AT&T/Apple Class Action Lawsuit Official

[Bateluer]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/09/...ity-lawsuit-granted-class-action-certificati/

Hey, remember that iPhone class-action lawsuit we poked around in a couple months ago and discovered Apple's lawyers confirming the original five year AT&T exclusivity agreement? Well, get ready to hear about it a lot more in the months to come, as the judge in the case has officially certified the case as a class action, meaning it now officially includes anyone who's ever bought an iPhone on AT&T. If you'll recall, the argument is that iPhone customers signed up for a two-year contract without being told that AT&T had an exclusive for five years -- thus in reality being held to the carrier for an additional three years without recourse. Sure, that sounds a little silly, but if you bought the first-gen iPhone and wanted to stick with the platform it's the truth -- discounting the fact, of course, that no one's required to buy another Phone after two years, and even then you have to sign a new contract. While we're definitely curious to see if the plaintiffs can get past that little logical hurdle and win something more than a token settlement, we're far more interested to see if they can get any more documentation from Apple nailing down its actual agreement with AT&T. Should be juicy -- we'll keep you in the loop.

I'm no Apple or iPhone fan, but the premise behind this lawsuit seems stupid. Neither AT&T or Apple put a gun to anyone's head and made them sign a new contract or buy a next gen iPhone. If this lawsuit had merit, then you could file suit against any carrier that locked you into a specific device for a specific time.

If you bought an 1G iPhone, you signed a 2 year contract, committing you to at least two years with the product/carrier regardless of how long AT&T's exclusivity contract was. At the end of your 2 years, you could re-up for another 2 years, or purchase a new phone from another carrier. Alternatively, you could also get service through T-Mobile with that iPhone, though that is a 'gray' area.

Seems like a dumb suit.

 

[boomhower]

I don't see how this every got this far. Absolutely retarded.

 

[QueBert]

It got this far because it's Apple, I guess the people involved don't know Apple has extended the return period for the iPhone 4 so everyone who has one is still able to return it for a full fucking refund. I'm not exactly sure how a person could even join a lawsuit when the product in question is still returnable. If you don't like your iPhone 4 return the bitch, nobody's stopping you. I hope all the people involved in get a pile of shit from a big ass dog. This is nothing but people being greedy.

 

[TheWart]

It got this far because it's Apple, I guess the people involved don't know Apple has extended the return period for the iPhone 4 so everyone who has one is still able to return it for a full fucking refund. I'm not exactly sure how a person could even join a lawsuit when the product in question is still returnable. If you don't like your iPhone 4 return the bitch, nobody's stopping you. I hope all the people involved in get a pile of shit from a big ass dog. This is nothing but people being greedy.

You must be thinking of the iPhone 4 reception lawsuit. The one to which the OP is referring is even more absurd, as people are suing because they claim AT&T and Apple 'tricked' them into a 5 year contract (because Apple's exclusivity arrangement with AT&T is reportedly 5 years).

Absolutely ridiculous, but perhaps it will finally reveal the actual length of the exclusivity agreement heh.

 

[zerocool84]

You must be thinking of the iPhone 4 reception lawsuit. The one to which the OP is referring is even more absurd, as people are suing because they claim AT&T and Apple 'tricked' them into a 5 year contract (because Apple's exclusivity arrangement with AT&T is reportedly 5 years).

Absolutely ridiculous, but perhaps it will finally reveal the actual length of the exclusivity agreement heh.

Yea this lawsuit is retarded. I swear, people get more and more stupid. No one is forcing you to get the damn phone.

 

[gsaldivar]

It seems strange mainly because there haven't been many (any?) cases where the manufacturer's carrier-exclusivity period actually exceeds the contracts life of the phone...

If you think about it though, it makes sense:

In the US, the vast majority of phones are sold at a carrier-subsidized contract price. You pay a discounted amount for the phone, and agree to purchase a minimum level of service for a certain period of time - usually 24 months. So your up front cost is lower, and the carrier recovers their subsidy through the sale of the service contract.

Part of the issue is exactly when ownership of the phone reverts to the customer. At the time of purchase, part of the purchase price of the phone is paid by you, and the remainder is paid for by the carrier. Now, it isn't in the carrier's interest to disclose their cost price of the phone or the portion of the monthly service fees that are credited against the phone's actual cost, nor is it in their interest to grant ownership of the phone to the customer before they have to.

Since ownership of the phone implies that the carrier no longer has the authority to lock the device to its network, the assumption is that when the customer has offset the full cost of the phone, the carrier is obligated to unlock the device thus allowing it to be used on any network the purchaser desires.

There are different formulas that have used by carriers to determine ownership, to simplify things most carriers simply use a fixed number of months to establish when the purchaser has the right to request an "unlock" of their phone.

