Class Action lawsuit filed against Apple

[wreckshop]

Given some people have zero issues, the problem is much more complex than just saying there is some hardware flaw. It is much more likely a combination of the phone and the network. Which just like with any other contract you would sign with a cellular company you would review the service and if it does not work take appropriate action. 30 days is enough time to make a reasonable and informed decision.

Which is still a hardware flaw. Just because there are people who haven't experienced any problems doesn't mean their iphones aren't defective. It just means that they haven't been in a situation that would expose that defect.

Isn't the most widely accepted theory at the moment is that the infineon 3G radio/chipset is very weak at holding onto a signal compared to other 3G handsets? 30 days may not be enough time for someone to travel around to areas where there is a weaker signal that could expose that defect.

 

[vandozza]

It just means that they haven't been in a situation that would expose that defect.

lol, i suggested this on an Australian forum, and i got laughed at.
i'm glad im not the only person thinking like this.

i have a feeling that people not complaining are pretty close to cell towers and are usually found in cities where there is lots of overlap in coverage. it seems to be people that are in fringe areas, who are pulling signal from fewer towers (with little/less) overlap in coverage that are most likely to notice these problems.

 

[tlapple]

If someone kept their service past the trial period, I blame nobody but them. I certainly do not support them in any class action lawsuit, because it is both untenable and unreasonable.

If your issue is dropped calls/ no signal then you should get/have gotten a refund, ended your contract and either found an alternative AT&T product that works for you or chosen a different provider.

I hate to say it, but like many people on here talking about refunds, you have it wrong. A buyer who receives a defective product can elect to either a) return the goods for a refund or b) give the seller reasonable notice and reasonable amount of time to remedy the defect. The law gives the consumer the choice here. The seller can then choose to either fix the defect or if it can't, issue a refund. There is no requirement that a consumer has to return a defective product. The only requirement is that it notify the seller. Apple did not tell everyone: "we cannot fix this issue, therefore you must return your phone". They said quite the opposite actually. Relying on this promise to remedy, many of us kept our phones. It was Apple who elected, after being notified, not to end our contracts because they felt they could fix the defect.

I do not know where everyone gets the idea that a refund policy somehow absolves a company of its duties and warranties. A refund policy is simply a termination clause in a contract.

That being said, I do think the lawsuit was filed prematurely, but it is certainly not without merit. It remains to be seen what the actual problem is, and if Apple can fix these issues adequately.

 

[marksman]

Which is still a hardware flaw. Just because there are people who haven't experienced any problems doesn't mean their iphones aren't defective. It just means that they haven't been in a situation that would expose that defect.

Isn't the most widely accepted theory at the moment is that the infineon 3G radio/chipset is very weak at holding onto a signal compared to other 3G handsets? 30 days may not be enough time for someone to travel around to areas where there is a weaker signal that could expose that defect.

No.

That is wild speculation mostly sparked from analysts who often know jack and crap what they are talking about.

There is no actual evidence that is the case at all.

Like I said it is likely a combination of things, importantly the network is part of the issue and part of all cellular phone issues.

 

[marksman]

I hate to say it, but like many people on here talking about refunds, you have it wrong. A buyer who receives a defective product can elect to either a) return the goods for a refund or b) give the seller reasonable notice and reasonable amount of time to remedy the defect. The law gives the consumer the choice here. The seller can then choose to either fix the defect or if it can't, issue a refund. There is no requirement that a consumer has to return a defective product. The only requirement is that it notify the seller. Apple did not tell everyone: "we cannot fix this issue, therefore you must return your phone". They said quite the opposite actually. Relying on this promise to remedy, many of us kept our phones. It was Apple who elected, after being notified, not to end our contracts because they felt they could fix the defect.

I do not know where everyone gets the idea that a refund policy somehow absolves a company of its duties and warranties. A refund policy is simply a termination clause in a contract.

That being said, I do think the lawsuit was filed prematurely, but it is certainly not without merit. It remains to be seen what the actual problem is, and if Apple can fix these issues adequately.

