Class-Action Suit Filed Against Apple

[letskeepitstr8]

If Apple doesn't fix the bugs in Mac OSX 10.3.8 they will have another class action lawsuit by all Apple G5 users!!!!!

G5. You say G5??? Well the G5 Dual processor seems to have major issues in repairs. Apple is hidding the fact that often many parts (up to 6 and 7) are replaced and still that does not fix the problem. At the end of which Apple replaces the computer. An Apple employee told me that Apple has notes that reflect these problems but that they have not informed anyone outside Apple. Even the service centers do not have any info on that.
We all love Apple like it is a child of our own so we often tend to overlook they bad behavior. Like any child if we hope that they straighten up we need to hold them acountable otherwise we will be taken for granted.

 

[letskeepitstr8]

Actually I think we heard the real story told in another tread recently, from actual users of some of those stores.

AppleInsider will never be visited by me again.

I guess that will be your loss. Often we are too quick at judging.

 

[letskeepitstr8]

I agree. If an indiviual feels wronged, they have every right to seek redress. That is an important part of the system. But class action law suits are just a lawyers game.

If thousands of people have been wronged each for $350. Each of them indivdually could not afford the cost of a lawsuit. Class actions lawsuit makes it affordable to do and keep corporations on their toes.
Think of Ford tire recalls on the Explorer, The cigarette lawsuits that discovered addiction planning, Asbestos, United airlines Mileage plus, etc.....
I do not doubt that some are trevial and should not be filed. That is not a reason to condemn them all. Thank God for some of these lawyers. Of course not all of them.

 

[Doctor Q]

I wonder if this will help anyone?
Mac users will win $.02
Mac resellers will win $.75
Lawyers will get $$$

IF they are guilty of these practices and IF they are found guilty and IF they have to pay something and IF users get a meager amount, at least they would be less likely to continue the practices that got them in trouble, and that's worth something to consumers too.

 

[Warbrain]

I definitely see this as just a lame class action suit brought by angry resellers who claim to have been taken advantage by Apple. I'm sure in the contracts Apple has with those resellers says that Apple can really do whatever they want since it's their product that they're dishing out with a tiny bit of power given to the reseller. And since it was filed the day before the tort reform went into effect, it just adds more suspicion to this all.

 

[aquajet]

About time.... see www.tellonapple.org

They've been at this for a while now, the resellers in my area are all closing down because of Apple's shoddy business practice. Would be nice to see some viable alternatives to the Apple store still surviving.

Wrong, wrong, WRONG! There is a reason why those LOSER companies went away. They can't cope with a changing marketplace. They're ****holes. They sell old garbage at 1990 prices. They have poor customer service. They cater to geeks. These are some of the reasons. Do you really expect Apple to continue to allow these companies to represent them? As a shareholder, I say NO!!!

Apple has not harmed me, I object to having Apple sued on my behalf, and I object to being represented by the two shysters of Franklin and Schack who made their name by suing wireless service providers, making millions while the clients they supposedly support got pennies.

Where do I go to fire these lawyers?

DING DING DING! Thank you GadgetDon, couldn't agree more. Stop class-action lawyers NOW!!!

 

[letskeepitstr8]

Wrong, wrong, WRONG! There is a reason why those LOSER companies went away. They can't cope with a changing marketplace. They're ****holes. They sell old garbage at 1990 prices. They have poor customer service. They cater to geeks. These are some of the reasons. Do you really expect Apple to continue to allow these companies to represent them? As a shareholder, I say NO!!!

Too bad you use terms like Loser and ****holes. I heard that Steve uses term similar to that. Specially as a shareholder you have something to loose if the truth came out on the side of these resellers or consumers. I know of some very well run sompanies that are being starved for products and not being given reasonable margins. In addition they are the best at what they do. No complaints about how, where why or what these dealers sell or charge. Don't claim that all the companies that go out of business are losers. Same as saying that everyone that get laid off or loose their jobs are loosers. Have an open mind. One day it can happen to you and you would not want to be called names.
The best answer is to wait and see what is the truth.

