First post-patch iPhone 3G lawsuit wants Apple to pay $5 million
Jumping on an increasingly overloaded bandwagon, a Little Rock, Arkansas man has started a class action lawsuit expecting at least $5 million in damages for Apple and AT&T overselling iPhone 3G relative to the network load, even though a fix has already been put into place.
Filed this past Friday, just as Apple released its iPhone 2.1 firmware update that appears to have settled most network issues, Aaron Walters' proposed class action follows most of the now familiar pattern found in previous complaints -- albeit with a few new twists.
Walters and his legal team allege that Apple, and by extension AT&T, misled the public and violated state trade laws with advertising claims that the new iPhone's cellular data speeds would be "twice as fast" as the original model when it was clear this would never play out in practice. In fact, he says, his device and others have spent most of their time on the slower EDGE (2G) network and have suffered dropped calls.
Like the New Jersey lawsuit that preceded it, the Arkansas case quickly turns to Internet-derived leaks as an explanation for the faltering performance: as the two defending companies sold more iPhones than AT&T's 3G network could handle, the carrier's network has been overwhelmed and triggered the drops. The firms "should have known that the strain on the network would make it impossible to provide reliable and sustained connectivity," according to the 16-page lawsuit.
The plaintiff also points to problems with the handsets themselves that were named in those same unofficial reports, asserting that the phones haven't been sufficiently sensitive to 3G signals and have worsened the problem as a result.
In a new take, however, Walters argues that AT&T specifically is exploiting its captive audience. While complaints have surfaced before regarding the need for a two-year contract that prevents an easy escape to another network, Walters takes issue with the inability to choose another carrier at any cost and accuss AT&T of charging a $10 premium over the original iPhone for monthly fees.
And while the Little Rock resident asks for class action status for the lawsuit to reflect the sheer scale of iPhone subscribers affected by the problem, he's also one of the first to put a more definitive cost to the perceived losses. Walters and representatives estimate that the total financial impact of the claims is likely to exceed $5 million dollars and more than 100 affected users, qualifying it for the bulk legal representation.
How well this latest case will succeed, or whether it will proceed at all in its current form, is less than apparent. At a minimum, the three previous lawsuits already in the US court system are also aiming for class action status and in at least one case have referenced earlier examples.
Also, with Apple having announced its firmware upgrade mending the issues a full three days before the lawsuit was filed, Walters no longer has an ongoing example of apparent neglect by the involved companies to support his complaint; while aware of the source of the problem as mentioned online, he makes no references to the patches that were said to be enroute.
Filed this past Friday, just as Apple released its iPhone 2.1 firmware update that appears to have settled most network issues, Aaron Walters' proposed class action follows most of the now familiar pattern found in previous complaints -- albeit with a few new twists.
Walters and his legal team allege that Apple, and by extension AT&T, misled the public and violated state trade laws with advertising claims that the new iPhone's cellular data speeds would be "twice as fast" as the original model when it was clear this would never play out in practice. In fact, he says, his device and others have spent most of their time on the slower EDGE (2G) network and have suffered dropped calls.
Like the New Jersey lawsuit that preceded it, the Arkansas case quickly turns to Internet-derived leaks as an explanation for the faltering performance: as the two defending companies sold more iPhones than AT&T's 3G network could handle, the carrier's network has been overwhelmed and triggered the drops. The firms "should have known that the strain on the network would make it impossible to provide reliable and sustained connectivity," according to the 16-page lawsuit.
The plaintiff also points to problems with the handsets themselves that were named in those same unofficial reports, asserting that the phones haven't been sufficiently sensitive to 3G signals and have worsened the problem as a result.
In a new take, however, Walters argues that AT&T specifically is exploiting its captive audience. While complaints have surfaced before regarding the need for a two-year contract that prevents an easy escape to another network, Walters takes issue with the inability to choose another carrier at any cost and accuss AT&T of charging a $10 premium over the original iPhone for monthly fees.