Again you are flying in the face of the entire wireless industry. You can feel free to take that approach on this, just realize that all of the cellular companies will be more than happy to join resources to oppose any kind of lawsuit based on something that is conceivably a network issue.

The long accepted redress for having bad cell reception is to use a different provider, thus the current provider provides you a refund. Again you can try and force them to "fix it" for you. However, in most cases it is not likely to happen, nor at this time is it a reasonable expectation. Thus you will have to find a cellular provider whose service works where you use it. Anything else would place an unreasonable burden on the wireless carriers and would require them to simply deny people service who were not in grade A coverage areas at all time.

I am sure the people who want this lawsuit would love it when they outcome is that NO cell provider will give them service because of where they live or work.

 

[Jack Dangers]

Again you are flying in the face of the entire wireless industry. You can feel free to take that approach on this, just realize that all of the cellular companies will be more than happy to join resources to oppose any kind of lawsuit based on something that is conceivably a network issue.

The long accepted redress for having bad cell reception is to use a different provider, thus the current provider provides you a refund. Again you can try and force them to "fix it" for you. However, in most cases it is not likely to happen, nor at this time is it a reasonable expectation. Thus you will have to find a cellular provider whose service works where you use it. Anything else would place an unreasonable burden on the wireless carriers and would require them to simply deny people service who were not in grade A coverage areas at all time.

I am sure the people who want this lawsuit would love it when they outcome is that NO cell provider will give them service because of where they live or work.

This post is spot on.

 

[wreckshop]

No.

That is wild speculation mostly sparked from analysts who often know jack and crap what they are talking about.

There is no actual evidence that is the case at all.

Like I said it is likely a combination of things, importantly the network is part of the issue and part of all cellular phone issues.

These analysts who know jack **** know just about as much as you do on the whole situation. At least they have a specific hypothesis which seems logically sound. What's yours, other than "It is much more likely a combination of the phone and the network?" You obviously think that it's partly a hardware problem, why? What specific part of the hardware is problematic? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Can you offer any explantion why it's a combination of both hardware and network and not one or the other?

 

[tlapple]

Again you are flying in the face of the entire wireless industry. You can feel free to take that approach on this, just realize that all of the cellular companies will be more than happy to join resources to oppose any kind of lawsuit based on something that is conceivably a network issue.

The long accepted redress for having bad cell reception is to use a different provider, thus the current provider provides you a refund. Again you can try and force them to "fix it" for you. However, in most cases it is not likely to happen, nor at this time is it a reasonable expectation. Thus you will have to find a cellular provider whose service works where you use it. Anything else would place an unreasonable burden on the wireless carriers and would require them to simply deny people service who were not in grade A coverage areas at all time.

I am sure the people who want this lawsuit would love it when they outcome is that NO cell provider will give them service because of where they live or work.

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the wireless industry. The lawsuit does not even name AT&T or any wireless company as a defendant. This lawsuit has nothing to do with them. It is about a physical product that has possible manufacturing defects. You're confusing the issue. The wireless industry is not going to band together to defend anything in this lawsuit. Unless Apple can definitively prove that it is not an issue with the physical product, and that it is actually an issue with all of the various wireless carriers globally, then these wireless companies will not be implicated.

 

[tlapple]

These analysts who know jack **** know just about as much as you do on the whole situation. At least they have a specific hypothesis which seems logically sound. What's yours, other than "It is much more likely a combination of the phone and the network?" You obviously think that it's partly a hardware problem, why? What specific part of the hardware is problematic? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Can you offer any explantion why it's a combination of both hardware and network and not one or the other?

This has been my point exactly. What makes everyone a sudden expert on what the problem is, when Apple themselves are still trying to figure out what it is. Where is your basis for any of your assumptions and conjectures?

If it is indeed a combination of hardware and network, then Apple is still not free of liability here. Returning the phone isn't going to fix the issue. It just makes it go away. Apple will still be breaching its warranties with a product its selling in the mass market.

 

[ctshu2002]

Let's do it.

Seriously, as an attorney, let me tell you the law in this area: if you buy something, and you don't like how it works, ****ING RETURN IT. It's really that simple. No lawsuit need be filed.

