“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,” Patel reports.
Patel reports, “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…”
Read more in the full article here.
Apple announced during the original iPhone announcement that AT&T had a 5 year exclusive deal. How is it AT&T’s fault that Apple hasn’t released the phone on other carriers. Stupid lawsuit.
I don’t get the reasoning behind this. I would love to take my number to verizon.
But verizion wasn’t servicing the iPhone so it’s a moot point, right?
This is wrong. No one is injured by Apple’s exclusivity deal with AT&T;. We may not like it, but it is Apple’s right to continue to market through an exclusive carrier if they like.
This circus of class action law suits must end. One thing that should be insisted upon from any Republican administration capturing the white house is TORT REFORM. This is seriously out of control. We can’t get this from Democrats, they’re in bed with the trial lawyers, so we are going to have to bitch slap cowardly Republicans into remembering who they are supposed to be.
This does nothing for the public. The idea is that trial lawyers are supposed to protect the public from the big guy, but this is just a money grab. How much does Apple owe me because I couldn’t go to Verizon? Give me a fricking break. After years of this, iPhone users will get a check in the mail for $.74 and some law firm will get a check for $15 million.
I CHOSE to use the iPhone even though I held my nose while signing the AT&T;contract.
Seems to me that I am injured by arcane unnecessarily complex billing practices on the parts of all carriers. Why don’t the lawyers go there? Why not address the issue of 2 year contracts, etc.?
If you don’t get it…… the theory is that if you bought an iPhone and signed a 2 year contract, you didn’t realize you were really signing a 5 year contract because you couldn’t take that iPhone anywhere else at the end of 2 years. You’d have to sign up with AT&T;again.
@thelonius
u had 8 years of Republican administration and nothing was done on this. So how will it be different if and when they return to power?
@theloniousMac
I agree as I’ve gotten a check before for a few cents in other crap lawsuits like this.
Remember in November
“Apple announced during the original iPhone announcement that AT&T;had a 5 year exclusive deal.”
Neither Apple nor ATT have ever announced the term of the deal.
The only thing that bothers me is that I can’t unlock my iPhone after my 2-year deal is up. That’s worth a class action suit.
@macaholic
The theory is to make the Republican incumbents pay by voting them out, if they don’t get More Conservative.
Here is how I see it, if anyone cares. . . both parties suck ass, waste huge amounts of taxpayer money and get little done. I don’t see much difference in either party. So whoever can ruin things on less money (taxes) gets my vote.
Tort reform will never happen. DC is infested with that lawyer vermin, you will never flush it out.
The American legal system farce is the price to pay for freedom.
How do we opt out? I don’t want to be included. I love AT&T;and appreciate the way they blindly followed Steve Jobs’ lead into the iPhone future.
Unbelievable. This is what happens when a company has billions in the bank.
For those who support “tort reform,” please remember that it’s one of the few equalizers average Americans have against corporations. I agree with those that believe this lawsuit is nonsense, but the solution is NOT to take away his ability, but for individuals to use common sense. In the end, I’d rather keep our legal rights and deal with the frivolous lawsuits, than lose my rights under some phony guise.
@MacDaddy
It was well known that there was a 5 year exculsivity. It was announced by Apple in either the original Keynote for Macworld in 2007 or their WWDC, can’t remember which. Here is an article from USA Today in from May 2007 which references the fact that AT&T;has a 5-year exclusivity.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2007-05-21-at&t;-iphone_N.htm
Oh, and in case you are wondering, that USA Today article was written before the first iPhone was ever sold.
I think this applies to most other phones, since when you are able to take Verizon’s phone and activate it on AT&T;’s network? This is total bull.
Yet, nobody is complaining that AT&T;gave new iPhones to people just after 12 months of purchasing 3GS, no?
@ theloniousMac
The problem with TORT REFORM is those who would oppose it, i.e. lawyers who make tons of cash from these sort of craptastic lawsuits. They make a lot of money off of this and they wield a lot of influence over our government.
Another set of scumbag lawyers hopeing to get rich. I’ll defer comments about the judge who certified the case.
Analog: I use 30-cent per gallon recycled oil in my Ferrari. How was I to know that would void my warranty? My engine blew, and we’ll drum up a class action suit because we shouldn’t be forced to buy expensive motor oil!
This sounds stupid … How is anyone held to an extra 3 years???
Guess what, from the day you bought your iPhone you could do whatever you wanted with it including unlocking it. No one was stopping you. You would just be stuck with the software you had at the time just like every other phone. Once you unlocked it you could use it with any carrier that would support it including T-Mobile. So explain to me how you were locked in again?
Sorry REALTORben, all that article did was make a reference-less statement by the USA Today writer. It did not say it came from Apple or AT&T. There have been many articles from many publications and blogs with all kinds of guesses as to the length of the contract. A contract that was most likely renegotiated a few times over the years.