And while the Little Rock resident asks for class action status for the lawsuit to reflect the sheer scale of iPhone subscribers affected by the problem, he's also one of the first to put a more definitive cost to the perceived losses. Walters and representatives estimate that the total financial impact of the claims is likely to exceed $5 million dollars and more than 100 affected users, qualifying it for the bulk legal representation.
How well this latest case will succeed, or whether it will proceed at all in its current form, is less than apparent. At a minimum, the three previous lawsuits already in the US court system are also aiming for class action status and in at least one case have referenced earlier examples.
Also, with Apple having announced its firmware upgrade mending the issues a full three days before the lawsuit was filed, Walters no longer has an ongoing example of apparent neglect by the involved companies to support his complaint; while aware of the source of the problem as mentioned online, he makes no references to the patches that were said to be enroute.
Comments
These guys are ridiculous, you don't like it take it back... people will sue over any lazy excuse to cash in. I don't remember seeing anyone suing Motorola for their crappy phones and they were crap.
W H A T E V E R R R R R ! ! !
thanks
Serious question: can any lawyers or anyone explain why some one who buys a 199 phone is entitled to 5 million dollars if it doesn't work as advertised? i would really like to hear some reasonable argument for this.
thanks
It's not clear from the article if the 5 million is for him personally or for everyone in the group, but if it's for him, it's based on that "pain and suffering" part.
In most other countries besides the USA, damages are limited to ... well, actual damages. You might get some extra for things like "lost opportunity cost" (because they tied up your money in their product), or if you lost something as a result, like a bank deal went sour because of the lost connection etc. but these are still actual damages.
In the USA, you can apparently just add a few million on the top for "anguish" or the judge can do it simply to be a dick and "punish" the company etc. Not trying to be too down on the USA but this is true. Also the USA is one of the most litigious countries in the world, bar none.
In the US, in the case of an accident causing injury, it's pretty much assumed that every single person will be suing someone or some entity, whereas I know of lots of cases in Canada for example where people wouldn't dream of it, because you know... it was an ACCIDENT. Possibly this has a lot to do with the fat that insurance is rare down there?
and the lawsuits keep rolling on in... wanna get rich, sue Apple!
These guys are ridiculous, you don't like it take it back... people will sue over any lazy excuse to cash in. I don't remember seeing anyone suing Motorola for their crappy phones and they were crap.
W H A T E V E R R R R R ! ! !
I agree with some of you. Does this guy deserve 5 million? Fuck no. But... The iPhone is misleading and entrappment. According to the guy I have quoted the solution is take it back. Well I bought the 3g which I haven't even got to see if 3g is fast because the apple store I bought it from was in a no coverage zone. I get home... Still no coverage. If it
Does get coverage it is usually one bar. And it keeps dropping my calls. AT&T will allow me to return it if I pay a $175.00 cancellation fee.... Hmmm that's bs. So I understand the mans headache but he doesn't deserve 5 million. My recommendation is don't buy an iPhone until At&t has more 3g towers and until apple can make the iPhone switch from 3g to edge without dropping calls.
Serious question: can any lawyers or anyone explain why some one who buys a 199 phone is entitled to 5 million dollars if it doesn't work as advertised? i would really like to hear some reasonable argument for this.
thanks
The same reason a woman can win a lawsuit for millions because McDonald's didn't put a warning label on their coffee cups that says "Beware, Coffee Is Very Hot".
You can sue and probably win even the most frivolous lawsuits these days.
That being said, it seems a good preventative measure should be that if the defendant can, prove without a shadow of a doubt that the suit brought against them was indeed frivolous, the the plaintiff is fully responsible for the defendants defense cost, all of it. Without having a background in law I think this would help stem some of the suits we see. This suit, for instance seems to be a calculated attempt to get money for nothing. But, if I for instance had an implant which fail and I attempt to secure money for future medical cost, and if appropriate, punish the company for incompetence, but I end up losing the case, it'd be next to impossible to prove that I was just after money just for the sake of trying it. I think some people out there approach this as a business, X is what I invest, Y is my possible return. But in the case of the iPhone guy, I think it would be much easier to prove it was frivolous, or at the very least would actually require the person to come up with a defendable suit, which in the end might not make it worth it for them to seek the suit in the first place.
