Class-action charges Apple, AT&T with unlawful business practices
A new class-action lawsuit charges Apple and AT&T with intentionally breaking the iPhones of customers who unlocked or installed third-party applications on the handsets, and further alleges that the two firms conspired from the inception of their partnership to illegally monopolize portions of the mobile cell phone market.
The 24-page formal complaint, filed Oct. 5 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, reads like a short story that begins by tracing the history of the U.S. mobile phone market, providing colorful background on its underlying architectures and technologies, and eventually Apple's emergence on the scene with its iPhone handset in late June.
In the suit, Washington resident Paul Holman and California resident Lucy Rivello allege that Apple and AT&T unlawfully agreed prior to the iPhone's release that the handset would not be unlocked under any circumstances as a means of preventing consumers from using programs or services other than those which directly generate revenues for the two companies.
Based on "information and belief" they claim that Apple and AT&T, once faced with a flurry of third-party iPhone applications and unlocking solutions, agreed to go beyond their already unlawful tactics of locking users down to their services and software by taking affirmative steps to break the iPhones of consumers who lawfully unlocked the AT&T SIM card or who installed third-party apps.
The suit cites Apple's Sept. 24 warning to customers who had unlocked their iPhones and asserts that the company had not actually "'discovered' that 'many' unlocking programs would 'cause irreparable damage' to the iPhone" but instead "had been busy engineering its software update so that it would disable any Third Party Apps and the SIM card unlocks."
"[T]he update was also designed to cause damage to the iPhone in the event that any use of non-Apple/AT&T products was detected," the complaint says.
None of these changes in the iPhone software update version 1.1.1 were technically required for the purpose of the upgrade, the suit claims, but were "designed solely to advance Apple's unlawful purposes and conduct."
Apple and AT&T are further charged at various points in the suit with illegally attempting to stifle outside competition from third-party developers who wish to write and sell applications for iPhone, imposing an unjustifiable AT&T service termination fee given that the handset is not subsidized, and making false claims to customers about third-party software and unlocking solutions voiding their handset's warranty.
"To protect its unlawful market position and the anticipated unlawful profits Apple and AT&T expected to earn, Apple repeatedly announced that any attempt to unlock the iPhone SIM or to install Third Party Apps would void the Apple warranty," the complaint says. "This assertion was false as a matter of federal law, and was known by Apple to be false when made. The Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prohibits conditioning the iPhone warranty on the use of Apple products only, or on the use of AT&T service only, [...], which is effectively what Apple's warranty approach unlawfully does."
Apple corporate is also accused of ordering its retail store employees to deny service to customers adversely affected by the v1.1.1 iPhone software update even though it was "technically feasible to restore the iPhone from version 1.1.1" and for instructing its spokespeople to make the absurd suggestion that customers adversely affected by the software update stop seeking help and instead just "buy a new iPhone."
These and several other manipulative measures on the part of Apple and AT&T are damaging to iPhone owners in that they are being forced to pay higher costs for services that would otherwise be more affordable, the suit claims, and are similarly being forced to forgo useful third-party improvements to their iPhones simply because they do not come from either of the two companies.
For instance, the complaint notes that because Plaintiff Holman travels for business a great deal, he generally unlocks his phones to accept other SIM cards, so that he can use them abroad with a "local" service provider at lower rates. But after buying an iPhone and traveling to Finland -- a country not covered by AT&T's "worldwide" plan -- his three days of data use on the iPhone, consisting primarily of downloading e-mail messages, cost him $381 in roaming charges.
Using a non-Apple unlocked phone on a recent trip to Amsterdam, Holman reportedly used a prepaid SIM card from T-Mobile to receive his email and was charged only $20, the suit says.
Overall, Apple and AT&T are charged -- either jointly or separately -- in the suit with six formal counts, which include alleged violations of the California Business and Profession's Code, The Cartwright Act, The Sherman Act, The Federal Trade Commission Act, The Communications Act of 1934, and The Telecommunications Act of 1996, as well as rules and policies established by the FCC.
On some of the counts, the suit seeks damages in the amount of "no less than $200 million," while in others it requests "no less than $600 million."
Attorneys for Hoffman & Lazear, which filed the suit on behalf of Holman and Rivello, said they seek to expand their class-action to cover all individuals and entities who purchased an iPhone on or after June 29, 2007 and sustained damages as a result. At this time, they say, the size of the Plaintiff Class exceeds 100 but the exact number cannot be determined without discovery of accounting records from both Apple and AT&T.
A similar class-action was filed against Apple in California, also on Oct. 5.
The 24-page formal complaint, filed Oct. 5 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, reads like a short story that begins by tracing the history of the U.S. mobile phone market, providing colorful background on its underlying architectures and technologies, and eventually Apple's emergence on the scene with its iPhone handset in late June.
In the suit, Washington resident Paul Holman and California resident Lucy Rivello allege that Apple and AT&T unlawfully agreed prior to the iPhone's release that the handset would not be unlocked under any circumstances as a means of preventing consumers from using programs or services other than those which directly generate revenues for the two companies.