 

[rainman::|:|]

Um, the first time one of you "stop the class-actions" people gets in an accident because Ford didn't attach the steering wheel right, i wonder if you'll still be complaining... Because class-actions (and a man named Ralph Nader) are responsible for the automotive industry's practice of voluntary safety recalls. That's just one of the ways class-action suits have protected and safeguarded the public.

If a class-action has no merits, it's not like anyone gets hurt... and it's a waste of time and money for the plaintiffs. Clearly someone out there really feels like a lot of people were wronged by Apple. Whether it's true or not, I don't know... I have heard a *lot* of anecdotal reports over the years of warranties being refused and service being denied... but maybe the people really had voided their warranties. I doubt much will come of the reseller angle, I realize resellers everywhere are in turmoil because Apple is squeezing them (and their 20-year-old businesses) out of the market. But Apple didn't promise they'd be around forever, and they have largely done a poor job of carrying Apple's look-and-feel to a retail environment. It only makes sense to the stockholders to improve this area, and Apple is not a bad company for doing it.

BTW, on that refurb issue... Apple reimages their floor units daily, and reimages all refurb drives, so i don't think there's any chance of seeing old data. Probably autofill was picking up info from another website she was at or something...

 

[letskeepitstr8]

they have largely done a poor job of carrying Apple's look-and-feel to a retail environment.

That is what many of the dealers seem to be complaining about. Apple is purposely not shipping them product and it causes us to blame the dealers.

 

[goku]

Do Apple Stores sell the floor models after a while? Do they call them new?

Nope they sell them as floor models. Was looking at floor model powerbook 17 for $1300. I bought a refurbished PowerMac G4 for $900 from apple store 2 years ago.

All the boxes are clearly marked for floor model and refurbs.

 

[aquajet]

Don't claim that all the companies that go out of business are losers.

Well, are we supposed to call them winners then?

In a recent San Jose Business Journal article, Steve Jobs said "that Apple opened its own retail outlets because independent resellers weren't doing enough to upgrade their stores."

He further said "We are investing in these stores," Mr. Jobs told reporters. "Most of the resellers are not investing in their stores and haven't been investing."

Does this tell us something about the majority of independent resellers?

The article further states: "Plaintiff Thomas Armes, former owner of Elite Computers & Software Inc., says Apple thwarted resellers' efforts to improve their stores. He and other resellers urged Apple to develop a master plan so stores would share a similar design and give the Apple brand a consistent look, he adds. "It fell on deaf ears.""

Of course, it makes sense now. These lazy fools are supposed to let Apple design their stores for them, provide them with advertising, and give them stuff to sell. Get off your arse Mr. Armes, and design your own store! Come up with something creative for yourself!!!

The article further states: "Tom Santos, owner of MACAdam Inc., of San Francisco, another plaintiff, says Apple offered only excuses when resellers asked for the same store fixtures and other materials to make their stores match Apple's. Then the computer maker forbade resellers from copying the Apple look altogether."

Oh my God, please. That's just pathetic.

 

[Warbrain]

Well, are we supposed to call them winners then?

In a recent San Jose Business Journal article, Steve Jobs said "that Apple opened its own retail outlets because independent resellers weren't doing enough to upgrade their stores."

He further said "We are investing in these stores," Mr. Jobs told reporters. "Most of the resellers are not investing in their stores and haven't been investing."

Does this tell us something about the majority of independent resellers?

The article further states: "Plaintiff Thomas Armes, former owner of Elite Computers & Software Inc., says Apple thwarted resellers' efforts to improve their stores. He and other resellers urged Apple to develop a master plan so stores would share a similar design and give the Apple brand a consistent look, he adds. "It fell on deaf ears.""

Of course, it makes sense now. These lazy fools are supposed to let Apple design their stores for them, provide them with advertising, and give them stuff to sell. Get off your arse Mr. Armes, and design your own store! Come up with something creative for yourself!!!

The article further states: "Tom Santos, owner of MACAdam Inc., of San Francisco, another plaintiff, says Apple offered only excuses when resellers asked for the same store fixtures and other materials to make their stores match Apple's. Then the computer maker forbade resellers from copying the Apple look altogether."

Oh my God, please. That's just pathetic.

That's such a lame excuse for a class-action suit. I think ANYONE can see and understand why Apple wouldn't let the resellers have the same look as the Apple stores. It's in Apple's own right that they want to promote their own stores over the resellers because it's been obvious for years that resellers don't do much to help Apple in the end.

 

[letskeepitstr8]

That's such a lame excuse for a class-action suit. I think ANYONE can see and understand why Apple wouldn't let the resellers have the same look as the Apple stores. It's in Apple's own right that they want to promote their own stores over the resellers because it's been obvious for years that resellers don't do much to help Apple in the end.

REALLY?????
Who kept the brand alive before Apple opened its own stores???????
Who stood by Apple when they were about to go out of business?????
Where did we all buy our prodcuts before Apple opened its own stores?????
Who kept on investing in the retail channel before Apple opened its own stores??????
Who stocked and delivered products before Apple started its own online store???
I do not trust anything Steve says. I heard he mostly only use 4 letter words. He broke every contract he got into. Like the Apple name was never supposed to be in music. Then when he did the Beatles sued him and again he entered into another agreement, paid a penalty and he broke the agreement again and was sued again. I guess as long as he produce something we like it is OK to break his word and contracts.
Does not speak highly of our standards if we continue to accept such behaviors.

 

[Maxx Power]

Wrong, wrong, WRONG! There is a reason why those LOSER companies went away. They can't cope with a changing marketplace. They're ****holes. They sell old garbage at 1990 prices. They have poor customer service. They cater to geeks. These are some of the reasons. Do you really expect Apple to continue to allow these companies to represent them? As a shareholder, I say NO!!!

Loser companines that went away.... If Microsoft took over and all those other "loser" companies went away, we'd be better off ? A changing marketplace means not a better market place, look at the ever piling tactics big companies have to use to hold every ounce of their market place, placing cameras in their stores to study customer impression and habits (Apple), creating corporate trademark and patent portfolios, severe amounts of Antitrust.... A changing market in this sense drove a lot of honest dealers out of the loop, who would rather tell you the truth about the machines they are selling verses earn commissions for each iCrap sold. I expect nothing of apple, they are a collection of people with one goal, to dominate the market if not now, then eventually, as their corporate identity rears its ugly head. As Apple gets bigger, it'll start doing all sorts of things that are terrible and more resemblant of Microsoft and Intel's market strategies and corporate agendas. Apple best stay small if they want to satisfy their original loyalists, instead of preaching to the mass who have very little in common. In other words, apple best serves their original identity by staying small. These lawsuits are milestones for Apple's corporate growth and abuse of power. I know a lot of people who if they found out about apple's actions in the market place, muscling out every local Apple dealer, would be furious or at the very least, not support the company anymore with their wallets. Why ? It's called conscience.

 

[martman]

I've read other articles on the (at the time) about to be filed class action suit. One of the accusations I've been a victim of.
Apple will try and cut the period of warenty coverage by tying the warenty period to when the unit in question left Apple as opposed to when it was actually sold or delivered to the customer. This is what happened to my iPod when I bought it. I had to argue with Apple to get them to support it even though I only had it for a week. They gave in when I quoted my sales recipt but many people are intimidated.
I'm sorry to those of the "faithful" but Apple has many bad practices that they can get away with only because they are a small company.

If people say they are getting refurbished equipment sold as new I believe them.

I agree that class action suits are a drain on the economy but there is no other way to force arrogant companies to stop abusing their customers.


Again to the "faithfull": You probably don't view Apple as an arrogant company. How do you explain this:

Apple sues three journalists for emails
By John Oates
Published Wednesday 16th February 2005 10:51 GMT

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is calling for court protection for three journalists targeted by Apple.

The three reporters work for online titles appleinsider and powerpage.org. In November they published stories about "Asteroid", a future Apple device for linking musical instruments to computers.

Apple is demanding they hand over documents which could identify the source of that information.

The EFF asked a California Superior Court for a protective order to stop Apple forcing the reporters to reveal their sources. The group argues that the three are protected by the same "reporter's privilege" that protects newspaper journalists. This legal protection is the same regardless who holds the actual records.

As well as going after the reporters directly Apple has sent subpoenas to their ISP, Nfox.com. The computer giant wants the ISP to hand over reporters' emails which will reveal the identity of their sources.

EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl explained: "Rather than confronting the issue of reporter's privilege head-on, Apple is going to this journalist's ISP for his emails. This undermines a fundamental, First Amendment right that protects all reporters. If the court lets Apple get away with this, and exposes the confidences gained by these reporters, potential confidential sources will be deterred from providing information to the media."

I know that this has been resolved by Apple comming to its senses but WTF made them want to do this in the first place? This has hurt Apple's image greatly. Luckly Apple is in a time of great expansion and will probably not feel much pain from the people they turned off but they did lose buisness because of this.

I'll add if Apple is willing to abuse the courts in this manner they deserve to be on the receiving end of a class action suit for their ill dealing with resellers and customers.




(added at 7:10 approx)
A lot of people in this thread are on about lawyers and how they will be making all the money.
I agree that lawyers produce nothing therfore are a drain on the economy but companies that use the courts as a means to generate their incomes are even worse. God forbid we start to see Apple being mentioned in the same sentence as SCO!


oops! It's happening already!

 

[martman]

If what this lawsuit alleges is true why is it limited to the USA? Apple resellers across the globe would have cause to complain and be up in arms. I guess part of it is due to the way law works in the US, it is certainly far easier to do such things in the land of red, white and blue.
I'm confused as to why anyone would rate this thread as a positive, if true apple will lose millions and the share price will plummet and the net return; a few people will get rich very quickly. if the alleged troubles began in 1995 it has been a long time without so much as a whisper of this coming in to the news.

Class action suits in the US do and can not apply to people outside the US.
I'm in Canada. Class action suits are far more rare here. These practices will probably never be addressed in Canada. Some pricing issues are being address by the EU so you may have better results.

I doubt this is enough to have a major impact on the value of Apple stock. Microsoft went through FAR bigger troubles and it only had a limited and temporary impact on MS stock value.

 

[azrussell132]

Hmm maybe this explains why...

Maybe this explains why my brand spanking new Emac has black smudges down one side of it right out of the box. Could also explain why when I went to a local retailer two blocks away to purchase a new 17" Powerbook and they were all OUT and had no idea when they would get anymore. After calling the Apple store 20 miles away they had "plenty of them". Either way this is still the best most stable computer I have ever owned so who the frick cares...give me my .07 cent settlement and lets get on with it.

RS

 

[imac_japan]

I think that Apple has to be careful..Its in the business of making computers and selling them to comsumers through its own stores. Non Apple owned stores need to survive too

 

[psycho bob]

Both my G5's came with fingerprints on the inside but I fully expected this. Remember if you buy anything from Apple that has had any options added they have to be fitted and then tested. At some point during manufacturer they all have to be handled and can easily pick up the odd mark.

Please don't bite my head off , I'm not backing apple merely making a point that some people will be drawing unfair conclusions about their products having read this.

 

[psycho bob]

The reason I made the point about this case being limited to the USA is basically because the UK is now going through exactly the same thing that started in America a few years back. Apple are opening stores in key locations, will what is happening in the US now effect what happens here in the future.
For me it is a little strange, I've bought third party goods from independant retailers in the UK and will continue to but have never considered buying a mac itself. I've always bought BTO machines and most shops here just don't offer the same flexibility. In fact it is quite sad in the UK most independant shops that sell macs don't know anything more than what they read off the box (not all mind the likes of Cancom are great), service is a big issue.
For those in the US that know; do these independant retailers have to sign contracts promising to deliver a certain standard of service, sales guarantees etc?

 

[Sun Baked]

Both my G5's came with fingerprints on the inside but I fully expected this. Remember if you buy anything from Apple that has had any options added they have to be fitted and then tested. At some point during manufacturer they all have to be handled and can easily pick up the odd mark.

Please don't bite my head off , I'm not backing apple merely making a point that some people will be drawing unfair conclusions about their products having read this.

I haven't been shown the evidence, but I also have to wonder how many of the machines were returned to Apple -- and Apple was told they were unopened machines.

We keep getting people coming here and asking how to return the machines they were using, and getting out of a 10% restocking fee is a good reason for some people to lie when they return a machine.

There is also the cases that Apple knew they were getting back opened boxes, if Apple tossed those back into the new bin -- they deserve a slap.

 

[MacNut]

Does anybody know the official law on reselling used goods. I know from my years working retail that anything that comes back opened or used can't go back on the shelf new. I'd like to see the actual law stating this if somebody can find it.

 

[1984Mac]

The Law

Does anybody know the official law on reselling used goods. I know from my years working retail that anything that comes back opened or used can't go back on the shelf new. I'd like to see the actual law stating this if somebody can find it.

California Civil Code

17500. It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or
association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or
indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform
services, professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature
whatsoever or to induce the public to enter into any obligation
relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or
disseminated before the public in this state, or to make or
disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated from this state
before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other
publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or
proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, including
over the Internet, any statement, concerning that real or personal
property or those services, professional or otherwise, or concerning
any circumstance or matter of fact connected with the proposed
performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading,
and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care
should be known, to be untrue or misleading, or for any person, firm,
or corporation to so make or disseminate or cause to be so made or
disseminated any such statement as part of a plan or scheme with the
intent not to sell that personal property or those services,
professional or otherwise, so advertised at the price stated therein,
or as so advertised. Any violation of the provisions of this
section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county
jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding two
thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both that imprisonment
and fine.

 

[Blackheart]

California Civil Code

17500. It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or
association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or
indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform
services, professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature
whatsoever or to induce the public to enter into any obligation
relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or
disseminated before the public in this state, or to make or
disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated from this state
before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other
publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or
proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, including
over the Internet, any statement, concerning that real or personal
property or those services, professional or otherwise, or concerning
any circumstance or matter of fact connected with the proposed
performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading,
and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care
should be known, to be untrue or misleading, or for any person, firm,
or corporation to so make or disseminate or cause to be so made or
disseminated any such statement as part of a plan or scheme with the
intent not to sell that personal property or those services,
professional or otherwise, so advertised at the price stated therein,
or as so advertised.

By far, THE longest run-on sentence i have EVER seen. I get part way through and forget what the hell they're talking about.

 

[FFTT]

I've seen far too many instances where a large local retailer
uses poorly paid, poorly trained, poorly stocked and poorly motivated
salespeople and then wonders why sales are suffering.

The floor models are old revision units with new revision
prices and specifications shown on printed info cards.

They openly promote the older units they have in stock without
even mentioning the improvements in the newer models.

Some stores deliberately show the most expensive setup possible
as a means to push p/c sales.

I can see why Apple wanted a better way to promote their products.

We must also keep in mind that apple can barely keep up with direct
online and Apple store orders, so it's understandable that secondary retailers may be suffering for supply as well.

The one thing I will NOT defend is Apples' glaring slip in quality control.
The designs are beautiful, but someone is dropping the ball in production
big time and this must be corrected.

Many seasoned Apple purchasers are now insisting that their purchase
be booted up and tested before it leaves the store.

In some cases several units must be tested before the customer finds
one unit that is completely trouble free.

Warped PB keyboards, defective pads, defective pink displays and so on.

The question is what happens to those new, open box units that didn't
satisfy the customers expectations?