Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!
  • Did you order new AirTags? We've opened a dedicated AirTags forum.

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jul 16, 2002
17,889
1,478
Palookaville
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- A New York woman is so angry at Apple Inc. for lopping $200 off the price of the iPhone that she's filed a lawsuit seeking $1 million in damages.

Dongmei Li of Queens, N.Y., claimed the company violated price discrimination laws when it slashed the price of the 8-gigabyte iPhone by a third, from $599 to $399, within two months of the gadget's June debut.

Apple lowered the iPhone's price on Sept. 5 and also said it would stop selling the $499 4-gigabyte model. Hundreds of early customers who paid full price didn't expect the reduction to come so soon and complained.

Apple issued an apology the next day. Under its return policy, Apple refunded the $200 difference for those who bought the phone within 14 days of the reduction. And in a move to make peace with those who purchased the higher-priced phone before that period, the company offered a $100 credit at Apple stores.

According to Li's lawsuit, filed on Sept. 24 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, the price reduction injured early purchasers like herself because they cannot resell the product for the same profit as those who bought the cell phone following the price cut.

Li purchased a 4GB iPhone for $499 and alleged that owners of the 4GB model were given less favorable terms than those who bought the 8GB model at the premium price, according to the lawsuit.

An Apple representative did not immediately return a call to comment Monday.

The lawsuit also named AT&T Inc., the exclusive carrier in the U.S. for the iPhone, and alleged the two companies' required two-year service contract for the iPhone constituted unfair business practices.

Mark Siegel, an AT&T spokesman, declined to comment, saying he had not yet seen the lawsuit.

How come only a million?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071001/apple_iphone_lawsuit.html?.v=2
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,055
6
Yahooville S.C.
Amazing it is indeed. Maybe I should join the suit.:D what can i get for my suffering? a buck? but a million? why dont she go after Jobs Job:apple:
 
Comment

sananda

macrumors 68030
May 24, 2007
2,568
309
i suppose this is what happens when contingency fee agreements are permitted.
 
Comment

Naimfan

Suspended
Jan 15, 2003
4,669
2,015
You know, just based on the article, "12(b)(6)" comes to mind....... :rolleyes:
 
Comment

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jul 16, 2002
17,889
1,478
Palookaville
i suppose this is what happens when contingency fee agreements are permitted.

What, they should be prohibited? And why, just so people can't file dopey lawsuits from which they are unlikely to collect a penny?

I don't see Apple giving this woman any go-away money, and I see the first judge who reviews it tossing it out immediately. In the meantime, we can treat it as comedy.

You know, just based on the article, "12(b)(6)" comes to mind....... :rolleyes:

Nice. I had to look that up. :)
 
Comment

sananda

macrumors 68030
May 24, 2007
2,568
309
What, they should be prohibited? And why, just so people can't file dopey lawsuits from which they are unlikely to collect a penny?

I don't see Apple giving this woman any go-away money, and I see the first judge who reviews it tossing it out immediately. In the meantime, we can treat it as comedy.

yes, they should be prohibited. conditional (not contingency) fee agreements are fine with a limited sucess/risk uplift.

however, i also don't see apple giving her hush money either and will join you as treating as comedy :D
 
Comment

Avatar74

macrumors 65816
Feb 5, 2007
1,389
67
i suppose this is what happens when contingency fee agreements are permitted.

Even though I know you were being a bit cheeky...

Contingency agreements are usually not done anywhere except in personal injury cases. Rarely will attorneys agree to work on contingency EVEN if it looks like an open and shut million-dollar case (which this one most definitely is not). Most likely, she'll have to shell out $250 to $500 an hour. If it goes to court, the attorneys fees plus office expenses (yes, billed on top of the hourly) could skyrocket into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The reason for that is quite simple... the attorneys do not have all facts of the case, all sides of the story. Facts could come to light that would result in the attorneys collecting nothing, and the attorneys might not know this until half-way through the case.

Therefore, even personal injury attorneys working what seems like a slam-dunk case are very careful to do next to nothing and make you gather most of the facts/documents... which is why the relationship works out because by the time you've engaged a personal injury attorney, liability has most likely already been established by the insurance company/companies involved and it then is just a question of whether or not they want to go to court over the collection of medical costs and punitive damages.

That being said, even in contingency agreements, attorneys typically cover themselves by having office costs itemized and generally collected on TOP of whatever their percentage is.

So, my advice to Ms. Li is... I hope the attorney is a close, personal friend. Otherwise, good luck with that.
 
Comment

sananda

macrumors 68030
May 24, 2007
2,568
309
Even though I know you were being a bit cheeky...

Contingency agreements are usually not done anywhere except in personal injury cases. Rarely will attorneys agree to work on contingency EVEN if it looks like an open and shut case (which this one most definitely is not).