Based on "information and belief" they claim that Apple and AT&T, once faced with a flurry of third-party iPhone applications and unlocking solutions, agreed to go beyond their already unlawful tactics of locking users down to their services and software by taking affirmative steps to break the iPhones of consumers who lawfully unlocked the AT&T SIM card or who installed third-party apps.
The suit cites Apple's Sept. 24 warning to customers who had unlocked their iPhones and asserts that the company had not actually "'discovered' that 'many' unlocking programs would 'cause irreparable damage' to the iPhone" but instead "had been busy engineering its software update so that it would disable any Third Party Apps and the SIM card unlocks."
"[T]he update was also designed to cause damage to the iPhone in the event that any use of non-Apple/AT&T products was detected," the complaint says.
None of these changes in the iPhone software update version 1.1.1 were technically required for the purpose of the upgrade, the suit claims, but were "designed solely to advance Apple's unlawful purposes and conduct."
Apple and AT&T are further charged at various points in the suit with illegally attempting to stifle outside competition from third-party developers who wish to write and sell applications for iPhone, imposing an unjustifiable AT&T service termination fee given that the handset is not subsidized, and making false claims to customers about third-party software and unlocking solutions voiding their handset's warranty.
"To protect its unlawful market position and the anticipated unlawful profits Apple and AT&T expected to earn, Apple repeatedly announced that any attempt to unlock the iPhone SIM or to install Third Party Apps would void the Apple warranty," the complaint says. "This assertion was false as a matter of federal law, and was known by Apple to be false when made. The Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prohibits conditioning the iPhone warranty on the use of Apple products only, or on the use of AT&T service only, [...], which is effectively what Apple's warranty approach unlawfully does."
Apple corporate is also accused of ordering its retail store employees to deny service to customers adversely affected by the v1.1.1 iPhone software update even though it was "technically feasible to restore the iPhone from version 1.1.1" and for instructing its spokespeople to make the absurd suggestion that customers adversely affected by the software update stop seeking help and instead just "buy a new iPhone."
These and several other manipulative measures on the part of Apple and AT&T are damaging to iPhone owners in that they are being forced to pay higher costs for services that would otherwise be more affordable, the suit claims, and are similarly being forced to forgo useful third-party improvements to their iPhones simply because they do not come from either of the two companies.
For instance, the complaint notes that because Plaintiff Holman travels for business a great deal, he generally unlocks his phones to accept other SIM cards, so that he can use them abroad with a "local" service provider at lower rates. But after buying an iPhone and traveling to Finland -- a country not covered by AT&T's "worldwide" plan -- his three days of data use on the iPhone, consisting primarily of downloading e-mail messages, cost him $381 in roaming charges.
Using a non-Apple unlocked phone on a recent trip to Amsterdam, Holman reportedly used a prepaid SIM card from T-Mobile to receive his email and was charged only $20, the suit says.
Overall, Apple and AT&T are charged -- either jointly or separately -- in the suit with six formal counts, which include alleged violations of the California Business and Profession's Code, The Cartwright Act, The Sherman Act, The Federal Trade Commission Act, The Communications Act of 1934, and The Telecommunications Act of 1996, as well as rules and policies established by the FCC.
On some of the counts, the suit seeks damages in the amount of "no less than $200 million," while in others it requests "no less than $600 million."
Attorneys for Hoffman & Lazear, which filed the suit on behalf of Holman and Rivello, said they seek to expand their class-action to cover all individuals and entities who purchased an iPhone on or after June 29, 2007 and sustained damages as a result. At this time, they say, the size of the Plaintiff Class exceeds 100 but the exact number cannot be determined without discovery of accounting records from both Apple and AT&T.
A similar class-action was filed against Apple in California, also on Oct. 5.
Comments
Based on "information and belief" they claim that Apple and AT&T, once faced with a flurry of third-party iPhone applications and unlocking solutions, agreed to go beyond their already unlawful tactics of locking users down to their services and software by taking affirmative steps to break the iPhones of consumers who lawfully unlocked the AT&T SIM card or who installed third-party apps.
...
At this time, they say, the size of the Plaintiff Class exceeds 100 but the exact number cannot be determined without discovery of accounting records from both Apple and AT&T.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Ah, the great American pastime - sue someone successful. Sorta like the lottery but the ticket costs a bit more.
They're fishing for info. I'm guessing the info they are seeking would fetch a pretty price.
Why is the article here again. Wasn't this suit already covered here????
That's a different case.
Why is the article here again. Wasn't this suit already covered here????
This is a different class-action.
K
These are certainly interesting times for apple - i don't recall other cell phone releases experiencing this degree of activism - Certainly, Apple must be learning more about their customer base from this experience. I'm sure they (and ATT) thought through the legal analysis over and over before the product's release. It will be interesting to see (assuming any of these cases actually are litigated) what consumers rights are with respect to cell phones, plan restrictions, and attempts by a company to alter warranty coverage based on alterations to a product's software!
I think Apple is remembering that the majority of its long-time users, refuse to be walked on by a corporate entity. One of the things that made Apple great is that they didn't act like a Corporation. Now they do and their user-base is fighting back.
