Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
Apple Inc., along with its chief executive and exclusive U.S. iPhone wireless partner AT&T, have been hit with a new lawsuit from a disgruntled customer who charges the trio with a variety of offenses stemming from the recent iPhone price cut.
In the suit, filed Sept. 24 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Queens resident Dongmei Li accuses the parties of price discrimination, underselling, discrimination in rebates, deceptive actions, and other wrongdoings for their role in the Sept. 5th price drop on iPhone, which saw the handset's price tag slashed an unprecedented $200 less than two months after its debut.
Li was among the thousands who waited hours in line on June 29, 2007 for her chance to purchase one of the touch-screen devices, according to the suit. When she reached the front of the line, her local Apple store only had 4GB models remaining, which she purchased anyway despite having intended to buy the larger-capacitied 8GB model.
She, like thousands of others, the suit claims, is now the victim of price discrimination in that she cannot resell her iPhone for the same profit as customers who purchased the device after price drop. Similarly, she cannot trade up to 8GB model she had initially hoped to obtain and is now left with a product that has been discontinued.
Li also feels cheated by Apple's rebate policy because she was only offered a $100 store credit towards a future Apple store purchase when those customers who bought the same iPhone within a two week window period immediately preceding the cut received the full $200 refund under the company's price protection policy.
Li included in her 8-page complaint historical stock graphs that show Apple's share price to have risen in between the time it released iPhone in late June and when the company instated the price cut. She argues that this is proof that there was no sound reason for the cut, which she equated to "underselling."
"Market conditions did not require Apple to change its price," Li's attorney, C. Jean Wang of Wang Law Offices, PLLC wrote in the filing. "iPhone was selling very well because Apple's stocks were increasing since August 16, 2007 and rose as high as $144.16 on September 4, 2007, the day before Apple announced that it was cutting the price of iPhone."
The lawsuit goes on to accuse Apple, Jobs and AT&T of forcing customers into 2-year service agreements with AT&T and imposing hefty $175 termination fees. These requirements are unfair, the suit continues, because customers who purchased the iPhone later in the year were able to utilize unlocking solutions that allowed them to forgo such terms and fees.
Given Apple's since stated stance on this matter -- and the recent consequences faced by users of unlocked iPhones in recent days -- it would seem this portion of the suit is now of lesser merit.
For those claims which the Court is still likely to take into account, Li is requesting compensatory damages in the amount of $1 million, punitive damages in the amount to be determined at trial, and a court order that she is entitled to "threefold her damages , the costs involved in maintaining this action, and attorney's fees."
In the suit, filed Sept. 24 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Queens resident Dongmei Li accuses the parties of price discrimination, underselling, discrimination in rebates, deceptive actions, and other wrongdoings for their role in the Sept. 5th price drop on iPhone, which saw the handset's price tag slashed an unprecedented $200 less than two months after its debut.
Li was among the thousands who waited hours in line on June 29, 2007 for her chance to purchase one of the touch-screen devices, according to the suit. When she reached the front of the line, her local Apple store only had 4GB models remaining, which she purchased anyway despite having intended to buy the larger-capacitied 8GB model.
She, like thousands of others, the suit claims, is now the victim of price discrimination in that she cannot resell her iPhone for the same profit as customers who purchased the device after price drop. Similarly, she cannot trade up to 8GB model she had initially hoped to obtain and is now left with a product that has been discontinued.
Li also feels cheated by Apple's rebate policy because she was only offered a $100 store credit towards a future Apple store purchase when those customers who bought the same iPhone within a two week window period immediately preceding the cut received the full $200 refund under the company's price protection policy.
Li included in her 8-page complaint historical stock graphs that show Apple's share price to have risen in between the time it released iPhone in late June and when the company instated the price cut. She argues that this is proof that there was no sound reason for the cut, which she equated to "underselling."
"Market conditions did not require Apple to change its price," Li's attorney, C. Jean Wang of Wang Law Offices, PLLC wrote in the filing. "iPhone was selling very well because Apple's stocks were increasing since August 16, 2007 and rose as high as $144.16 on September 4, 2007, the day before Apple announced that it was cutting the price of iPhone."
The lawsuit goes on to accuse Apple, Jobs and AT&T of forcing customers into 2-year service agreements with AT&T and imposing hefty $175 termination fees. These requirements are unfair, the suit continues, because customers who purchased the iPhone later in the year were able to utilize unlocking solutions that allowed them to forgo such terms and fees.
