Zach SpearThe latest pair of suits, identical in almost every way save for the names of plaintiffs, join two from last week.
Florida residents Onel Gonzalez and Ron J. Brayteson filed a 24-page complaint in the Southern District of Florida on behalf of themselves and all members of the class in their state, demanding statutory, compensatory, and punitive damages plus interest. They also seek a ruling deeming Apple and AT&T's practices ruled unlawful, an injunction preventing them from "continuing to disseminate false and misleading advertising," and pay restitution for any ill-gotten gains.
Meanwhile, New Jersey resident Timothy Ritchie filed a 23-page complaint in the District of New Jersey for himself and all similarly situated members of his state, making the same demands as Gonzalez and Brayteson. Ritchie claims to have purchased his iPhone 3G in September 2008, while Gonzalez bought one in June 2008, and Brayteson in August.
Both suits use many of the same allegations made in the class-action lawsuit filed by four Texans last week, right down to the same phrasing. They, too, cite the conclusions of Swedish engineering weekly Ny Teknik that some phones aren't sensitive enough to 3G signals and boost their own signal to compensate, creating the network conflict.
Successive and independent evaluations contradict this theory, however, concluding that the iPhone 3G does not suffer from hardware issues but rather congested and inadequate wireless networks.
The filings spend several pages reprinting comments from blog posts and messageboards, including one customer who posted on Wired, "I have a brand new [iPhone 3G], and my home is inside an AT&T 3G coverage map (suburban area) and I NEVER get 3G reception. The iPhone flickers "3G" for a second or two and then it's all Edge all the way."
The latest complaints also allege hairline cracks in the iPhone's casing around the camera, near the volume rocker, and in other areas. Ritchie, Gonzalez and Brayteson all accuse Apple and AT&T of knowingly marketing the inherently flawed iPhone 3G devices without disclosing the 3G speed problems and hairline cracks that form.
The two sets of plaintiffs also posture their claims by referencing a August 2008 ruling in the United Kingdom that required Apple to stop advertising the iPhone's ability to access "all parts of the internet" as proof of the 3G woes. The UK regulator did not take 3G speeds into account, but rather the lack of Java and Flash support.
However, a second iPhone 3G ad was indeed banned late last year by the agency on grounds that it "it exaggerated the speed of the iPhone 3G."
Malcolm Owen
Christine McKee
William Gallagher
Amber Neely
93 Comments
Apple and AT&T are facing two more cookie-cutter lawsuits over what customers claim is poor iPhone 3G network performance and hairline cracks in the casing.
The latest pair of suits, identical in almost every way save for the names of plaintiffs, join two from last week.
One big difference of these suits vs one we argued about last week is the named defendants. One suit last week was against Apple and, amazingly, not AT&T. The slow real-world experience that some of us get is most likely AT&T's fault.
I'm wondering aloud if one of these suits finds AT&T liable (but not Apple), if Apple can break its exclusive deal with AT&T and sell iPhones via any carrier. That'll get more iPhones out there (except, of course, for the first version with cut-and-paste! )
The one thing I really hate about the iPhone is lack of carrier options. I would love to see how many people would get it if it was offered on Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile. I don't mean to sound like an ATT hater, but I do live in an area that they don't provide coverage for. I have survived with my iPhone on the roaming (free on ATT), but the coverage is less than ideal.
I have had my iPhone 3G since it's release and sure it's had it's problems but the majority of those have been fixed, perhaps AT&T in the states is rubbish, here in the UK whilst at work I am enjoying a constant 3G signal with a tested 1.4mb connection.
I do live in the sticks and don't have it there, but that's what Wifi is for!
I would be worried about visiting America, I might get sued for not trying to sue someone else!
This will work. They'll get millions ? yeah right.
I haven't been very successful in my suit against Toyota. My Avalon doesn't go anywhere near as fast as they say it can go. I've tried several times to get it to go that fast, and every time I get over 100 MPH, a cop stops me, so I don't know how fast it will really go
And my other lawsuit against my cable company isn't going well either. Seems that when ever I go online my Mac slows down after 6,000 neighbors decide to get online at the same time.
Skip
Apple and AT&T are facing two more cookie-cutter lawsuits...
Muricans love to sue, huh?
I have a 3G and it has two hairline cracks, one at the jack-hole and one on the lower corner. I also get my service from fido in Canada, so it's pretty much a lock that the service sucks, the speed sucks, the coverage sucks, and the price is through the roof.
But am I going to sue? No.
You see there is this thing called "life," where not everything is fair and there is not always someone at fault just because you didn't get what you want.
Seriously though, the irony of suing a company for failing in it's responsibilities because you don't yourself want to take any responsibility for anything is priceless. Suck it up Murica!