The confirmed length of the contract has not been “well known.”
Mac Daddy and theloniousMac hit the nail on the head.
Your iPhone could not be used on any other carrier that wanted to support it after your 2 year contract.
I can see why Apple and AT&T didn’t want this known.
@ RobG,
AT&T didn’t give new iPhones to anyone!
They just locked users into an additional 2-years on top of the time they currently signed up for. Now, some people need to wait for 3 years before they are eligible for a new phone.
That’s not a rip off, just a smart play by AT&T and an option for iPhone users.
But it isn’t a giveaway.
“One thing that should be insisted upon from any Republican administration capturing the white house is TORT REFORM.”
LMFAO
This is pure 100% USDA approved bullshit. No one, absolutely no one has been forced to buy the iPhone or sign a contract with AT&T;.
As for any real reform coming politicians….. let’s not forget that an awfully high % of politicians come from a law background.
If they want another carrier then they should just get another phone and leave AT&T;.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. When a person’s original two year contract was up, they were free to go to any other carrier they chose, they just wouldn’t be able to have the iPhone with a new carrier. It’s crap like this that costs this country billions of dollars in wasted, useless litigation every year. Get a life people.
BTW, all these whiners should look at Japan for some idea of this kind of “terrible exclusivity”. Cell phone manufacturers make models exclusively for the different carriers. If you like the Sharp modelXXX or the Samsung model 123, then you have to go with the carrier that selsl that model.
Y’all oughta just shut and go play with yourself.
@Realtorben:
“Stan Sigman, CEO of wireless at AT&T;…
“I’m glad we have (the iPhone) in our bag,” he says. “Others will try to match it, but for a period of time, they’re going to be playing catch-up.”
-but for a period of time-
That’s the extent of any official statement. As I wrote, neither Apple nor ATT have ever confirmed the length of time for the exclusivity. There is something about five years in some court papers, but no official statement.
As for me, I have no problem signing a 2-year contract with ATT to get a subsidized price -I’m gonna be with *some* service for the next two years so I might as well get a break on the price of the phone. ATTs service works fine for me anyway. But after completing those two years, I just think I should be able to unlock my iPhone. I could put a prepaid local SIM card in my old iPhone 0G while traveling for example. Right now it’s just an iPod.
I love jewish lawyers!
But you DO have “recourse”… Don’t use the iPhone.Use another phone on another carrier.
@ Peter
Good to be an antisemitic idiot isn’t it?
Jiminy crap. People are so freakin’ stupid. There aren’t very many cellphone companies that they could take the phone to anyway. Can’t go to Verizon or Sprint, they’re different networks.
I get tired of people blaming their own stupidity and laziness on someone else.
I bought a car last year and paid more than I should have. Is that the dealers’ fault? No. Mine. Grow up America.
Leave it to the semites to be the only ones to create a word unto themselves. And no I am not anti semitic I love arabs!
after 2 years you can unlock the phone can’t you?
Nobody is holding a gun tonanyones head plus willnan atandt iPhone even work on verizon youmwill forced to buy a new phone anyway lame lawyers.
At the end of 2 years everyone had the option to sell their iPhone on EBay to anyone in practically any country in the world at a significant premium.
There was no mythical 5 year AT&T sentence with the first generation iPhone.
This is a bullshit class-action suit.
@REALTORben
“Apple announced during the original iPhone announcement that AT&T;had a 5 year exclusive deal.”
Prove it. Quoting USA Today, don’t mean squat. Specify the keynote (timecode would help). Otherwise you’re just adding to the rumors
@Ubermac
“The American legal system farce is the price to pay for freedom.”
That’s so precious. Aren’t they cute when they parrot lines like that?
1. The original iPhone was not subsidized. The user owned it from day 1. It should have been unlocked after the initial contract, every other cell phone can be. – down Apple
2. No other carrier was willing to go along with Apples vision of how the iPhone should work. No ATT deal, no iPhone +up Apple
3. The iPhone as we know it cannot work on Verizon (CDMA) or Sprint (CDMA) or T-Mobile, well sort of, (different frequencies) No legal requirement to offer that functionality. +up Apple
Looks like the + ups have it except for one point. Keeping the iPhone locked after the contract period. Seems like a simple fix, Apple and ATT must unlock off-contract iPhones. They won’t work very well, but that’s not Apples problem.
This site has gone downhill.
Forget whether it was 3 year, 5 year or 7 year exclusivity. This needs to be looked at as a legal contract between Apple and AT&T;. I’m sure both companies had mega paid lawyers on both sides writing up the contract making sure everything was legit.
