Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Florida Lawyer Sues Apple for Renting HD Movies on Non-HD Devices

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,535
30,842



Apple is being sued in a new class action suit (via GigaOM) led by Florida lawyer Scott Weiselberg, who accuses the company of allowing customers with older devices supporting only standard definition films to pay for and download higher quality content.
This class action involves defendant Apple, Inc. ("Apple") and its deceptive business practice of charging a premium price for the rental of HD content programs (e.g., movies, etc.) to consumers on early versions of Apple devices that Apple knew could not play HD content, and which only played the less expensive standard definition ("SD") content that Apple downloaded at the time of the rental.

As a result, millions of customers were deceived into paying the $1 premium for HD content rentals for their SD Apple Mobile Devices.
Click to expand...
According to the filing, Weiselberg rented and downloaded the high definition version of the movie "Big Daddy," before discovering that his iPhone did not support HD playback. HD content is often offered at a premium in the App Store, and Weiselberg says that he was "tricked" into paying an extra $1 for the content.

bigdaddylawsuit.jpg
While SD and HD content is clearly marked in the App Store, Weiselberg was not aware that his phone could not play HD content, and within the filing, he suggests that Apple should have automatically recognized the device type and prevented the purchase of HD content from an SD-only phone.

HD playback was first introduced in 2008, alongside iTunes 8.0. At that time, older iPhones and iPod touches were not able to support the new format, allowing some mistaken purchases to be made. Apple has since changed the download process, introducing warnings and preventing HD content from being downloaded by SD device, but Weiselberg believes that SD options are still too difficult for users to find.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, plus interest, sustained by the Plaintiff and the Class, as well as legal fees.

Article Link: Florida Lawyer Sues Apple for Renting HD Movies on Non-HD Devices
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/08/florida-lawyer-sues-apple-for-renting-hd-movies-on-non-hd-devices/
Amazing Iceman

Amazing Iceman

macrumors 603
Nov 8, 2008
5,303
4,054
Florida, U.S.A.
This is so stupid... He could have just call Apple and ask to switch the format of his rental..

And weird... A lawyer with an old phone??? he must be a bad lawyer that makes no money...
 
K

komodrone

macrumors 6502
Apr 26, 2011
499
0
You're a lawyer, you're not using a Retina device, and you're suing Apple for this fact. Stingy!
 
T

TheKrs1

macrumors 6502
Apr 11, 2010
357
128
Option 1: Request refund

Option 2: Learn for the future

Option 3: SUE!

Clearly the most rational choice is option 3.
 
L

LastLine

macrumors 65816
Aug 24, 2005
1,313
21
Amazing Iceman said:
This is so stupid... He could have just call Apple and ask to switch the format of his rental..

And weird... A lawyer with an old phone??? he must be a bad lawyer that makes no money...
Click to expand...

In fairness while this is a bit frivolous, you have to agree to some extent with the logic that a non HD capable device shouldn't offer HD films. Kinda how your iPhone can't see iPad only apps :)

I'm sure a letter of complaint and request for a refund would have worked well enough though :p
 
thadoggfather

thadoggfather

macrumors P6
Oct 1, 2007
15,550
16,284
Damages compensated: $1 and an ass kicking and waste of the lawyer's time and resources (so high opportunity cost)

I like what he's getting at, that 13" non-retina/iPad2/mini/all iPhones don't output at 720p :D

Still not a great approach dude.
 
bacaramac

bacaramac

macrumors 65816
Dec 29, 2007
1,424
100
Wow, just wow. Next lawsuit from this lawyer is they going to allow rental on HD devices and then sue when they watch it on their non HD iPhone since Apple is nice enough to support older devices that don't display HD.

People seriously need to get a life.
 
BaldiMac

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,761
10,890
LastLine said:
In fairness while this is a bit frivolous, you have to agree to some extent with the logic that a non HD capable device shouldn't offer HD films. Kinda how your iPhone can't see iPad only apps :)
Click to expand...

That logic ignores the fact that you can transfer rentals to other devices, so there is a legitimate reason to offer HD content on non-HD devices.
 
T

thedarkhalf

macrumors member
May 15, 2008
84
306
Correct me if i'm wrong, but just cause you buy the movie on one device, that doesn't mean it's only playable on said device. I thought you could buy something on the iPhone and it would be available on your iPad, Laptop and AppleTV as well.

Edit: Baldimac just answered my question :)
 
lolkthxbai

lolkthxbai

macrumors 65816
May 7, 2011
1,426
489
Why Weiselberg? Why? I'm tired of people like this making us normal Floridians look bad :/

Seriously though, I think the only device that can't do HD playback is the 3GS (and previous models), iPad mini and iPad 2.