The only problem, is that Apple has limited the options available to the purchaser by entering into an agreement with the carrier for device exclusivity. Now that the purchaser presumably owns the right to use their phone on a network of their own choosing, they discover that they can not exercise that right due to Apple's agreement with the carrier that was not made public at the time of the purchase of the phone.

 

[gsaldivar]

At the end of your 2 years, you could re-up for another 2 years, or purchase a new phone from another carrier.

If the phone is in working condition at the end of the 2 year agreement, why shouldn't the purchaser be allowed to activate service with a different carrier?

 

[TheWart]

If the phone is in working condition at the end of the 2 year agreement, why shouldn't the purchaser be allowed to activate service with a different carrier?

Which you can. You just have to unlock the phone, which is completely legal and takes like 10 minutes.

 

[gsaldivar]

Which you can. You just have to unlock the phone, which is completely legal and takes like 10 minutes.

The actual unlock may be legal, but can you legally activate with a non-Apple partnered carrier in the US?

 

[TheWart]

The actual unlock may be legal, but can you legally activate with a non-Apple partnered carrier in the US?

People do this all the time with Tmobile afaik.

 

[Bateluer]

The actual unlock may be legal, but can you legally activate with a non-Apple partnered carrier in the US?

Yes, T-Mobile. The procedure isn't listed on their site, but if you contact their CS, they will help you set it up. They'd rather have you paying them money every month than AT&T. For a while, T-Mobile was the only way iPhone owners could send MMS messages as well.

 

[jpeyton]

The iP4 antenna class-action will be much more interesting.

 

[zylander]

Stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard of.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I actually think the case has some merit, after the original contract period, one would expect to be able to use the device on another carrier, this case is really about the first iPhone buyers who signed a 2 year contract and have a reasonable expectation to be able to use the device on another carrier without having to unlock it.

As a result, we may find out when ATT's carrier exclusivity expires.

 

[zylander]

I dont get it though; doesnt any phone need to be unlocked in order to use it on another carrier?

 

[gsaldivar]

Yes, T-Mobile. The procedure isn't listed on their site, but if you contact their CS, they will help you set it up. They'd rather have you paying them money every month than AT&T. For a while, T-Mobile was the only way iPhone owners could send MMS messages as well.

I'm sure T-Mobile will happily take your money, but I think you're missing the point.

If it's permissible to unlock and activate with a competing carrier, why then did Apple brick those phones with an update, then refuse to repair or replace them under warranty for the express reason that unlocked phones were not covered under warranty?

 

[gsaldivar]

I dont get it though; doesnt any phone need to be unlocked in order to use it on another carrier?

Yes.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Which you can. You just have to unlock the phone, which is completely legal and takes like 10 minutes.

It is a violation of the TOS of the phone though.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I dont get it though; doesnt any phone need to be unlocked in order to use it on another carrier?

Not exactly, carrier subsidized phones are typically locked (at least in the US), but ATT and TMobile will provide the means to unlock a phone, but ATT will not provide the unlock codes for iPhones.

TMobile will provide the code after 90 days of service on a given line, regardless of the handset.

 

[TheWart]

It is a violation of the TOS of the phone though.

Which seems like a moot point if your contract is up.

 

[shortylickens]

Screw ATT.
Screw Apple.
And the hell with anyone who was foolish enough to deal with them in the first place. When you voluntarily share a cell with the two biggest rapists in prison, dont complain if you wake up with a sore ass.

 

[speg]

The only good thing about this is the potential to learn about details of the Apple/ATT exclusivity contract. I would love to know how/when that is going to end.

 

[MotF Bane]

The only good thing about this is the potential to learn about details of the Apple/ATT exclusivity contract. I would love to know how/when that is going to end.

This.

 

[jpeyton]

The only good thing about this is the potential to learn about details of the Apple/ATT exclusivity contract. I would love to know how/when that is going to end.

It won't "end" before AT&T offers Apple billions in a profit-sharing agreement for keeping the iPhone exclusive. And if Apple accepts, it will not "end" any time soon.

Who in their right mind would voluntarily pick AT&T over Verizon if both had the iPhone? AT&T knows it. They are going to make an *extremely* enticing offer to keep all those lucrative iPhone contracts on their network.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Which seems like a moot point if your contract is up.

Not if you want updates to the phone.

You're missing the point, there's no sanctioned method to unlock the phone despite the contract being up after 2 years like there is with every single GSM phone available.

There's also 3GS models that at present cannot be unlocked at all. Granted their two year contracts are not up yet, but you can buy unsubsidized 3GS phones now...

What about people who are willing to pay the early termination fee too. Rather than go with the 2 years, they payed extra to get out of the contract, they own the phone now.