphill battle for the ‘little guys’ to make claims in court against large companies with large, well-financed in-house legal teams and/or high-dollar big name legal firms. 

    Even if those plaintiffs are sure they have serious, legitimate claims, there is no guarantee that they’ll be able to win in court against all that corporate firepower. If the consequence of not winning in court means you will also have to pay for all that corporate legal firepower lined up against you, you’re probably not going to even risk it, are you?

    Everyone is supposed to have equal access to the courts. The ability to win In court is already tilted in favor of the wealthy, because they can afford the best legal services. It’s absolutely true that there are people who abuse the system hoping to get payoffs just to go away. Justice isn’t achieved, however, by making the system prohibitively inaccessible to all but those who are rich enough to gamble against the cost of paying the other guys’ legal fees. 
    edited October 4 gatorguymuthuk_vanalingampscooter63tyler82watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 63
    ajmasajmas Posts: 559member
    gatorguy said:
    DAalseth said:
    Frivolous lawsuits should have consequences.  

    Pay for wasting the courts and Apple’s time...
    Yes, I've come to support Loser Pays all expenses in these kind of suits. I understand the arguments against the model, but I've come to feel that the benefits outweigh the costs.
    Sometimes lawyers (actually the plaintiffs) are ordered to pay, it depends on the specifics of a case. Apple right now is demanding recompense from one of he companies who had brought a frivolous case against them and so far the judge has looked favorably on it. 

    Loser pays as a general rule of law tho would not be a good idea IMO. 

    Any 'loser pays' rule should be surrounded by a bunch of conditions, because while it could help dissuade frivolous lawsuits, it may also dissuade legitimate lawsuits. For the latter the offending corporation could just pad the bill and scare off any plaintiff. At the same time, if a lawyer is in the business of organising the class action, in the sense they are the one who initiated it and recruits members, then they should certainly be on the hook, since it then could be considered suing 'for income', as opposed to 'for cause'.
    netmagechaickatyler82watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 63
    chaickachaicka Posts: 164member
    melgross said:
    Just another case of trying to sue one of the richest companies, on the thought that it’s worth the effort, because just maybe they can get something out of it.
    Is this uniquely America...cause it does not seem that many countries have this kind of culture.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 63
    Next case: iPhone X battery last only 20.9999 hr instead of 21 hr.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 63
    And we wonder why there are many lines of small print at the bottom of every page that describes a product.  Unfortunately the lawyers that write that crap know that if they don't law suits like this one have a tiny chance of succeeding.

    Kudos for the judge for stating the obvious that no real person actually cares about the "loss of pixels" due to rounded corners.  To measure the screen from rounded corner to rounded corner would be more misleading than the way Apple did it.
    cat52bb-15watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.