Lawsuit Over AT&T's iPhone Exclusivity Gains Class Action Status

[rwilliams]

Oh, riiiight, i must have missed the part where it said the suit had been brought by a bunch of Europeans who've been paying AT&T for two years for a phone they couldn't use in the hopes that in year three they could unlock their phones and finally use them in their home countries.

If you are going to be a smart-a** you should at least pay attention to the article. This is an AMERICAN lawsuit talking about what the company should and shouldn't be allowed to do in AMERICA. If it were a British lawsuit or a Japanese lawsuit or even a Canadian lawsuit then the other carriers might matter, but its not. What practical expectation can they have of the American courts? To unlock my iPhone 3G so I can use the Edge network on T-Mobile? Gimme a break!

Did it ever occur to you that Americans who travel or work outside of the States might want to use their unlocked GSM phones on international GSM networks by switching SIM cards? If someone who has fulfilled their contract with AT&T wants to travel to Europe and use their iPhone over there, they can't because Apple stupidly refuses to unlock a phone they've fully paid for. Your line of thinking is extremely small and limited. As I said, there's a whole world outside of AT&T and T-Mobile.

And just because you have no desire to use T-Mobile's EDGE network doesn't mean that others feel the same way. They have another carrier that is an option, but Apple & AT&T won't allow customers to use that option, despite the fact that their contracts have already been fulfilled.

 

[Bookmonke]

Where is the class action for all this hope and change we were supposed to get, all I have gotten is the shaft.

 

[Rocketman]

The greedy lawyers behind these class action lawsuits are the only people who end up making some real money (and they get lots of it). Even though I could make a little cash off it, I don't want to support a lawsuit that was created to quickly make a few people at the top rich.

You do not have the right as an owner of the "class" to "take the other side". Your rights are crippled in favor of plaintiff lawyers above all else. Deal with it.

Has a class action lawsuit ever had to deal with "fanbois"? Seriously.

Rocketman

 

[lllll]

This is why I get the jailbroken iPhone. Althought I wouldn't mind them sending me $2 from the lawsuit.

Late last week, Wired reported that a lawsuit filed against Apple and AT&T over the carrier's exclusivity arrangement for the iPhone has received class action status, meaning that it now automatically covers every iPhone customer in the United States.Playing a significant role in the lawsuit has been the disclosure in documents related to the case that AT&T's exclusivity agreement with Apple was originally scheduled to last five years from the device's 2007 launch, or into 2012. The plaintiffs have argued that even customers fulfilling their two-year contracts with AT&T for the iPhone are unable to switch carriers and continue using their handsets, effectively locking them in to AT&T for longer than their signed contract unless they are willing to switch phones.Some observers have pointed to the original five-year exclusivity agreement between Apple and AT&T as evidence that the iPhone will not be making an appearance on Verizon or any other U.S. carrier in the near future. Multiple sources have indicated in recent years, however, that the exclusivity agreement is for a significantly shorter period of time, possibly expiring this year and opening the door for the iPhone to make its way to competing carriers. Even if the original agreement did call for a five-year exclusivity period as detailed by USA Today in 2007 and confirmed in the court documents associated with this case, it is certainly possible that Apple and AT&T have renegotiated their agreement such that more recent reports of shorter timeframes are accurate.

Article Link: Lawsuit Over AT&T's iPhone Exclusivity Gains Class Action Status

 

[Ansuz82]

I get that people are upset by this and I too wish that they would unlock the phones once the contract is over, but I think that the majority of the posts are glazing over an important point.

In the US it is perfectly legal for AT&T to do what they are doing. There are no provisions that force the carrier to unlock the phone once the contract is up. The fact that AT&T does this for other phones doesn't mean anything - there is no statute forcing them to do so and anytime they do it is by their choice.

The lawsuit won't do anything as AT&T isn't breaking any law, nor are they doing something that is out of the ordinary for this industry - the only reason people are paying attention is because this is the iPhone and anything iPhone is newsworthy these days.

If you really want this to change, you have to write your Congressman and ask for legislation reforming the cellphone industry. We have to demand laws which eliminate these practices in this industry, not throw lawsuits around focusing on perfectly legal (all be it unfair) business practices.

 

[rwilliams]

I get that people are upset by this and I too wish that they would unlock the phones once the contract is over, but I think that the majority of the posts are glazing over an important point.

In the US it is perfectly legal for AT&T to do what they are doing. There are no provisions that force the carrier to unlock the phone once the contract is up. The fact that AT&T does this for other phones doesn't mean anything - there is no statute forcing them to do so and anytime they do it is by their choice.

