Apple looking at a possible class action lawsuit now

AP
Suit Accuses Apple, AT&T of Monopoly
Wednesday October 10, 9:53 pm ET
Lawsuit Accuses Apple, AT&T of Monopolistic Behavior With the IPhone


SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- Complaints over Apple Inc.'s use restrictions and recent software update for the iPhone have erupted in two lawsuits alleging Apple and its carrier partner, AT&T Inc., engaged in illegal monopolistic behavior.


Two separate lawsuits were filed Friday in San Jose -- one in federal court and the other in state court and both seeking class-action status.

The federal case accuses the companies of unfair business practices and violations of antitrust, telecommunications and warranty laws. The state case raises some of the same allegations.

Apple spokeswoman Susan Lundgren and AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel both declined to comment on them Wednesday.

The federal case was filed by the firms of Hoffman & Lazear in Oakland and Folkenflik & McGerity in New York on behalf of iPhone owners Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello. The state case was filed by Saratoga attorney Damian Fernandez on behalf of California resident Timothy Smith.

AT&T is the exclusive carrier in the U.S. for Apple's iPhone.

By not allowing consumers to modify their iPhones to work on other carrier networks, the two companies conspired from the beginning of their partnership to maintain a monopoly, the federal lawsuit alleges.

The companies are unlawfully restricting consumer choice by preventing users from "unlocking" their iPhones, and Apple intentionally disabled unofficial third-party programs or rendered unlocked phones useless with its software update, the lawsuit alleges.

Apple issued the update Sept. 27 after warning users that any ensuing damage to iPhones with unauthorized modifications was not covered by the product's warranty.

It is unclear how many iPhones were disabled or how many iPhone owners have modified their handsets.

Some hacker communities estimated that thousands of people have downloaded their "unlocking" programs, while AT&T's Siegel says the company has heard from "very few" customers that have done so.

The federal lawsuit stated it didn't know how large the affected class could be but pegged the number at 100 or more and anticipates "there will be millions."

Apple has sold more than 1 million iPhones since they hit the market June 29.

 

I take it that all these people are T-Mobile customers? LOL! See this is a good lawsuit. I'd like to see this one go through. Although this is not the first time this has been done in the wireless industry: LG Chocolate, Motorola Q, etc.

However, what bothers me is when some stupid lady sues Apple because she decided to pay a "Nerd Tax" by buying an iPhone early and now she's crying because Apple dropped the price.

 

Wirelessly posted (Lg vx8300: LGE-VX8300/1.0 UP.Browser/6.2.3.2 (GUI) MMP/2.0)

I see nothing wrong in the price drop and I do not see a thing wrong with a network locking a device 2 only work on thier network if they have sold rights 2 it. Time for americas 20 and 30 some thing babies 2 grow up and pay attention 2 what realy matters... like, I dont know; health care cost, education, a government that lies but no, as americans we would rather do dumb lawsuits.

 

I agree. All businesses do this, early adopters of new technology pay more, that's all there is to it. No sense crying over spilled milk. Some people paid around $200 for the Motorola U6 PEBL when it first came out, thanks to Etorres777 spotting a deal on T-Mobile.com, I got two for the cost of shipping, about $10. Is that fair? Absolutely. I waited a little over a year (I think, it might have been less) to get my PEBL for a good price, even though I had wanted it since before it came out. Should someone who bought it the first day sue T-Mobile for the price difference? No. They agreed to buy the PEBL for $199.99 the day it came out, so that's what they paid. If they want to cry about a price drop, that's fine but they shouldn't be able to waste resources on a frivilous lawsuit and they certainly shouldn't win it.

Obviously rising heathcare costs, educate and what the government is doing are all more important that mobile devices but consumer protection is important and locking phones is very anti-consumer and very pro-big corporation. The fact that Apple released a software "update" that erases all 3rd party software downloads and turns unlocked iPhones into bricks is pretty shady. You may think it's right that they be able to do that but I, and many people on this forum, disagree with that opinion. They should honor the warranty on their phone regardless of if it is unlocked or not. After all, they got their money, what do they care if a person wants to use it on T-Mobile, CellularONE or AT&T?

 

I remember back almost 2 years ago when I got my V3c and paid $$$ for buying it the day it came out at Alltel. If I had just waited till Christmas I could have saved a few $$, but that's the price you pay for being the 1st to have a new phone. You think I have a lawsuit too?

 

Yeah, Walt, I'd contact a lawyer and get right on that if I were you.

LOL!

 

I'll own them before I'm done This whole thing is just nuts if you ask me.