Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over iBricking -- Violation Of Antitrust Law?
from the always-gotta-sue dept
While the last class action lawsuit over the iPhone was pretty ridiculous -- claiming that the rapid price drop was illegal -- this latest one may have a bit more substance behind it. One of the victims of the infamous iPhone iBricking update has now filed a class action lawsuit against Apple, claiming that the iBricking action was a violation of California law. The specific arguments are a bit complex, but basically, the guy is claiming that in locking the handset to one carrier, Apple violated sections of the Cartwright Act, which is designed to prevent companies from creating artificial market barriers on products they sell in order to boost the price. On top of that, the lawsuit notes that unlocking a phone for use on other networks is perfectly legal under last year's DMCA exemptions. Therefore, to then brick the iPhones that were unlocked violates the California law, saying that it's illegal to take actions that "substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly." It may be a bit of a stretch to say that applies in this case, and Apple can simply plead (reasonably) that the iBricking was not on purpose, and that the company has no requirement to support unlocked handsets -- but if this case actually does get some traction, Apple may need to be a bit more careful in future firmware updates.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, class action, iphone, unlocking
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The iPhone bricking was on purpose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But anyways, I do not run apple so they can do what they want with their company. If you don't like their business practices, then don't buy their stuff.
I do how ever find is funny that the iphone FW is coded to allow 3 unlocks on the 1.02 FW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You reap what you sow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHAT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHAT
And you have a potty mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHAT
You are also wrong about the carrier, it was not sprint they signed a contract with, but AT&T, in the future try actually reading an article before commenting on it. You say 'tuff shit'? Well jackass, when corporations start making your life miserable by preventing you from doing something you want to do, and reasonably SHOULD be able to do, we will be here to say 'Tuff shit' right back at ya... jackass.
Oh, and even though its a bad analogy, the same goes for a modded xbox and M$, if they intentionally brick someone's system for modding it then they should be sued and heavily fined as well. But then again, you'd probably lack the mental fortitude to realize it was done on purpose, just like you apparently can't figure out that ibricking isn't some sort of 'accidental' side effect of the firmware update, but an intentional and deliberate act of sabotage committed by apple.
It's nothing short of vandalism and those running the company should be prosecuted and imprisoned for it. Steve Jobs may be a genius, but he's also a criminal, and should be making i-licenseplates from his cell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1.0.2 and holding...
Sadly there are serious Safari and BlueTooth vulnerabilities in the 1.0.2 release.
Who is going to file the suit that forces Apple to release an update that ONLY fixes these problems AND NOTHING ELSE??
Throw that party and I'll sign on to that class action suit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I can possibly expect apple to say "Oops. We couldn't possibly test this, so we screwed up your phone.Sorry about that, here's your money back."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just want the DISCOVERY phase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on. Let's say you buy a car and put in a different chip to mod it for better performance and in doing so you cause an engine malfunction. The car manufacturer is not going to repair your car for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
wait for it...you have built it, they will come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: WHAT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: WHAT
If you overwrite the whole of the software build the result will work as a standard Apple build (yo'd want to unlock it again).
If you overwrite only parts of the build you might have a problem in that only part of the unbricking remains (or perhaps it all remains but the new code doesn't work with it) but then you only need to reverse those parts of the unlock whch remain to restore a standard Apple build (the new build).
To get a permanent brick you either a) have unlocking software that interfers with the upgrade process (which I guess is unlikely since that's nothing to do with the purpose of the unlock) or b) it's deliberate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
AKA, You are allowed to unlock the phone if you can write the software yourself, but you cant get it from someone else or give it to someone else.
Unlocking-legal, Unlocking software-illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about remote unlocking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will never go to trial
Apple and AT&T have an exclusive, legal, and (more importantly) binding contract saying that Apple agrees to release the phones with only AT&T being able to provide service. This is legal for these two companies to do. In order for Apple to keep up its end of the bargain, they decided to disable phones that had been hacked which is completely legal to do. This won't go to trial because there is no case. The people who bought the iPhone essentially agreed to the contract Apple had with AT&T and that is all the courts need to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It will never go to trial
Secondly, If the iBricking and, in general, the exclusive deal with AT&T is deemed illegal, than it doesn't matter what they signed. If the act is illegal than the contract is null and void.
This needs to be added to the urban dictionary
iBrick - a device that had been rendered inoperable due to an upgrade that was not tested with custom software.