The lawsuit won't do anything as AT&T isn't breaking any law, nor are they doing something that is out of the ordinary for this industry - the only reason people are paying attention is because this is the iPhone and anything iPhone is newsworthy these days.

If you really want this to change, you have to write your Congressman and ask for legislation reforming the cellphone industry. We have to demand laws which eliminate these practices in this industry, not throw lawsuits around focusing on perfectly legal (all be it unfair) business practices.

Very well stated, sir.

 

[notabadname]

This is lame. Anyone can sue. Doesn't mean a thing. It will lose on a couple of grounds. One; exclusive phones, from versions of the Droid, the Palm Pre to the first Storm have been around as long as the mobile phone. Two; even if Verizon had the iPhone too, the GSM versus CDMA would produce the same result; a need to purchase a compatible phone for your new carrier if you switched. This is like suing DirectTV for not making their H20 HD receiver transportable to Time Warner Cable. I also want my XBox to play PS3 discs, and it should be illegal that Bungie made Halo an XBox exclusive, lets sue them, because if I switch to PS3, I wont be able play that on PS3 ever. Of couse I still have to buy all the games again because even though most games are made for both, i can't use them on a different console. Can you say Lawsuit! And I want my Tom Tom to run Garmin's software and Ryobi tools to be required to sell their product at Lowes (it's a Home Depot exclusive). Sue!

Ridiculous what people sue over. The contract you sign is very clear, and does not guarantee transportability of your phone. You don't like, you don't buy. And we wonder why everything costs so much. Do we want capitalism or not? Sue, baby, sue.

 

[oliversl]

How bad can this lawsuit go? I ask because I'm not a lawyer. The word "class action lawsuit" does not look good on any company

 

[John.B]

Your six year old Sony-Ericsson T-Mobile phone will certainly work on ATT since it is a GSM phone. You only have to get it unlocked which is readily available. In fact T-Mobile would have unlocked it for you after six months of your contract. Sprint and Verizon are CDMA network which is a whole other issue.

There is no downside to T-Mobile if they unlock your phone. It's not like you are going to get 3G with anyone else. To them it's nothing more than a zero-cost meaningless PR move.

 

[shallowal]

couldn't the same case be brought up for Direct TV having the NFL exclusive?






all of this is such a joke.

 

[John.B]

What if someone bought their iPhone in the U.S. and after their contract had been fulfilled was relocating to the U.K.? Should they have to buy another phone when the one they have will work perfectly fine if it's unlocked?

I don't disagree with your premise, but what US court is going to have jurisdiction over you wanting to be able to unlock your phone for use in another country?

 

[quid squid]

when/if Verizon ever gets the iPhone the smartest thing they could do is offer anyone that switches from AT&T to Verizon to pay any termination of service fees from dropping AT&T.

 

[John.B]

when/if Verizon ever gets the iPhone the smartest thing they could do is offer anyone that switches from AT&T to Verizon to pay any termination of service fees from dropping AT&T.

Verizon leads the way with outrageous add-on fees, especially their early termination fees.

 

[Matt-M]

The problem is that they AT&T is not breaking any laws by not doing so.

Doesn't matter. A class action suit is a civil suit, not a criminal case. It has nothing to do with laws, only about convincing a judge that you have been wronged by someone's actions.

 

[schwell]

So I got my iPhone 4, going tomorrow to exchange it because guess what: proximity sensor doesn't work. I can't see how the replacement will work, but anyhow.
I asked to unlock my old iPhone 3G, and I was told I can't. So I have a gadget I can't use. That really ticks me off as this is something I bought, fulfilled the contract and now I can't use.
I say sue their behinds!

As for iPhone 4, Apple should recall those pieces of junk that can't be used for making phone calls. Sure they are cute, but worthless!

Why can't you use your iPhone 3G?

 

[schwell]

when/if Verizon ever gets the iPhone the smartest thing they could do is offer anyone that switches from AT&T to Verizon to pay any termination of service fees from dropping AT&T.

Verizon missed the boat on doing something smart about 3 years ago.

 

[Nostromo]

Sounds like another frivolous lawsuit to me.

Because of the financial gains to be made, lawyers prostitute themselves to sue for minor details concerning consumers, while large issues regarding environment and human rights stay untouched.

 

[splashnader]

Some people clearly did not read the article. This is not about the resale value of the iPhone. This is about the two year contract that AT&T has you sign, really being a 5 year contract. For people who bought the original iphone 2G or the 3G, they are basically buying a subsidized phone for cheaper then the actual value of the phone that Apple charges. However, once they fulfill that 2 year contract they are basically being forced to signup for another 2 year contract, at the same data/voice rates as before, extending that original contract agreement to as much as 3 additional years. That is until the exclusive agreement runs out and the customer can take their phone to another carrier, out of contract.