The reason for that is quite simple... the attorneys do not have all facts of the case, all sides of the story. Facts could come to light that would result in the attorneys collecting nothing, and the attorneys might not know this until half-way through the case.

Therefore, even personal injury attorneys working what seems like a slam-dunk case are very careful to do next to nothing and make you gather most of the facts/documents... which is why the relationship works out because by the time you've engaged a personal injury attorney, liability has most likely already been established by the insurance company/companies involved and it then is just a question of whether or not they want to go to court over the collection of medical costs and punitive damages.

That being said, even in contingency agreements, attorneys typically cover themselves by having office costs itemized and generally collected on TOP of whatever their percentage is.

So, my advice to Ms. Li is... I hope the attorney is a friend. Otherwise, good luck with that.

over here (UK) where i practice law most personal injury cases are funded by a conditional fee agreement.
 
Comment

Avatar74

macrumors 65816
Feb 5, 2007
1,389
67
over here (UK) where i practice law most personal injury cases are funded by a conditional fee agreement.

Here they are contingency fee... If you collect, they take anywhere from 28 to 40 percent if settled out of court, 45 to 50 percent at minimum if it goes to court. However, my point was, this is not a personal injury case so as a rule an attorney would have to be on retainer. There's a 99 percent chance that no attorney would take this on contingency.

Also, attorneys on retainer have minimums... i.e. they bill you at time of retainer for a minimum set of hours that usually ends up being $5000 or more up front.
 
Comment

edoates

macrumors 6502
May 22, 2006
298
6
What, they should be prohibited? And why, just so people can't file dopey lawsuits from which they are unlikely to collect a penny?

I don't see Apple giving this woman any go-away money, and I see the first judge who reviews it tossing it out immediately. In the meantime, we can treat it as comedy.

But even when the first judge to see it "tosses" it, it will cost Apple several thousand dollars to prepare an initial response call for dismissal with prejudice (so it can't be filed again).

The problem with frivolous lawsuits is the initial cost of defense because the defendant cannot get a "contingency" defense; unless the suit is really egregious, the plaintiff won't have to pay defendant's costs and sanctions, if they occur (almost never) amount to a thousand bucks.

If judges tossed silly suits earlier, and if there were a mechanism to sanction suits which were ruled groundless in the early stages, then contingency cases based on good evidence are fine: they provide a way for the little guy to fight back. But judges were lawyers once, and they lived by the system which insures that the lawyers always get paid no matter what, and which insures lots of suits will be filed. They won't rock that boat.

Eddie O
 
Comment

sananda

macrumors 68030
May 24, 2007
2,568
309
i can't believe i'm reading another country's civil procedure rules!
 
Comment

Naimfan

Suspended
Jan 15, 2003
4,669
2,015
i can't believe i'm reading another country's civil procedure rules!

Yeah, now THAT is scary........ :eek:

And just think: those are just the federal rules--each state has their own set also. Of both civil AND criminal. (Fortunately, many of the state ones use the federal rules as a model).
 
Comment

rjgonzales

macrumors regular
Mar 14, 2006
144
0
Texas
Woman sues over iPhone price cut

USAToday Link

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — A New York woman is so angry at Apple for lopping $200 off the price of the iPhone that she's filed a lawsuit seeking $1 million in damages.

Dongmei Li of Queens, N.Y., claimed the company violated price discrimination laws when it slashed the price of the 8-gigabyte iPhone by a third, from $599 to $399, within two months of the gadget's June debut.

Apple lowered the iPhone's price on Sept. 5 and also said it would stop selling the $499 4-gigabyte model. Hundreds of early customers who paid full price didn't expect a reduction so soon and complained.

Apple issued an apology the next day. Under its return policy, Apple refunded the $200 difference for those who bought the phone within 14 days of the reduction. And in a move to make peace with those who purchased the higher-priced phone before that period, the company offered a $100 credit at Apple stores.

According to Li's lawsuit, filed on Sept. 24 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, the price reduction injured early purchasers like herself because they cannot resell the product for the same profit as those who bought the cellphone following the price cut.

Li purchased a 4GB iPhone for $499 and alleged that owners of the 4GB model were given less favorable terms than those who bought the 8GB model at the premium price, according to the lawsuit.

Apple spokeswoman Susan Lundgren declined to comment, citing the company's policy to not discuss pending litigation.

The lawsuit also named AT&T, the exclusive carrier in the U.S. for the iPhone, and alleged the two companies' required two-year service contract for the iPhone constituted unfair business practices.

Mark Siegel, an AT&T spokesman, declined to comment, saying he had not yet seen the lawsuit.

Wow, just wow.:eek:
 
Comment

atari1356

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2004
1,582
32
Hmm... let's see. I bought something at a fair price, knowing full well what I was getting. Then the price dropped by $200 and I'm so upset that I deserve $1,000,000 ?

F***ing ridiculous.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.