I don't own an iPhone, but power to the people, I say. For this, cause I'd be willing to see AAPL tumble a bit. They need to remember who they were when their numbers were few but loyal. We were a family. Now we're an emo cult following an idol, damnitall.
-Clive
Maybe a counter-Suit is the ticket, they are spreading some very nasty rumors there. Very unlikely they can back up their claims.
I admit that I'm ignorant in the ways of our legal system, but how do you counter a class-action?
-Clive
These are certainly interesting times for apple - i don't recall other cell phone releases experiencing this degree of activism - Certainly, Apple must be learning more about their customer base from this experience. I'm sure they (and ATT) thought through the legal analysis over and over before the product's release. It will be interesting to see (assuming any of these cases actually are litigated) what consumers rights are with respect to cell phones, plan restrictions, and attempts by a company to alter warranty coverage based on alterations to a product's software!
You signed a contract. What's more to say. If the contract is in-fact legal, then you're SOL because you agreed to those terms, whether you read it all or not.
Apple must quickly crush these lawsuits or risk further negative publicity for iPhone. I know, I know, this lawsuit is without merit, but it's bad for business.
Otherwise they'll regret getting into the phone market. Man alive, I believe they have about a half dozen iPhone related lawsuits on the books now. The battery issue, bricked phones, limiting the iPhone to AT&T, and I can't think of the other ones if there are more. Anyone have the tally?
Otherwise they'll regret getting into the phone market. Man alive, I believe they have about a half dozen iPhone related lawsuits on the books now. The battery issue, bricked phones, limiting the iPhone to AT&T, and I can't think of the other ones if there are more. Anyone have the tally?
You forgot the one against Apple for dropping the price $200.00 and how that hurts resale value.
I love that one.
I'd say that Apple knew this was coming. I'm guessing, but I'd say that AT&T gets sued a LOT. Heck, for that matter, so does Apple. Weren't there claims agains them for battery not being replaceable on the iPod, the scratches on the iPod, the cracks in the case of the square lucite Mac, etc? Probably even some for their stopping using serial connectors, scsi interfaces, etc...
You can't throw a rock in the US without hitting a lawyer these days, and I can't think of a better reason to throw a rock.
You signed a contract. What's more to say. If the contract is in-fact legal, then you're SOL because you agreed to those terms, whether you read it all or not.
I know this might be a technicality, but apparently it's possible to unlock your phone without being confronted with a EULA.
-Clive
You forgot the one against Apple for dropping the price $200.00 and how that hurts resale value.
I love that one.
HAH, that one was so ridiculous. I know for a fact that it doesn't hold water. A few of the others, I'm not so sure.
-Clive
Pretty difficult to say that Apple is innocent on this one - in the case of iTV, the mods increased the useability, while as with the iPhone, they increase useability AND take profit away from AT&T, who Apple has to support....
If the plaintiffs use this argument (which they should) Apple might be screwed.
I think Apple is remembering that the majority of its long-time users, refuse to be walked on by a corporate entity. One of the things that made Apple great is that they didn't act like a Corporation. Now they do and their user-base is fighting back.
I don't own an iPhone, but power to the people, I say. For this, cause I'd be willing to see AAPL tumble a bit. They need to remember who they were when their numbers were few but loyal. We were a family. Now we're an emo cult following an idol, damnitall.
-Clive
What??? Listen, bud, Apple has always had to act as a corporation. The fact that it is acting to protect its rights and ATT's huge risk in this iPhone venture has obviously gone over your head.
If what you, and so many want to see happen... instant unlocked iPhone and crumbling contracts-- you can kiss good-bye to the kind of unique venture that got this phone to market in the first place. You know about killing the goose that laid the golden egg?? Go ahead-- next time all you'll get is feathers... An excellent way to support great products, I don't think.
You forgot the one against Apple for dropping the price $200.00 and how that hurts resale value.
I love that one.
I'd say that Apple knew this was coming. I'm guessing, but I'd say that AT&T gets sued a LOT. Heck, for that matter, so does Apple. Weren't there claims agains them for battery not being replaceable on the iPod, the scratches on the iPod, the cracks in the case of the square lucite Mac, etc? Probably even some for their stopping using serial connectors, scsi interfaces, etc...
You can't throw a rock in the US without hitting a lawyer these days, and I can't think of a better reason to throw a rock.
It's to the point where Apple should convert their corporation to an LLC, move offshore and sell product without a warranty.
You signed a contract. What's more to say. If the contract is in-fact legal, then you're SOL because you agreed to those terms, whether you read it all or not.
Well I guess that would be why they're suing, huh? Because they don't believe the business practices in which Apple and AT&T are engaging are legal. Software users enter into what is supposedly a legal and binding contract when they accept a EULA, but that didn't stop Microsoft from being sued for monopolistic practices, now did it?
Please, people, stop mindlessly droning, "you signed a contract" ... not everybody who sues a company is doing so out of greed. A class-action suit for monopolistic practices, if valid, is a good thing!
A few of the others, I'm not so sure.
None of them do. You cannot sue Apple for not supporting software that Apple told you it won't support. If you don't like your phone being locked to AT&T you had the option of not buying the phone or signing the contract in the first place.