Given Apple's since stated stance on this matter -- and the recent consequences faced by users of unlocked iPhones in recent days -- it would seem this portion of the suit is now of lesser merit.
For those claims which the Court is still likely to take into account, Li is requesting compensatory damages in the amount of $1 million, punitive damages in the amount to be determined at trial, and a court order that she is entitled to "threefold her damages , the costs involved in maintaining this action, and attorney's fees."
Comments
This is right there with suing over hot coffee.
Actually, the hot coffee suite had a bit of merit... the coffee was absurdly and dangerously hot. At least there's a pro and con.
This is total nonsense.
Right up there with the latest generation of whiners who want Apple to support their hacks, and who don't want them to fix buffer overflows so that their hacks continue to work.
The MOST...absolute most... that she should get IF she were to win, should be $100 - the difference between what she paid minus the rebate and the current price. $1 Million in damages for a $100 price difference? C'mon now.
BTW I do think Apple handled this price cut clumsily. But in a fair way.
GH
This is total nonsense.
Right up there with the latest generation of whiners who want Apple to support their hacks, and who don't want them to fix buffer overflows so that their hacks continue to work.
Difference is the iphone dev team isn't suing anyone!
what's wrong with people!? Some lady CHOSE to buy something, then sued becasue her deal wasn't sweet enough? Honestly. don't be a customer. stay at home. turn on the gas stove, end yourself.
Actually, the hot coffee suite had a bit of merit... the coffee was absurdly and dangerously hot.
Oh, you must be the plaintiff.
Oh, you must be the plaintiff.
The coffee was several degrees above the standard temperature that hot coffee is normally served at. It caused burns at a severity that normal hot coffee could not do.
Everyone loves to refer to the coffee lawsuit without knowing any of the facts.
Last week at Whole Foods, I paid $2.29/lb for apples. This week apples were only $1.69. I am suing Whole Food for $1 million dollars, which is a conservative estimate of my actual, emotional, and spiritual damage. As the eponym of the product in question, I may sue Apple as well.
lol, I think you've got a strong case!
Ok, so that makes $3million, plus punitive damages (what ever they are) plus court costs etc.
Surely that is ridiculous for a price difference of $100
What twisted attorney thought that one up? oh, of course, all attorneys are twisted!
the mind boggles, if this goes to court the world has gone completely crazy.
Actually, the hot coffee suite had a bit of merit... the coffee was absurdly and dangerously hot.
Actually, most involved in the beverage industry thought McDonad's coffee temperatures were about right:
"A spokesman for the National Coffee Association says McDonald's coffee conforms to industry temperature standards. And a spokesman for Mr. Coffee Inc., the coffee-machine maker, says that if customer complaints are any indication, industry settings may be too low - some customers like it hotter."
http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
i have read the same statement in other locations, especially that some coffee is served at sub-optimal temperatures, simply because businesses fear lawwsuits.
Oh, you must be the plaintiff.
Nah, just reporting what I've read elsewhere. No dog in the fight either way.
Point 2- If you didn't want the 4GB version then you shouldn't have bought the phone you didn't want.
Point 1- If you thought the iPhone was overpriced then you shouldn't have bought it at that price.
Point 2- If you didn't want the 4GB version then you shouldn't have bought the phone you didn't want.
11thIndian, you can't seriously expect people to take responsibility for their own actions
I hope she never buys an ultra-current model wide-screen HDTV. My poor Sony HD set dropped in price so fast it made my head spin. It still works great, though and I doubt if I can sue anyone for my rushing out to buy it. I should have waited six months later, but I was impatient. My bad, I learned my lesson.
Last week at Whole Foods, I paid $2.29/lb for apples. This week apples were only $1.69. I am suing Whole Food for $1 million dollars, which is a conservative estimate of my actual, emotional, and spiritual damage. As the eponym of the product in question, I may sue Apple as well.
Now that's funny.
But I will be if they come out with an improved or cheaper iphone then I will be so pissed! That's why I'm filing a pre-emptive lawsuit against Apple saying that if they ever improve the iphone or reduce the price they have to give me the new model for free for the rest of my life.
I'm sure all of you can understand the anxiety of waking up each morning wondering if evil Apple has improved or lowered the price again on the iphone.
I can't help feeling so sorry for myself, afterall my mommy said that I'm entitled to anything I want and more!