Because no other carrier in the US is allowed to carry the iPhone the consumer is basically being forced to either buy a new phone every two years, or keep their original phone, on contract, beyond the original contract agreement, in essence paying for more in subsidized dollars to AT&T than they legally should have to.

That is the point of the lawsuit. The consumer who purchases the iPhone, believes they are signing up for a 2 year contract. But in order to keep using that phone, they must extend that contract well beyond the 2 year agreement. Because AT&T will not unlock the phone and allow it to be taken to another carrier and used as a pay as you go option.

I am not saying that the lawsuit will be successful, but I can see their point.

 

[peterdevries]

Still dumbest lawsuit ever.

Now dumbest lawsuit ever to achieve class action status.

I think we should file a class action lawsuit agains the filing of dumb class action lawsuits.

 

[peterdevries]

Where is the class action for all this hope and change we were supposed to get, all I have gotten is the shaft.

Dude, that's Obama, not Shaft

In addition, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Kennedy was a smart guy.

 

[darkplanets]

Lol.


Need I say more?

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. A contract is a contract, and just like you can't get a big mac at mcdonalds, you can't get an iphone at verizon. This isn't exactly hard. Not to mention there's the whole hardware aspect, you know, WHERE YOU CANT PHYSICALLY USE THE PHONE. Sure, you can bring your iPhone to verizon, but its not just a brick because its not unlocked; its also a brick because the lack of CDMA. But alas, people will continue to rant, rave, and troll about how evil ATT is and how Apple is just an evil monopoly... completely ignoring the facts.

 

[thedoctor9]

Haha you gotta be kidding about t-mobile being great...it is worse than at&t

Totally agree. NO SIGNAL in Macy's basement in downtown Chicago...

 

[pika2000]

The plaintiffs have argued that even customers fulfilling their two-year contracts with AT&T for the iPhone are unable to switch carriers and continue using their handsets, effectively locking them in to AT&T for longer than their signed contract unless they are willing to switch phones.

This is flawed, as it simply shows the uneducated US consumers. Each wireless carriers in the US have their own 3G technology and/or frequency bands that are not compatible with each other (Sprint/Verizon on CDMA, AT&T and T-Mobile are using different 3G UMTS bands). In some countries, all the wireless carriers are GSM/UMTS and on the same frequency bands. You cannot force Apple to make a CDMA iPhone. It's like forcing Verizon to adopt GSM/UMTS, which obviously won't happen either.

The lawsuit should focus on provider locking, about AT&T's jurisdiction outside the US. Yes, AT&T is iPhone's exclusive carrier in the US, but if I'm outside the US, I should be able to use my iPhone with any local carriers as I'm not in the US anymore. But fact is US iPhones are provider locked. I'm amazed that nobody use this reasoning for a lawsuit yet.

 

[Rot'nApple]

I find it quite unfair that apple keeps the phone locked to ATT even after you paid your monthly fees for two years. At that point you have fullfilled the contract and the phone is yours.

How does paying all of the two year contractual agreement made between you and AT&T, allow for the disillusion of the exclusivity contract made between Apple and AT&T?

That is, your contract is complete, but Apple's and AT&T's is not, and since you were not party to the original exclusivity contract, what right do you now have to "enter" into that contract where none existed before?

That would be like you suing a weekend handyman auto mechanic over a price dispute on a repair agreement contract and in retaliation the mechanic countersues you for auto storage. The mechanic cannot now create a storage agreement or contract between the two of you where none existed before and the suit should be dismissed.

 

[Swift]

I agree, but...

I agree with much of the sentiments this suit is the evidence of. People don't like AT&T, and they'd like to move their iPhones to another 3G network. Or to the Verizon network. I agree. We should have the rights of Europeans! There, phones are sold unlocked and unsubsidized. You buy a phone, it's yours. If you can put $500 on your credit card, then you have your choice of 3 or 4 networks in most countries. You can have a monthly plan or pay as you go.

The problem is, this is a heavily-regulated setup. There, they decreed that all networks will be that way. Phones will be sold unlocked. You're not going to get an iPhone or a Droid as a $100 or $200 phone. You pay full freight.

My point is, this kind of suit is an exercise in trivia and meaningless buyoff of people with a grievance.

We need regulation of the cellphone industry. Face it, wires have a limited lifespan in front of them. Phone exchanges, and phone numbers, are about to go. All phones are on ONE network, like the Internet. Do we subsidize computers? No, though maybe we should in some circumstances.

One network. Not impossible. They're converging on it anyway, with 4G. But it's political action that's required, not debating the iPhone and Android, or which network is the crappiest and most expensive.