“The ongoing pursuit of technophiles to unlock Apple’s multipurpose iPhone made a detour into court yesterday, when a man who bought three iPhones in early July filed a class action for an injunction against the company in state Supreme Court, claiming that, at the time of his purchase, Apple had not fully disclosed that the phone was impenetrable to outside service providers,” Sarah Portlock reports for The New York Sun.
“The plaintiff, Herbert Kliegerman, 68, said Apple did not disclose that iPhones would be programmed to accept service contracts exclusively from AT&T,” Portlock reports.
“As a frequent international traveler, Mr. Kliegerman’s suit claims he wanted to purchase a foreign service subscriber identity module, also known as a SIM card, that would allow him to use local cell phone providers and decrease his roaming charges overseas, but that he was informed he could not, “Portlock reports. “AT&T provides unlock codes for SIM cards for non- iPhone phones, according to his complaint.”
“The suit extends his class action to include any New York State resident who purchased an iPhone since its release, which, according to the lawsuit, may be more than 50,000 customers,” Portlock reports.
Full article here.
From our iPhone box: “Minimum new two-year wireless service plan with AT&T required to activate all iPhone features, including iPod features… Service plan with AT&T required for cellular network capabilities on expiration of initial two-year contract. Wireless service is solely provided by and is the responsibility of AT&T.”
Perhaps Apple should sue Mr. Kliegerman for not being able to read and/or making assumptions that are contradictory to what’s explicitly stated on the product’s box.
If anything, Kliegerman should be suing AT&T over disclosure, not Apple.
Oh comeon how hard is it really to bloody read?
I haven’t got an iphone here in this part of the world and already I know it’s AT&T
This guy needs glasses and an extra ear
I bought a drink, and a few hours later I pissed my pants.
Who do I sue?
These idiots should sue Dr. Seuss for their lack of education.
Other phones require a two year activation, but ATT does allow them to be unlocked so they can be used when you travel. You still are obligated to the contract, and have to pay for an additional SIM when you are abroad.
I don’t see why Apple and ATT unlocks the phone, but to use all of the features, you have to be on an ATT network.
Blame the judges that allow this kind of cr*p into court. So long as the courts welcome junk lawsuits, there will be junk lawsuits.
High technology baffles another potty old buffer.
WHAT?!
shouldn’t dude be sueing at&t? after all they are the ones that are suppose to deal with the service providing, not apple. it was even stated in the article that at&t has unlocked other phones—just not the iphone. it’s at&t’s responsibility to allow for that if they wanna allow for that, rite? i mean, it’s not like apple didn’t approach other providers b4 at&t, they were just dumb and didn’t see a reason to have an exclusive contract with ’em (ahem, verizon—guess they didn’t like that they couldn’t hack the hello outta the iphone like they do with all their other phones). it’s not like this is the 1st time at&t/cingular has had an exclusive contract to have a phone b4 everyone else anyway (the razr comes to mind). ah well, guess ppl just wanna try to make a buck anyway they can now-a-days. buncha frivolous lawsuit losers!
Well, very similar wording regarding AT&T’s service exclusivity exists in fine print of any other GSM phone out there. Yet, literally EVERY other GSM phone can be unlocked; you call AT&T, they e-mail you the instructions and you unlock it. I have done this seven times before, with phones from T-Mobile, as well as Cingular. Since it is not explicitly stated anywhere on the iPhone package (or fine print), I would expect the same for the iPhone – the ability to ask and receive from AT&T instructions to remove SIM lock. I don’t want to hold onto an old GSM phone, so that I can travel overseas without incurring $2,000+ roaming charges. I don’t want to have to copy all my contacts, pictures, calendar and music to that old phone, so that I can swap my AT&T SIM card for a local card abroad. I want to be able to do with the iPhone what I was able to do with every GSM phone I ever purchased from a US carrier. This is not an unusual expectation, and is not clearly or specifically contradicted anywhere in the contract.
I really hope this lawsuit causes some changes in AT&T policies. I doubt Apple has any great stake at this; it is an issue that mainly affects AT&T’s business. It would really be annoying to have to wait for five years, until the exclusive agreement expires, before we finally receive AT&T’s help in unlocking the devices.
Dumbass.
MW: Season. It’s the season for dumbasses.
People like this, quite simply, need to be punched in the face.
Just another idiot waiting for a reason to sue someone and cash in… Only in America!!!
As I see it, AT&T/Apple selling the iPhone on a locked in basis has it’s problems, there may or may not be reasons why they shouldn’t be able to do it, but to say that it wasn’t clear is crap. It says on the box and the Ads say that it’s only on AT&T. Even if it weren’t as clear as that, what idiot buys something making a huge assumption then blames the people he purchased the product from? Oh wait.. These guys do.
To Jake:
The judges have no say in what cases are filed in their courts. In our legal system, anyone can file a lawsuit, no matter how stupid. The judge isn’t even involved at the filing stages.
Actually, this guy is just a dope. His lawyer on the other hand should be disbarred for clogging our court system with a clearly frivolous suit. Just like a doctor who does a knee replacement on a patient with a normal knee just because a patient wants one should not be practicing medicine.
Listen up
The guy knows it’s a bogus suit, the lawyers most likely read the fine print to him and he decided to pursue it anyway.
His real objective may be to force Apple to open the device up when it goes international.
He’s got the money to blow, so let him blow it in the interest for everyone.
Yup, it is all Apple’s fault. They should have posted it in 14 gazillion languages including Klingon. My iPhone don’t work on Vulcan.
Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
MW = “faith”, as in, Oh yee of little.
Wow. I don’t think you could find an advertisement, or even one of the gazillion articles written about the phone, that did not clearly state that the iPhone is AT&T only.
At least one poster, Predrag seems to understand this lawsuit. The Plaintiff DID activicate with AT&T. Nowhere did Apple disclose that the iPhone is LOCKED to ONLY work with AT&T.
Not everyone is blessed with knowledge of subsidiary lock codes, CDMA v. GSM networks, etc…
Plus, the Plaintiff IS NOT seeking $$$, only a change in business practices. This suit would benefit every consumer in the United States!!!!!
What’s wrong with you people?
There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 – 1832)
(Yes, I have the quotationspage.com stupidity section bookmarked just for articles about people like this.)
This guy is just a strawman. The only people that profit are the lawyers who back these suits. Class action suits are the mother lode for trial lawyers.
In case there is any doubt that a moron is born every minute. I heard Steve Jobs say it with his own lips: exclusive two-year contract with AT&T required.
Dirty Pierre le Punk –
“High technology baffles another potty old buffer.”
Uh, you meant “potted old duffer”?
Don’t you think that Apple should have disclosed that they weren’t going to give out the unlock codes when industry practice is to give the codes to consumers??
Why should a cottage industry exist of hackers selling the unlock code? Either way, a consumer will soon be able to unlock the iPhone. Why should that consumer have to pay to do it after he just purchased the iPhone for $599 and signed a two-year contract with AT&T?
@predrag has a point.
Being locked in with AT&T doesn’t seem a real problem, UNLESS you travel abroad.
Both Apple and AT&T should have worked out a better arrangement not to incur excessive roaming charges when travelling abroad.
It doesn’t matter how this is solved, but IMHO iPhone users travelling abroad are really screwed at this point.
Quick fixes: offer reduced service when roaming abroad, or make the features that generate the excessive charges opt-in or automatically drop the data connection when not in use.
Apple (really AT&T, but I am afraid they don’t care): are you listening? Here is an opportunity for building a positive image with consumers. Otherwise, it will be the other way around.