Class Action Against Apple & AT&T Over iPhone Moves Forward
from the not-buying-it dept
It looks like a class action lawsuit against Apple and AT&T for the way the two companies have conducted business around the iPhone is going to finally move forward. A judge in California is consolidating a few different such cases, covering two separate issues. The first questions whether or not the lock-in that required iPhone buyers to remain with AT&T for five years is legal, and the second questions the legality of the iPhone's app store, where Apple is the gatekeeper. To be honest, even as the consolidated case moves forward, I can't see either claim getting very far. Both seem to represent reasonable business decisions, and it's difficult to see an argument that Apple should have been forced to act otherwise.
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: class action, iphone
Companies: apple, at&t
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That's a long time...
Five years!? What happened to two years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's a long time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's a long time...
So where the heck are you SUPPOSED to be able to take it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's a long time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How did you come to this conclusion?
The 5yr apple/att lock is limited duration which you can avoid.
DRM on the other hand does not expire and for some, there may not be a choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I agree with you that this is a double standard. However, I think the high profile of the iPhone is a good place to start with demolishing this restriction. It's a huge privilege that the carriers have this restriction to begin with. I can't think of another industry that guarantees its income and significantly reduces the ability for the consumer to vote with their wallet (is this common elsewhere?). Either way, removing this restriction should increase each carrier's desire to compete because more money is at stake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you going to demolish physics too?
Since Apple doesn't make a CDMA-based phone (and likely won't until LTE), simply demolishing the rule doesn't change one, single, solitary thing.
An Evo can't run on AT&T. An iPhone can't run on Verizon or Sprint. Or to borrow an argument from below, if you buy a car with a diesel engine, don't whine about how you can't fill it up with gasoline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you going to demolish physics too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you going to demolish physics too?
I tried this by placing an AT&T SIM in an unlocked phone and the menu to manually select a system will automagically disappear.
Also, the SIMs are programmed to show the AT&T banner on the phone in areas where they have roaming agreements yet lack network coverage.
This is misleading: if someone has trouble with obtaining a signal and AT&T doesn't manage the network, they can't fix it regardless of how many times you call customer service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you going to demolish physics too?
I tried this by placing an AT&T SIM in an unlocked phone and the menu to manually select a system will automagically disappear.
Also, the SIMs are programmed to show the AT&T banner on the phone in areas where they have roaming agreements yet lack network coverage. This too is misleading because if someone has trouble with obtaining a signal and AT&T doesn't actually manage the network, they can't fix it regardless of how many times you call customer service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you going to demolish physics too?
Also, the SIMs are programmed to show the AT&T banner on the phone in areas where they have roaming agreements yet lack network coverage. This too is misleading because if someone has trouble with obtaining a signal and AT&T doesn't actually manage the network, they can't fix it regardless of how many times you call customer service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you going to demolish physics too?
Also, the SIMs are programmed to show the AT&T banner on the phone in areas where they have roaming agreements yet lack network ownership. This too is misleading because if someone has trouble with obtaining a signal and AT&T doesn't actually manage the network, they can't fix it regardless of how many times you call customer service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My two cents.
I disagree with this completely. Originally, I didn't have a problem with this, but years later, it has become a big problem.
For starters, Apple is removing apps people may be seeing as beneficial to warrant a purchase of the device. To sign up for 2+ years, then have the very reason(s) removed without notice can not be defined as a "reasonable" business decision.
Then, there's AT&T's recent announcement any new contracts now require a limited data plan. For users of the phone, this is damaging, especially if they're heavy users. AT&T has deliberately enacted this plan because its iPhone base represents heavy users. People who discover what the phone can do usually do it more often, including viewing videos online. Again, there is absolutely nothing "reasonable" about this change. Throw in the fact AT&T is the only company supporting the iPhone and dubious replaces "reasonable".
I believe these lawsuits will fail because of the way they're drawn up, rather than the implications of having such actions taken against users who believed their products would support their decisions, not shaft them into "going by the rules" which no one saw coming.
This is the very same reason why people are suing Sony for removing a feature maybe less than 2% of owners actually use, including the Air Force.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but how are any of these choices being done by companies considered "reasonable", Mike? There wouldn't be any lawsuits filed if people did consider them such.
I just don't believe it's a coincidence these changes came after a few noticed the "lock in" people are now tied to.
Don't forget about those increased ETFs.
Reasonable? No way are these changes reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My two cents.
From a consumer point of view, all of the information about the app store was out there from the moment it opened. Apple were known to be the only people in charge of apps from the very beginning, so suing them after the fact probably won't work. People who bought the iPhone before the app store opened don't have a case, as that wouldn't have influenced their decision.
With the AT&T lock-in, it gets a little hazier for me as I'm not that familiar with the ins and outs of US networks, but the 2 year lock-in sounds reasonable from a business perspective (a hardware provider with no track record of making phones would need assurances from network providers, and an exclusive contract is one way to get that). If it was extended to 5 years or there were other shenanigans that changed the deal after people bought the phones, there might be a case, but it's still reasonable from a business point of view for a brand new device.
"This is the very same reason why people are suing Sony for removing a feature maybe less than 2% of owners actually use, including the Air Force."
That's different, as it involves a change in the terms of service after the product was purchased. Somebody could reasonable say that they bought a PS3 instead of a 360 purely because of that feature, and so Sony could be said to be unfairly or falsely marketing features to leverage the marketplace. Unless I'm wrong about the AT&T deal, I'm not seeing where Apple did this, and I don't count the following:
"Apple is removing apps people may be seeing as beneficial to warrant a purchase of the device."
The removal of apps from the store does not affect people who have already bought the app in question. So, what you're arguing for here is that people have bought an iPhone instead of, say, an Android phone specifically because they knew a particular app was available and the removal of the app invalidated their reason for purchase before they could obtain the app. This strikes me as being a rather unlikely situation, and certainly not one experienced by most users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
att lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: att lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
France ruled that this was considered unfair, and forced to break the deal between Orange and Apple, thus allowing other companies to sell Iphones with their own contracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's better then infinity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's better then infinity
It is possible to buy unlocked iPhones and other mobiles, but they're significantly more expensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't they have to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Didn't they have to?
As you say, though, the market is a lot different now.
What I find curious is that while the iPhone was delayed in Canada it wasn't long once it came in that all three major carriers (Bell, Rogers and Telus) were flogging the thing while it remains exclusive to AT&T in the U.S.
And no, I'm not a fan of lock in either. I can see the two year contract but beyond that a handset owner ought to be free to go where they want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Didn't they have to?
To see what coverage AT&T actually owns, I suggest you take a look at their prepaid coverage maps. With prepaid services, they need the ability to shut off phones with relative immediacy and can do this on network segments that they own. The same capability isn't readily available if you're on a partner or roaming network. So look at the prepaid offering for AT&T's native service areas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because they can doesn't mean they should be allowed to.
When you purchase something it should be yours to do with as you like. The company shouldn't be able to retroactively force you do use it a certain way, nor should they be able to change the rules, or remove functionality after the fact.
For those of you who would say "If you don't like it, then don't buy an iPone." That isn't an answer, or at least not one we would accept in any other aspect of our lives.
If you buy a Ford you have to use only Exxon gas. You can only get parts at the Ford dealership, and any 'aftermarket' enhancements (say a new surround sound stereo or GPS) can only be bought through the Ford store. Ford reserves the right, solely at its own discretion to remove or disable functionality after the fact. [And the latest model stalls if you hold the steering wheel a certain way, but don't worry they'll happily sell you a custom steering wheel cover for only $29.99 {sorry I couldn't resist}].
I mean, if you don't like it, then you could always not buy a Ford right?
You can only use analog phones on AT&T's network that are manufactured by AT&T.
You can only read you set of encyclopedias at a kitchen table [and the printer reserves the right to delete pages at it's sole discretion].
You can only wear your Nike sneakers with socks purchased at the Nike store. You can only run on streets that Nike has pre-approved. You can only wear them to Gold's Gym (use in Planet Fitness, Curves, or your local YMCA is strictly prohibited). You can only purchase laces or insoles from authorized partners from the Nike Store. Nike at it sole discretion reserves the right to change the places you can wear you Nike's or remove your laces or insoles.
Microsoft Windows can only be run on approved Microsoft devices. All applications must be bought at the Microsoft app store. Microsoft reserves the right to delete purchased applications or otherwise remove functionality at its sole discretion.
None of the above would be tolerated, so why it it 'O.K.' for Apple and AT&T?
If 'just don't buy a ' isn't a legal answer, why should it be when we are talking about an iPhone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So was the Internet Explorer integration in Windows, or the media Player pre-instaled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Complaints about AT& and the iPhone
You know, no one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. If you don't like the deal, go someplace else and get a different phone.
The idea is that even though you signed up for 2 years, at the end of 2 years there was no where else to go with your iPhone so it's really 5 years.
As for a "5 year lock-in" - no such thing. You're under contract for two years, which is typical in the industry. At the end of that two years you can renew, upgrade, or leave. Since most people must replace their phone when they change carriers anyway due to difference in carrier's technology, having "no where else to go with your iPhone is a specious argument at best
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CA
That does not prove price fixing. In fact, in a perfectly competitive market, the goods will naturally have the same or similar price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there any other defense than 'don't buy it'?
JD: "You know, no one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. If you don't like the deal, go someplace else..."
Can the Apple/AT&T defenders come up with anything other than "if you don't like it then don't buy it"?
Just because you can purchase a car/tv/computer/shoes/mobile phone from more than one company doesn't make it legal for them to dictate what or how you can use your purchase after the fact. Nor does it justify forcing you to make other related purchases on their terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there any other defense than 'don't buy it'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now that I know this about iPhone users / purchasers I will put the following question on the application for employment with my company.
"Do you own an iPhone with an active account. Yes or No."
Answer yes and I think you're an idiot for agreeing to such a stupid plan. So guess what? I won't hire you because you are going to cost me nothing but money. You make bad monetary decisions. If you own a business and I see you using one, I don't even want to shop at your business because you are an idiot.
You locked into a 5 year plan for a phone that is extremely overpriced and the apps are locked up like all Apple software and plus your app only works on 1 phone.
Idiots!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*facepalm*
I am glad to know that there are idiots out there (e.g. you) who would deny employment on a knee-jerk reaction to something they misinterpreted. Good day sir, you have failed my pre-employment employer assessment. That's a hard one to fail too so my hat is certainly off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wireless 101
Verizon and Sprint are both CDMA-based networks -- that is why they require different handsets... and why Apple would need to develop a different iphone to work on their networks.
Not only is this class action lawsuit irresponsible, without any merit and just another case of lawyers hoping for a settlement without going to court -- it is also technically without any justification in this country.
Stupid, stupid, STUPID!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
an XBox360.......
An XBox360 suffers from some of the same problems as an iPhone (except the holding the controllers thing), but not all of them.
Similarities:
XBox Live == AT&T
XBox360 peripherals (memory, hard drives) you can only use over priced Microsoft components rather than perfectly good 3rd party parts.
XBox360 arbitrary changes by Microsoft after the fact.
With the second one I believe that Microsoft is, or is about to be sued for. We'll have to await the Sony suit over the third.
Differences:
The XBox360 is a machine for playing XBox360 games. You can play games without buying them from Microsoft or through XBox Live.
The iPhone is ostensibly a mobile phone. You can't legally use it to make phone calls without going through AT&T.
If the XBox360 _required_ purchasing XBox Live and only allowed you to play games purchased from XBox Live then it would be a closer analogy.
Just like you can't expect to play PS3 titles on an XBox360 doesn't mean that you should expect a GSM iPhone to work on a CDMA network. You should be able to use the GSM iPhone on any GSM network.
In the iPhone's case you should be able to install any compatible software (i.e. written to work on the iPhone)
without forcing you to go through the iStore. It shouldn't void your warranty, to install compatible aftermarket software. Just like the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act prohibits Ford from voiding your warranty if you install compatible aftermarket parts, it should prohibit Apple from doing the same thing with aftermarket software.
"Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[2] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions[3], and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives." ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: an XBox360.......
I really don't like this. I don't know for sure if it's legal or not, but it's heavily anti-consumer for sure.
XBox360 arbitrary changes by Microsoft after the fact.
Do you mean changes to the Live service? Or OS updates? I'm not aware of anything significant like with the PS3 recently, but it could be a concern. As for the former, I think they should be allowed to change their service however they choose. They could abuse this, but I think I company needs the freedom to adjust its services. They should be required to give fair notice and issue refunds to anyone who doesn't agree to the changes. For the latter, this is another thing that rubs me the wrong way. It's ripe for abuse to make me accept your latest OS version in order to play online. Again, I don't think MS has done anything nefarious here, but Sony has and MS could some time.
You should be able to use the GSM iPhone on any GSM network.
Isn't that possible? I don't have one so haven't looked into it, but if there's another GSM network (T-Mobile?) can't you unlock your iPhone and use it elsewhere? Minus the app store I assume.
It shouldn't void your warranty, to install compatible aftermarket software.
I agree, that's BS. I don't mind if it voids support, but the warranty on defects should be intact. What I mean is, if you've jailbroken your iPhone and you call in to say your home screen is messed up, I don't mind AT&T or Apple saying they have no idea what your software might have done to your phone and they can help you if you want to return it to its factory condition. On the other hand, if the screen cracks from normal usage, they need to honor the warranty.
I think the app store aspect of the suit seems to have a better chance than the lock-in. I would think prohibiting exclusive cell phone contracts would be a matter for Congress to take up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: an XBox360.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasonable? Are you kidding?
Lets get a few facts straight.
1. You buy a iPhone and a 2 year contract. After 2 years you can't use your iPhone anywhere else. Thus your contract to use your phone is now 5 years.
2. You buy any other phone from At&t and after your 2 year contract they'll unlock it for you. Since after 2 years you do in fact OWN your phone.
3. The iPhone is the only phone At&t won't unlock.
4. the DMCA gives us the right to unlock our phones for the purpose of moving to a different service provider. Apple broke peoples phones because they unlocked them.
5. None of this was disclosed before people got their phones nor was this in their contracts. If you own your phone and are out of contract yet your phone can only be used on one network then you are in fact not free from that contract.
I for one plan to join this class action to show support in a case that clearly has merit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reasonable? Are you kidding?
Read wireless 101 above -- may provide some insights to your foolishness.
The willingness to allow users to take their phones to other carriers is "voluntary" action by the carriers -- not federally mandated. Unlike the rest of the world, there is very little use or precedent for unlocking in the US.
The radio chipsets dictate the functionality of the phone. Different wireless standard also drive different features.
So much to learn... so little smarts... go sue McDonalds for giving you Hot coffee (which you choose to hold between your legs instead of using your cupholder).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is with the t-mobile hate?
I'm still putting up with it because I like the device, but I should not have to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
att iphone list?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ipod/iphone/ipad/macbook parts supplier in shenzhen china
my name is lisa liu, i am from KINGWISE INT'L CO.,LTD in shenzhen china. We have supply ipod
parts/iphone parts/ipad parts/macbook parts and other Digital Accessories in Shenzhen China
for many years .Our main products include:
unibody macbook pro glass panel 13.3" $28.7
unibody macbook pro glass panel 15.4" $37.7
unibody macbook pro glass panel 17.1" $40.8
ipad digitizer at OEM 43.3$ Original 58.7$
ipad LCD at 58$ Original
ipad back cove wifi $23
ipad back cove 3g $23
Iphone 4g Full touch screen Assembly 72$
Iphone 4g touch screen at OEM 21$ Original $35.5
iphone 4g back cove at $28
iphone 3GS touch screen OEM $5.2
iphone 3Gs Full touch screen Assembly $15.8
iphone 3gs LCD toshiba $20.7 Sharp $24.5
iphone 3Gs Full lcd screen Assembly $42
ipone 3GS Full back cove assembly $65
iphone 3G touch screen OEM $5.2
iphone 3G Full touch screen Assembly $15.5
iphon 3G LCD toshiba $17 sharp $20.7
iphone 3G Full lcd screen Assembly $39.5
ipone 3G back cove assembly $62
iphone 2G Full Display Assembly $49.5
iphone 2G Full back cove assembly $16.8
ipod touch 1st gen digitizer screen $6.2
ipod touch 1st gen lcd screen $7.4
ipod touch 1st battery $2.1
ipod touch 2nd gen digitizer screen $6.5
ipod touch 2nd gen lcd screen $7.8
ipod touch 2nd gen battery $2.1
ipod touch 2nd gen back cove 7.4
ipod touch 3rd gen digitizer screen $6.8
ipod touch 3rd gen screen $14.2
ipod touch 3rd gen battery $2.1
ipod touch 3rd gen back cove 7.8
ipod video 30G HDD mk3008gal $24.5
ipod video 80G HDD MK8010GAH $44.5
ipod video 120G HDD MK1224GAH $53
ipod classic 80G HDD MK8022GAA $51.8
ipod classic 120G HDD MK1231GAL $66.7
ipod classic 160G HDD MK1626GCB $71.5
ipod classic 160G HDD MK1634GAL $102
hope we can do businees ,waiting for your good news. thanks
2010-10-25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: KINGWISE INT'L CO.,LTD.
Contact : Lisa
Tel: 0086-755-23815871 Fax: 0086-755-23815871
Mobil:86-13926540692 MSN:juan19841230@hotmail.com
http://www.ipodsparts.com Email:hkingwise@gmail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]