I hope your language and grammar is better in court.

Class action lawsuits are for companies who knowingly sell defective products and have no plan to fix them or refund people's money.

If you take your phone to AT&T or Apple, they will mostly likely replace it, or refund your money. So, where's the wrongdoing here?

Any vacancies up there on Cloud nine? I have vacation time, I could use a visit up there.

Just read the aritcle. She is in Birmingham. I agree that the 3G reception in Birmingham is spotty at best and doesn't seem to match what AT&T claims. With that said, I'm not sure that filing a lawsuit will accomplish anything.

A lot, it exposes Apple for false adverisement number one, because the original ads did not have the indication that the service was being caried by AT&T and that 3G was not available in all areas. Several post indicate that people are geting charged extra money for 3G service, but don't have it in their home calling area yet.

Under Federal Law, cellphones must be activated to the address where the bill is sent and only services in that area can be sold to the customer. Therefore, if 3G is not available in your home calling area, AT&T can not legaly sign you up for 3G service and bill you extra for the feature.

I have a similar issue with Verizon, where in my town their mobile tv will not be available until next year, but in surrounding areas, and coincindentally the town where the nearest Apple store is, and NYC and Philly, mobile tv is available. Even though my new cell phone is mobile tv ready, they can not activate the service for me even if I were to go to NYC, because my home calling area does not have that feature available yet.

About 6-7 years ago, I had issues with AT&T in activating a phone when I was in college. I ordered a phone and I had it shipped to me at school. I received, with a letter that they were not able to activate it because the plan I selected from the website (based on my home address in NJ) was not available for my home calling area. It turns out that they never updated their website, after removing/changing the digital service availability in areas but instead went after many visits to the AT&T store, first activated my phone on another plan, so I was paying roaming @ $0.65/min and $0.35/min long distance while at school for all phone calls plus landline charges. In the end, hey had to cancel my contract, and after some discussion, waiving the termination fee, and the phone fee (it was free with one year of service or else I had to pay full price).

They placed their ads on tv that this new iPhone had these great speeds (which are much slower than those offered by Sprint and Verizon), at a lower price for more to enjoy and not feel so guilty about upgrading,but failed to mention that AT&T only has the necessary 3G coverage over at most 40% of the US, mostly in the large metropolitan areas and their surrounding suburbs. They also only give in fine print on the website that the battery life was tested to 5 hours under specific conditions, that are not typical for most users (when i mentioned this in the Apple forum- the post got deleted, um...)

Brand new phones are cracked or cracking, they need more patches and updates than any Microsoft OS, and while wrily acknowledging the issue, jobs just says their working on it. This is like the Windows Vista launch, but at least MS acknowledged they screwed up.

This doesn't even begin to cover issues with the other Apple products of late. Talk about false advertisement-, the Apple site swore that updating OS X would mean practically never having to reboot except a few updates to core OS functionality and BIOS updates. Strange the last few updates I have had to restart 7 of 10 times. More stable? It now my MBP freezes up more now than I ever had freezing with Win XP Pro, and with less memory.

When I received my MBP in Jan 2007, I was amazed, now, I am shocked at the quality of the product, the quality of Apple updates, and the quality of Apple's response and concern to issues. If this is the new future of Apple, it's not just sour, it's going to be rotten, and all the new business they got from loyal Windows/Linux converts, are going to jump ship again.

This lawsuit will show what poor quality Apple has been putting into it's products and the often lack of care it has for it's customers.

 

[Rybold]

Three things:

1) The burden of proof lies on the accuser. AT&T has some dammed good defense attorneys, and I'm sure they'll lend Apple a hand, considering the partnership between AT&T and Apple.

2) Both AT&T's and Apple's stock (stock market) was up today, which means that large investment firms and corporate attorneys are viewing this proposed lawsuit as nothing to be worried about. I feel the same way. With the burden of proof on the accuser, they have no case.

