Plaintiffs Lawyers Say Apple Is Forcing Legal Waivers on iPhone Throttling Customers
Plaintiffs lawyers are asking Apple to stop all communications with customers about refunds and replacements unless they notify them about their right to sue. A hearing on the matter is set for Sept. 28.
August 09, 2018 at 05:02 PM
5 minute read
Plaintiffs lawyers in charge of more than 60 class actions over throttling iPhone batteries have asked a federal judge to order Apple Inc. to stop all communications with customers about refunds and replacements, unless they notify them about their right to sue.
Apple has been offering its customers $50 credit refunds or discounted battery replacements, since it admitted on Dec. 20 that it had installed software updates in older iPhones that slowed their battery life. Lawsuits claim Apple's act was intentional, designed to force customers into buying new iPhones. Plaintiffs lawyers have insisted that Apple tell customers in both programs, many of whom are prospective class members, that they could still participate in the class actions. Last month, lawyers on both sides hit an impasse over the language of such a notice.
“We've been frankly concerned for months that Apple might take the position that a customer's participation in these programs would somehow impact their claims in this case,” said Mark Molumphy of Burlingame, California's Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, whose colleague, Joseph Cotchett, is co-lead counsel in the litigation. “Initially, we were informed in private communication with them that this was a goodwill program, and won't have any impact, but then, we were told in subsequent communication, they had stated relief we've asked for in the case, and they've cited these very programs. From our point of view, if they're going to take this position that participation in this program will impact their claims and damages in this case, customers should be told that. It shouldn't just be the attorneys receiving these letters and, frankly the court should be supervising these communications.”
Plaintiffs lawyers filed their motion on Tuesday and are asking for a hearing on Sept. 28.
An Apple spokesman and its lawyers, Theodore Boutrous and Christopher Chorba, of Los Angeles-based Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, did not respond or declined to comment. But at a hearing last month, Chorba said that Apple's only concern is that “class members can't recover the same dollar twice for the same exact alleged harm,” according to the transcript.
Apple got sued one day after its announcement about the battery problems. The Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and several regulators in foreign countries announced investigations. On Dec. 28, Apple apologized and announced a program to replace batteries in older iPhones for $29, a significant discount from the usual $79 fee.
Plaintiffs lawyers immediately complained about Apple's communications with prospective class members. On Feb. 9, plaintiffs lawyers Shawn Williams of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Laurence King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, now co-lead counsel of the litigation, filed a similar motion in one of the cases. In it, they asked U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California, to order Apple to invalidate class action waivers in its terms and conditions or add language stating that customers who participated in the battery replacement program were not “relinquishing any rights or diminishing any claims.”
On April 4, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation sent all the iPhone throttling cases to Davila, who denied that motion last month so that both sides could resolve the matter on their own.
On May 23, Apple announced a program that gave a $50 credit to customers who paid full price to replace their iPhone batteries.
At that time, Apple had assured plaintiffs lawyers in a letter that “participation in a battery repair would not extinguish any legal rights or claims,” according to this week's motion, but ended with “an ominous and confusing message: 'That said, no plaintiffs or putative class members may recover twice for the same alleged injury.'”
Then, in a July 5 letter, Apple told lead plaintiffs lawyers that it had “already taken action” with respect to the “relief” sought in the lawsuits, the motion says. Apple later agreed to craft a notice insisting customers of both programs would not be waiving their legal rights, according to the motion, but then included three “carveouts.”
Plaintiffs lawyers are asking Davila to order that a notice be sent to prospective class members informing them about the lawsuits. They also want copies of all communications Apple has had with prospective class members about both programs, along with their names, email addresses and other contact information.
“We asked Apple to stipulate to that language, and they refused,” said David Straite, of Kaplan Fox in New York, another lead plaintiffs lawyer. “Even if it's a very small subset of people impacted, it needs to be explained.”
Plaintiffs lawyers filed their consolidated class action complaint on July 2 on behalf of millions of iPhone users in 40 countries, including the United States. Apple was due to file its motion to dismiss today.
Separately, on Aug. 2, Davila appointed former Jefferson County, Kentucky, Circuit Court Judge Rebecca Westerfield, now at JAMS in San Francisco, as a discovery special master in the case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'The Front Line of Regulating AI': Manatt's Brandon Reilly on CPPA's Move to Adopt New Data Broker and AI Rules
Shareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
Justices Ask If They Should Have Even Taken Nvidia’s Appeal of Investor Suit
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250