PS: it is vary possible that the unlocking software removed or changed (intentionally or unintentionally) something that the upgrade is looking for which would cause it to go into a loop and not work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It will never go to trial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple not reposnsible
Apple went so far as to publicly warn people against updating an unlocked iPhone, and the morons did it anyway. Wether the patch was intentional or not doesn't change that Apple told you not to unlock it, and if you did, not to install the last firmware update.
Your just too stupid to listen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple not reposnsible
You're just too stupid to spell "you're".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do people keep saying Sprint?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreeing to License Agreements???
I bought my iPhones as refurbs direct from Apple. There was never any 'Activation' or AT&T signup via iTunes and never any click thru agreements due to the use of various software hacks, tricks and workaraounds available. --I-- am under absolutely no obligation to either Apple or AT&T. The iPhone is mine to do with as I wish.
That said, I realize that Apple owes me nothing either...EXCEPT...
...that Apple does have a moral and ethical obligation to the compusphere to fix security holes in its products. The 1.0.2 version has several Safari vulnerabilities and one very nasty BlueTooth hole. Apple needs to release a patch to fix these holes (and ONLY fix these holes) if it wishes to remain a good "computing security citizen".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intent does matter.
Doesn't it depend on whether that pleading is, you know, true? If there's an internal email that says "we know it's legal for consumers to unlock the phones they bought, and the current dev version of the new firmware works on unlocked phones, but we need to update that so it bricks them"... wouldn't that be pretty flagrantly illegal?
Sure, Apple has no responsibility to support unlocked phones, if the unlocking causes problems. I don't know about other states, but I'm pretty confident that California's warranty laws would prevent Apple from, say, refusing to replace a defective LCD on the basis that the phone was unlocked.
And seeing as how people spent hundreds of dollars to purchase a product, and the law explicitly says they are allowed to unlock that product, intentionally and maliciously breaking the product in an "update" strictly to punish those people who chose to excercise their right seems pretty actionable to me.
If it genuinely was inadvertent, or even wink wink accdental, sure, Apple is just operating normally. If the bricking was planned, intentional, and not the side effect of other changes, I'd have no problem with them being put through the legal wringer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business model
Isn't that Apple's entire business model?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rotten Apple
1.) Create a stylish product that looks good but doesn't do critical things that regular cell phones do very well.
2.) Sell the iPhone at full price (unsubsidized) while at the same time, locking customers into a two year exclusive contract with AT&T.
3.) Prevent developers from creating applications for use on the iPhone, thereby inhibiting it from doing things that less expensive smart phones do easily.
4.) iBrick hacked phones with a software update to prevent them from being unlocked and used on other networks.
Those who hacked their phones should've seen this coming and simply not downloaded the update, unless the iPhone has some sort of back door "phone home mode" similar to Windows Updates, that causes it to "seek out, download, and install" the update. THAT would be a most damaging bit of evidence against Apple if it could be proven that they not only intentionally iBricked iPhones, but caused this iBricking through a back door system in the iPhone.
In the end, for Apple, this isn't really about innovation or customer happiness. It's about money. The exclusive contract with AT&T had to have been agreed to for some astronomical sum or the promise of a set fee per activated iPhone. There likely was some clause built into their contract for Apple to lose money if iPhones are permitted to be unlocked and used on competing networks. It will be interesting to see how this ordeal affects sales of new iPhones. Would you buy one if you knew that yours could be inadvertently bricked with a software update?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big mistake
I think the very fact that Apple (most likely bound by a clause in its contract with AT&T) is keeping the phones locked is disturbing. Perhaps, a lot of the users wouldn't mind that the phone can't have 3rd party software installed. However, having an operator-locked phone even after paying the full price is a bit too much.
I agree that most phones in the US are operator locked, but then one can get the unlock code from the operator (and not the manufacturer because the operator is the one subsidizing the price of the handset) on request (they cannot refuse because the law asks them to do so). However, Apple (being the manufacturer of a un-subsidized phone) refuses to lock the iPhone.
I know this because I have called Apple support a number of times asking clarification on this and they say that if you go outside the US with your iPhone, you either H+E+A+V+I+L+Y pay for the international roaming or you just use it as a $400 paper-weight. This, is when I am in no 2-year contract with AT&T as I am a GoPhone subscriber. I don't have a long credit history in the US, so Apple's own activation process (in conjunction with AT&T) refused to sign me up for a 2-year contract but asked me to sign-up for a GoPhone. It hardly mattered to me and I figured that I will have a better chance at getting the phone legally unlocked. Does that fall under unfair trade practices? I would expect it to. Does Apple know? I'm sure they do. Did they think about it? I'm sure they did. Did they care about the law? In my opinion, they said, 'Heck with the law!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]