3) I bought my iPhone3G four weeks ago, and I have had zero problems. It is, in fact, 2.5X faster on 3G than on EDGE. Several of my friends have 3G iPhones and I haven't heard them complaining either. So, apparently Apple and AT&T have customers that can testify that their phones are working just fine.

 

[tlapple]

Three things:With the burden of proof on the accuser, they have no case.

Very good. A high school kid could tell you the burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff. How did you get from burden of proof is on the accuser to --> they have no case? I love how everyone suddenly becomes a legal expert. Please explain why the Plaintiff will not be able to prove her case here. Do you even know what the standard of proof is for civil cases?

So, apparently Apple and AT&T have customers that can testify that their phones are working just fine.

No, customers will not be testifying, that's not how these things work. It's going to be a battle of so-called experts, both sides will have done whatever research and have their experts put their spin on it. BOTH sides.

No one is arguing that there are not customers with functional phones. Proving that there are functional phones is not going to be a defense that there may be X% of phones that could be defective.

 

[Stratus Fear]

Under Federal Law, cellphones must be activated to the address where the bill is sent and only services in that area can be sold to the customer. Therefore, if 3G is not available in your home calling area, AT&T can not legaly sign you up for 3G service and bill you extra for the feature.

You're not getting charged for 3G data, you're getting charged for a smartphone/PDA plan. All smartphone/PDA plans are $30, regardless of which generation network they're on.

 

[Rat-Boy]

3) I bought my iPhone3G four weeks ago, and I have had zero problems. It is, in fact, 2.5X faster on 3G than on EDGE. Several of my friends have 3G iPhones and I haven't heard them complaining either. So, apparently Apple and AT&T have customers that can testify that their phones are working just fine.

Ahhh, right.

So because you and a few of your freinds' phones work alright, I should just be happy with this buggy piece of #@$E@!@ in my possession?????

Are you going to sit there and tell me your ringer volume doesn't automatically re-set itself to somewhere in the middle? If you do, I will call you a liar point blank.

But, I guess as long as the name on the product is "Apple", it is OK to have bugs and be ignored.

And then, the way Apple is so secretive about what is going on or not going on has got to be the worst customer service ever.

Of course, why would Apple care? How many of these pieces of crap have they sold since July 11th?

Jobs is probably sitting somewhere on a beach with his millions just not giving one iota of @#@! about what is going on with a LARGE portion of Apple customers.

 

[TechNut]

Bzzzt....for about the 10000th time, returning the phone and getting the money back is the WRONG ANSWER. I couldn't care less about the money and I'm not returning the phone and I intend to bitch about it's gross shortcomings and bugs until they're properly addressed. If Apple and AT&T are content to drag their feet, I'm all for a class action suit to MAKE them do something about it. You people can whine about it all you want, I couldn't care less. If it were up to you, everyone would be stuck with this buggy piece of junk until it fell apart in their hands. I like the idea of the iPhone a lot. Now Apple is 6 weeks late on delivering the product THEY advertised. Not a single user is to blame for any of this. You want someone to point a finger at and judge? Point it at Apple.

I attempted to return both of my iphone 3G phones purchased July 26th. The Geek told me that "Apple cannot be responsible for the quality and amount of dropped calls on the ATT network and that the phone cannot be returned unless it is defective". To which I replied, what constitutes defective and the response was "if the phone was unable to make any calls or if it were not switching on or something like that". When I persisted on wanting my money back I was told that, that was not the policy. The official statement from ATT's website is:

Apple Branded Equipment
All sales of the original iPhone and refurbished original iPhone after July 1, 2008 are final and cannot be returned for any reason. The standard AT&T return policy applies to iPhone 3G. iPhone is not eligible for the Wireless Insurance program.

Apple when I called them told me that the phone has to be returned to the original place of purchase, no exceptions and that the cost of the phone will be refunded but that your contract with ATT remains in place for two years or you may pay a $175 termination fee.

So now I have six visits to the Apple store to try to get the issues resolved, a $175 termination fee on the 3G contract and $25 reactivation fee for my old phone on the ATT network.

If you are unhappy with the iPhone and dont feel that you got what you paid for feel free to return it for a full refund plus a $200 fee.