And honestly, what's the definition of HD anyways...? It's so loosely used. I mean, the iPhone 5 is 640 x 1136 and 720p HD is 720 x 1280...
 
J

jwdsail

macrumors 6502a
Mar 3, 2004
851
922
Really?

Really?

When you buy or rent on iTunes, the content is playable on any device tied to your AppleID, including a Mac, PC, or AppleTV that you may have hooked up to an HDTV....

Just because I rent or buy it on one device, doesn't necessarily mean that I intend to watch it on that device.. How is Apple supposed to know???

I suppose Apple could add a nanny/idiot dialogue that states, "We see you are currently using a non-HD Device. If you do not have an HD device (iPhone 5, AppleTV, Mac, PC, iPad (Current Generation)) that you intend to view this content on, would you prefer to order the SD version of ****?"

I think that would get pretty f'in annoying after about a few rentals/purchases.....
 
Carmenia83

Carmenia83

macrumors 6502
Feb 25, 2012
375
499
You guys are missing the point. "Millions of people...paid a $1 premium" which means the attorney bringing the case would be entitled to a sizeable portion of the multimillion dollar class action suit as legal fees. Good return on his $1 investment.
 
V

vmistery

macrumors 6502a
Apr 6, 2010
942
688
UK
I'm sure he is just doing it to provide us all with entertainment for an evening. Or free publicity
 
nutmac

nutmac

macrumors 603
Mar 30, 2004
6,057
7,320
What's next? Sue Macy's for shirts that do not fit instead of returning them for refund?
 
lolkthxbai

lolkthxbai

macrumors 65816
May 7, 2011
1,426
489
Oh snap! Lets sue Netflix because I pay just as much as my friend and he gets HD movie streaming on his 40" HDTV but I don't on my 10 year old SD TV... Oh wait...
 
O

odedia

macrumors 65816
Nov 24, 2005
1,044
149
I actually agree with this one for a change. It's a classic "lets try to get away with it" scenario. The vast population wouldnt notice the fact that they paid the extra for no reason. And HD sounds like "It's much better!". These are millions and millions of dollars apple makes without giving the customer the premium product he paid for.

Sometimes class action lawsuits are just a way to get companies to fix their mistakes.

And for some lawyer to make a bucket of money, ofcourse...
 
W

Wurm5150

macrumors regular
Apr 28, 2010
161
27
He should sue himself for renting a movie to watch on 3.5" screen on one count and another for renting an Adam Sandler movie.
 
nagromme

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,546
1,196
Apple screwed up, no question, and should return the extra dollar to everyone who made this mistake--nay, they should DOUBLE that amount as penalty. Even if that's many dozens of people. Then add legal fees.

(Assuming Apple refused a refund, which I've never known them to do. It's been downright painless, even when the mistake is mine.)


jwdsail said:
Really?

When you buy or rent on iTunes, the content is playable on any device tied to your AppleID, including a Mac, PC, or AppleTV that you may have hooked up to an HDTV....

Just because I rent or buy it on one device, doesn't necessarily mean that I intend to watch it on that device.. How is Apple supposed to know???
Click to expand...

Not entirely true, I don't think: if you rent on a Mac/PC iTunes, you can transfer TO an iOS device. You can also transfer from one Mac/PC to another. But you cannot transfer a rental FROM an iOS device, last I knew. (And I think you should be able to.)
 
A

ablashek

macrumors member
Apr 30, 2005
71
0
Paraguay
The only crime i see here is that apple is charging people to see an Adam Sandler movie, they should offer it for free and be glad that a fraction of the population would willingly watch his movies.

Sorry that was a low punch, sandler is decent and big daddy along with happy filmore and billy madison are decent flicks.
 
Lancer

Lancer

macrumors 68020
Jul 22, 2002
2,217
147
Australia
Seriously?

I wouldn't sue, especially if it was for renting 'Big Daddy' :rolleyes:

This is right up there with suing because your coffee is too hot!
 
koruki

koruki

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2009
1,346
669
New Zealand
thats like a angry fat woman suing a shop that only sells small dresses. DON'T BUY IT FFS. Whose to say the low definition copy isnt the same price, I know for one thing my baby girls shoes cost just as much as mine
 
R

rmwebs

macrumors 68040
Apr 6, 2007
3,140
0
Back up a second, we have a bigger issue.

Apple expecting $12.99 for Big Daddy in HD?! You are joking? It's in the £0.99 bargain bins in the UK (and available for free on Sky and Virgin TV on-demand).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom