iPhone AT&T Exclusivity Class Action Lawsuit

[mgamber]

How about this; next time you drive somewhere and don't die, thank the class action lawsuit. Or next time you take a breath of air and don't choke and cough, thank the class action lawsuit. Perhaps the next time you drink water and don't get sick from toxins or the next time you eat something and don't get sick from E Coli you can thank the class action lawsuit.

Only in America.

 

[insidmal]

How is this different than any other exclusive phone on a carrier? People have a choice, always have, always will. To say that AT&T duped you into 5 years with them because you had to have an iPhone is moronic at best.

then sue sprint for the evo.

or Verizon for the droid

but not t-mobile cause they dont got ****

I think the argument here is that Apple itself is only manufacturing for AT&T.. granted the Droid is only Verizon, but it's manufactured by Motorola who manufactures for all providers, and sure the EVO is only Sprint, but HTC manufactures for all providers, all the popular phones are produced by companies who offer (usually similar) phones on all networks, whereas Apple only creates products for use by AT&T.

Is it worthy of a lawsuit? I don't think so.. but the fact that the judge changed it from a regular suit and categorized it into class-action status shows they are considering the idea.

Maybe financially Apple should be considering manufacturing devices for other providers, or at least allowing other developers use of it's iOS on their devices, to increase sales and market share, not just to avoid a lawsuit. They make a lot of money off of the App Store and iTunes stores alone, and being only available on 1 phone, iOS still contains 25% share of all mobile operating systems used, they could create a huge increase if they allowed Motorola or HTC to use iOS on their devices, and I'm willing to bed Motorola and HTC would do so in a heartbeat, and that would severely hinder android.

My 2 and a half cents.

 

[ref26]

I think the argument here is that Apple itself is only manufacturing for AT&T.. granted the Droid is only Verizon, but it's manufactured by Motorola who manufactures for all providers, and sure the EVO is only Sprint, but HTC manufactures for all providers, all the popular phones are produced by companies who offer (usually similar) phones on all networks, whereas Apple only creates products for use by AT&T.

Is it worthy of a lawsuit? I don't think so.. but the fact that the judge changed it from a regular suit and categorized it into class-action status shows they are considering the idea.

Maybe financially Apple should be considering manufacturing devices for other providers, or at least allowing other developers use of it's iOS on their devices, to increase sales and market share, not just to avoid a lawsuit. They make a lot of money off of the App Store and iTunes stores alone, and being only available on 1 phone, iOS still contains 25% share of all mobile operating systems used, they could create a huge increase if they allowed Motorola or HTC to use iOS on their devices, and I'm willing to bed Motorola and HTC would do so in a heartbeat, and that would severely hinder android.

My 2 and a half cents.

That's never going to happen, for the same reason you can't (legally) use OSX on a non-mac computer. Apple prides itself on making hardware and software that work together.

 

[b166er]

I am suing Toyota because after spending the money on my car, I have to pay out additional money over the life of the car for gas and maintenance.

These iPhone lawsuits are pretty uh.... flat.

 

[Rajani Isa]

Pretty much. I could sue you for now knowing that. Many (some?) of the more ridiculous ones get thrown out long before the trial starts.

Anyone can be sued for anything. However, there are laws against abuse of the legal system, which can (IIRC) including things like contempt of the courts and frivolous lawsuit fines - both of which also end up dismissing your lawsuit.

Just because you can sue someone, doesn't mean you'll win.

Maybe financially Apple should be considering manufacturing devices for other providers, or at least allowing other developers use of it's iOS on their devices, to increase sales and market share, not just to avoid a lawsuit.

They do make it for other providers - just not in America.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

I think the argument here is that Apple itself is only manufacturing for AT&T.. granted the Droid is only Verizon, but it's manufactured by Motorola who manufactures for all providers, and sure the EVO is only Sprint, but HTC manufactures for all providers, all the popular phones are produced by companies who offer (usually similar) phones on all networks, whereas Apple only creates products for use by AT&T.

Is it worthy of a lawsuit? I don't think so.. but the fact that the judge changed it from a regular suit and categorized it into class-action status shows they are considering the idea.

Maybe financially Apple should be considering manufacturing devices for other providers, or at least allowing other developers use of it's iOS on their devices, to increase sales and market share, not just to avoid a lawsuit. They make a lot of money off of the App Store and iTunes stores alone, and being only available on 1 phone, iOS still contains 25% share of all mobile operating systems used, they could create a huge increase if they allowed Motorola or HTC to use iOS on their devices, and I'm willing to bed Motorola and HTC would do so in a heartbeat, and that would severely hinder android.

My 2 and a half cents.

lolwut

That is not what the lawsuit is about AT ALL.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the iPhone being available on verizon, sprint, t-mobile, cricket et al.

The suit claims that the customer isn't informed of an exclusive agreement that ATT and Apple have for the iPhone. It's length of the contract is unknown to any of us. It's widely accepted that it's five years, but Apple and ATT can change it on the fly. It may end tommorow, it may end 100 years from now, nobody knows.

Att is using this exclusive agreement to absolve itself any responsibility from unlocking the iPhone (as I quoted before) while dictating the terms that the user can utilize the iPhone even after the user has fulfilled their contract term or pays full price for the device. If ATT decides to stop supporting the iPhone after this particular revision and doesn't release the unlock codes, we'll have to rely on a third party vendor to unlock the device for us to use or sell for other GSM carriers.

Seriously people, read the text. Infact, i'll quote the introduction of the complaint for convenience. Read it slowly. Savor it.

I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs1 bring this putative nationwide class action against Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and AT&T Mobility, LLC (“ATTM”), alleging, inter alia, monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq., and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Plaintiffs allege that although they were required to purchase a two-year service agreement with ATTM when they purchased their iPhones, Apple and ATTM had secretly agreed to technologically restrict voice and data service in the aftermarket for continued voice and data services for five years, i.e., after Plaintiffs’ initial two- year service period expired. Plaintiffs also allege that Apple monopolized the aftermarket for third party software applications for the iPhone, and that Apple caused the iPhone to become unusable if it detected that a customer had “unlocked” their iPhone for use with other service providers.

The fact that users come up on this board daily and ask people if it's possible to unlock the phone if they are going overseas or at the end of their contract means that people are expecting to be able to leave ATT at the end of their terms, which isn't the case.

 

[marksman]

Dumbest lawsuit ever.


Well what do you expect. We have way too many lawyers, and the majority of them are incompetent. In this down economy it is even worse, because there is not enough work for all the lawyers when things are going well.

So now you get ridiculous things like this. Suing AT&T or Apple because you had a two year contract without knowing their future plans is absurd and irrelevant.

There is no way this case is not dismissed the first time it shows up in front of a judge.

I just wish we got the entire system revamped to the point that a judge could invoke serious punitive penalties for people who file absurd lawsuits like this.

 

[marksman]

Yeah, it's a dumb lawsuit, but hey being an iPhone user I stand a shot at getting come settlement money. Looking for to my $5 credit!

Yeah this has such little merit that there is no chance a deal is even brokered. So nobody will be seeing any money from this.

This is true. And, I do not think this 5 year exclusivity argument is going to hold up. However, I contend that the exclusivity contract is illegal, as are all similar contracts.

The reasons:

1) All legal contracts must be equitable. That is, one party cannot receive an disproportional benefit as compared to any other party. This brings us to number 2.

It is equitable. There is consideration for both sides. AT&T gets exclusivity, Apple gets things like Visual Voicemail and a specific amount of money for each phone sold. The payment is part of the consideration for AT&T. Since neither of us have seen the agreement you can also include like specific marketing metrics and other benefits AT&T would have to offer to uphold their end of the contract.

2) This exclusivity contract is not just between Apple and AT&T. There is a third party to the contract, and that is the consumer. Number 3.

That is simply not true. I spent a lot of time in the retail business, and was even a retail buyer for a while. Suffice it to say that the consumer is not party to any agreement between me and the vendors whom I would buy product from, and I don't think a legitimate argument could be made that this would be any different.

3) The consumer has no input into this contract, and receives a disproportionately less benefit than the other two parties. 4

They have a contract with AT&T. Their contract says they will pay for 2 years of phone and data service in exchange for a subsidized phone price. They are not a party in any way shape or form to the contract between AT&T and Apple.

4) Yes, the consumer has the option to simply not buy the Iphone. However, the decision to not purchase it for many, is the exclusivity contract that Apple has made with AT&T, thus depriving the consumer from using their Iphone on whatever carrier they choose. 5

So what. There is no requirement that a company has to make a product available to anyone who wants to buy it regardless of the terms and conditions. By your logic AT&T would have to sell iPhones to people who only wanted to pay $5 for them, and sell them for $5. If people don't want to use AT&T then they don't have to buy the iPhone. Having exclusive retailers for products has been around forever and there is nothing illegal about it.

5) This creates a disproportional benefit for the third contracting entity, the consumer.

Again, not a party to the contract between AT&T and Apple. What consideration does Apple get from the consumer for buying a phone and contract from AT&T. (This has to be above and beyond anything AT&T provides which covers retail costs and everything else.) Even if you wanted to continue to argue that this is a three sided contract, which it is not, the consumer is not providing any consideration to Apple.

A consumer should have a right under law to purchase any phone and use that phone on any network which supports the same type network. Two entities contracting to affectively exclude the users freedom to choose their own network, is illegal.

No it is not.

I would like to add that you will not find another person who supports individual rights, which includes companies rights (which are made up of individuals) to do anything they want, but provided only that they do not violate anybody else's right to exercise their freedom. So, Apple and AT&T have every right to contract to provide an Iphone to consumers at some reduced price, or other incentive to use their Iphone on the AT&T network, but they do not have the right to exclude the third party to this contract, the consumer, from exercising their right to use in on a different carrier.

So blue ray disc manufacturers need to make sure that I can play their discs in my vcr? My satellite has to provide me access to every channel in the world, regardless of if they have the rights to do so or not? On and on.

Basically - Every human being has an absolute unalienable right to do absolutely anything they choose, provided only that they do not violate any other human being's right to do the same thing.

Comments?

I don't know how or why you shifted from contracts to human rights, but in either case you are simply wrong in terms of what is happening and what is illegal.

 

[Rhonen]

how so

Legal precedent. If the court deems it illegal for iphone exclusivity on AT&T beyond the customer's contract, then it would be illegal for any phone to be exclusive to any carrier beyond the customer's contract.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Legal precedent. If the court deems it illegal for iphone exclusivity on AT&T beyond the customer's contract, then it would be illegal for any phone to be exclusive to any carrier beyond the customer's contract.

oic.

Yes, but are there any others phones for which this conundrum exists? On ATT, atleast? I can't find any phones that ATT won't (or are legally forced to) unlock except the iPhone.

 

[chequepoint]

This is so infuriating.
The iphone is not a necessity, a monopoly, or anything worthy of government attention. It's a luxury product. Apple, as a business in a free economy, should have the right to sell its product to whoever it wants, however it wants. No one needs it, there are plenty of alternatives. If Apple thinks selling it with one carrier is in their best interest, that is their choice. If they only want to sell it to redheads, it should be their choice. They are a business that only sells products that no one needs, the government should stay out of it entirely.

The only part of the Contract/Phone process that I feel is sketchy is the practice of locking someone into a 2 year contract, on a device with a 1 year warranty... BUT no one is forcing anyone to buy an iphone, so again no need for lawyers.

 

[WiiDSmoker]

I am suing Toyota because after spending the money on my car, I have to pay out additional money over the life of the car for gas and maintenance.

These iPhone lawsuits are pretty uh.... flat.

Worst analogy ever. Nothing what you said applies to this situation.

 

[ptsube]

This is so infuriating.
The iphone is not a necessity, a monopoly, or anything worthy of government attention. It's a luxury product. Apple, as a business in a free economy, should have the right to sell its product to whoever it wants, however it wants. No one needs it, there are plenty of alternatives. If Apple thinks selling it with one carrier is in their best interest, that is their choice. If they only want to sell it to redheads, it should be their choice. They are a business that only sells products that no one needs, the government should stay out of it entirely.

The only part of the Contract/Phone process that I feel is sketchy is the practice of locking someone into a 2 year contract, on a device with a 1 year warranty... BUT no one is forcing anyone to buy an iphone, so again no need for lawyers.

The iPhone isn't a necessity, but that isn't the point of the lawsuit. The main point of the lawsuit is, in exchange for a subsidized iPhone, the customer agrees to a two year contract. But because of the exclusivity agreement between Apple and ATT, the customer, if he/she wants to continue using HIS phone after the contract, must continue using it on ATT because Apple and ATT will not unlock the phone.

The customer was not informed that HIS phone won't work if he decides to leave ATT after he has fulfilled his contract. The customer should be able to take their phone to T-Mobile and swap the SIM and have it work without a hitch. Or even remove the SIM and have it work.

Take my 2G iPhone for example. I bought it and signed a two year agreement with AT&T. I completed that agreement and was still bound to use ATT. I sold it to my Dad, now he has to use ATT if he wants to use the phone(or do an unofficial Jailbreak/Unlock). How is that lawful? He never agreed to a contract. Nearly all phones are unlock-able after the contract has been fulfilled, yet the iPhone is still tied to ATT.

And it is somewhat of a monopoly, if you want an iPhone, new w/commitment, new w/o commitment, used w/o commitment, you have to use ATT, or use an unofficial unlock and void the warranty. So, ATT does have a monopoly on the iPhone whether the iPhone is used or new, because of the software tying it to ATT. People buying a used iPhone are not signing a contract, yet they are still required to use ATT if they want to use the phone. It's not a matter of "if you don't need it, it's not a monopoly". Not everybody needed oil, yet the government split up Standard Oil because it was a monopoly. Now, I don't think the government can really do anything, nor should they, other than force Apple and ATT to unlock the phone once the contract is completed.

I understand two companies have a right to sign an agreement. I understand that a customer doesn't have to buy an iPhone, but why is someone that buys a used iPhone, or someone that has completed their contract held to the same agreement as an original buyer, yet they receive none of the benefits of the original agreement? It makes no sense unless you are ATT or an Apple Fanboy. Europe and most carriers in the US agree that it makes no sense. In fact ATT agrees, unless it is an iPhone.