It is interesting how those that argue for less government are the same that want the government to step in and make laws making it hard to sue a company. Go to war but lower taxes. Blame the people on welfare for the huge tax burden, but then spend billions bailing out huge corporations who got themselves into the position in the first place because of excessive greed. As in the case of this frivolous iPhone suit, Follow the Money and you'll fine someone's personal interest attached to the other end of it.
If you have that much damage from a phone, why didn't you immediately replace it?
In other words, to be damaged so much by a phone seems like negligence on your own part.
Maybe it's because I'm not from the US, and I don't understand your judicial system.
I think it would be inadmissible where I live.
Can anyone explain the logic behind even MAKING this type of claim?
$5.000.000 / 100 plaintiffs = $50.000 per person.
If you have that much damage from a phone, why didn't you immediately replace it?
In other words, to be damaged so much by a phone seems like negligence on your own part.
Maybe it's because I'm not from the US, and I don't understand your judicial system.
I think it would be inadmissible where I live.
Can anyone explain the logic behind even MAKING this type of claim?
There is no logic with our judicial system... that's the problem. People here come up with any reason to sue and get rich quick. And sadly, a judge will side with the moron most of the time. Or at least that's the way it seems...
Absolute B-U-L-L-$-H-I-T.
Except that it's not. I continue, even with the 2.1 software, to experience complete losses of service in the middle of the workday. I called AT&T during today's outage and they admitted they had a tower down in my ZIP code (19801). We are talking a complete loss of all data services, and it keeps happening over and over, so I tend to agree that AT&T is not capable of providing consistent service.
No, I'm not suing, but I'm glad someone is so that this issue gets talked about and kept in the forefront.
but anyways thanx to that Apple solve this issue and everyone is happy now
Basis of lawsuit: Stock manipulation!
I have used a 3G iPhone, through a friend, in Los Angeles and the 3G service works as expected and it was twice as fast as my original iPhone.
Why aren't people suing their internet provider because they don't provide speed at the advertised rate? Duh, network traffic affects speed? Why aren't people suing auto manufacturers because their cars don't go as fast as advertised? Duh, other cars on the road?
I agree with some of you. Does this guy deserve 5 million? Fuck no. But... The iPhone is misleading and entrappment. According to the guy I have quoted the solution is take it back. Well I bought the 3g which I haven't even got to see if 3g is fast because the apple store I bought it from was in a no coverage zone. I get home... Still no coverage. If it
Does get coverage it is usually one bar. And it keeps dropping my calls. AT&T will allow me to return it if I pay a $175.00 cancellation fee.... Hmmm that's bs. So I understand the mans headache but he doesn't deserve 5 million. My recommendation is don't buy an iPhone until At&t has more 3g towers and until apple can make the iPhone switch from 3g to edge without dropping calls.
Except that it's not. I continue, even with the 2.1 software, to experience complete losses of service in the middle of the workday. I called AT&T during today's outage and they admitted they had a tower down in my ZIP code (19801). We are talking a complete loss of all data services, and it keeps happening over and over, so I tend to agree that AT&T is not capable of providing consistent service.
No, I'm not suing, but I'm glad someone is so that this issue gets talked about and kept in the forefront.
But, is this an issue with the iPhone or with ATT? Assuming the 2.1 update fixes the issues with the iPhone (and it seems to have come in a "reasonable" period of time), then it seems that the problem is with ATTs network (no real surprise there). I had dropped calls all the time with my Moto phone when I was with ATT. And surely the other 3G phones ATT sells from other manufacturers have to deal with the same crappy ATT network. Why are they not included in this lawsuit?
Simple really. Apple and the iPhone is in the press. Their lawsuit will make the evening news and CNNs website. So by causing bad press, they hope to get Apple to settle quickly out of court. The mere fact that they are limiting their lawsuit to only the iPhone, to me, makes it frivolous. Either include all 3G handset manufacturers, or none of them and sue only ATT.