OK, so here's one on the ye for all those delluded folks who think that they stand a chance at a payday from Apple over all this (Meltdown, Spectre and the whole idiotic battery issue).
Thomas Davidson, et al. v. Apple Inc.
If that doesn't ring any bells, let's try something else that might
Bendgate
Yup - I bet most of ya had forgotten about that little debacle, right? Well, the courts hadn't because it's still being fought over, but nothing like the way it started.
The kicker for all the folks screaming for Apple's blood (aka their cash) was when Judge Lucy Kohl dismissed the original lawsuit because plaintiffs failed to establish how Apple had misled consumers. Remember folks, this was over a demonstrable HARDWARE issue. In addition she noted that the plaintiffs claims were way to broad to be acceptable.
When the class action lawsuits were kicked off, Apple stood accused of fraud, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Claimants also alleged that Apple violated various state consumer protection laws as well (sounding familiar anyone?).
Before long the claims got trimmed to fraud, breach of warranty and claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
In dismissing the initial class action, the judge pointed out that the plaintiffs had never said they relied on any statements from Apple advertising the durability of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, even though such claims were made by Apple.
In addition, she dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that Apple misrepresented the characteristics of the iPhone, finding that Apple’s claims were “mere puffery” that could not be construed as true or false. She also dismissed fraud claims that were brought under New Jersey and Pennsylvania law. Not only that, she further dismissed warranty claims, finding that Apple’s one-year limited warranty did not cover the alleged touchscreen defect because they were related to a design defect (Meltdown\Spectre\Battery issues, anyone?) rather than an issue with workmanship or materials, which the warranty allegedly would have covered. She determined the plaintiffs failed to show that Apple’s one-year warranty is unconscionable.
As a result the class action lawsuit was dramatically changed. The members now ONLY included those who had initially agreed to be part of Apple's Multi-Touch Repair Program, which Apple offered for $149.
In addition, the current case also has been further refined to identify if Apple failed to tell users in a single tight 14 day return window that the identified phones with known hardware issues could be returned free of charge.
Now, bear in mind, BendGate revolved around REFURBISHED iPhones becoming totally unusable due to the solder breaking. Proof of injury is easy to see - examine the phone - if it shows weakened solder joints, and the owner elected to join the repair program - congratulations, you're still in the class action lawsuit.
Everyone else - tough luck, thank you for playing.
Now, given that the injury on Bendgate was easy to show - and having seen the precedent set in that lawsuits, I'm fascinated to know who all the anti-Apple groupies screaming for lawsuits think that a case that revolves around base architectural chip design and anecdotal claims of 'slowdowns' will proceed, triply so given Apple have offered to "make whole" plus some with the current $29 battery offer (for the battery issues) and how damned near impossible 'harm' is going to be proven when it comes to Meltdown and Spectre.