I’ll also bet more people out in the hinterlands knew more about some exclusivity deal between the two companies regarding the iPhone, then they know who their Representative or Senator is! If you were unaware, you must have been living under a rock. That said, no one was forced to purchase an iPhone and utilize AT&T;’s service AND if you did and once your service contract is up with AT&T;does not null and void the legal EXCLUSIVITY contract between Apple and AT&T;.
If this contract of exclusivity was not legal or if it were not properly notified to the third party ie “users”, then what were the ‘Regulators’ in our government who oversee such things doing? Watching more porn?!
This is a stupid and pointless lawsuit. One word GSM. Well that not a word, but you get the point. AT&T;is only one of two carriers who support it in the US.. So what is the remedy should they win? Force Apple to make a CDMA phone? Give me a break.
I want to start a class action suit on lawyers that specialize in class action suits. Their actions and often ridiculous lawsuits have harmed citizens, increasing product costs and enriching themselves while doing little or nothing for the “class” they allegedly represent.
Every once in a great while a class action lawsuit has merit. In those cases, the joint power of the masses that are represented in the lawsuit may be the only way to force a big company to stop abusing their power and position to the detriment of society. But most of them are frivolous, meaningless wastes of time.
@Ampar
This site headed downhill a long time ago. We hit the edge of the continental shelf about two months ago, and the deep water is on the horizon.
Apple went to Verizon FIRST to offer them the exclusive carrier rights to the iPhone, but Verizon wouldn’t accept it unless they could nickel and dime their customers to death. Steve Jobs wouldn’t have their stupid policies of disabling features and so he took it to Cingular, later bought out by AT&T;.
I may be late to the party but I brought a case of Bud Light Lime… yay! I know, I know, not great but…
the perfect beverage for a room full of F*CK1NG MOR0NS.
a class action suit that will end in nothing to do with anything you’ll ever know about and we’re talking about Republicans and Democrats?!?!?!? if only there were a Mega Church large enough? maybe that’s the answer! more God!! what the FUCK is wrong with you people? you make me sick.
MDN Magic Word: “written” …for it is written
“This site has gone downhill.”
@Ampar & King Mel, are you both referring to those days of yesteryear when MDN used to be about Macs? Or do you have some other points on the timeline in mind.
Gota love the US!
You guys sue people for anything, thank god I’m in the UK and we don’t get this total blame culture thing (though it is getting worse).
My thoughts… Apple shouldn’t be sued, whereas AT&T;should be!
I hope Apple and AT&T;loses that lawsuit. I bought my iPhone more tha 2 years ago and now want to use it on another carrier. IT’S MY PHONE, IT’S MY RIGHTS
MDN Please do something about the racist comments above.
Thank you
Hg Wells: . . . those days of yesteryear when MDN used to be about Macs?
Yes, and making fun of Enderle and Ballmer.
The real issue, not really emphasized at Engadget, is that ATT will not unlock your phone after your contract is up, so that you cannot use your phone on T-Mobile in the USA or elsewhere in the world. Presumably the class action case is charging that not unlocking your phone is part of the five year deal with Apple.
One has to assume that this is something ATT wanted and Apple agreed to in order to get a carrier. If so, this is a suit aimed at ATT and not Apple. Or it could be that Apple still gets money from ATT after your contract is up, and Apple would not get money from other carriers here or in the rest of the world.
@Jeff the Trader… What carrier do you want to use your phone on??? Even if you unlock the phone you are limited to carriers you could possible go to… I believe T mobile would be your only option (maybe)… As far as exclusive phones go I believe all carriers have them but again they will only work unlocked on a network that the phone is compatible with… I second point here that we seem to forget is that with technology refreshes how many people keep a phone for more then 2 years? The iPhone may be the exception because of its uniqueness but… So bottom line even if you bought an iPhone without activation where are you going to use it???
@Jeff the Trader
I hope you win the “rights” to unlock that iPhone and take it to one of the others. Good luck getting it to work!
Ampar
Don’t forget our “rights” to make fun of Thurott!
“Don’t forget our “rights” to make fun of Thurott!”
It’s a-Paul-ing!
Ubermac writes, “Tort reform will never happen. DC is infested with that lawyer vermin, you will never flush it out.” Arriving for a dinner my first year in DC, the host pulled me aside and warned me that she and I would be the only non-lawyers at that little gathering.
But it’s more than the number of lawyers present. It’s money from lawyers, especially personal injury lawyers, that floods (mostly to Democrats) into campaign coffers. Maybe more than they get from the financial industry.
I’m thrilled about this. If it takes a lawsuit to turn this ship around, then so be it. The iPhone SHOULD be on multiple carriers (VZW please!!!)… I’m purposely not getting the new iPhone 4 until it’s on Verizon’s network… and hopefully at that time, in support of LTE.
While this may not be THE most stupid lawsuit ever, it certainly ranks up there.
Exclusive partnering has been part of the U.S. system of doing business for about as long as the U.S. has been in existence. There is absolutely nothing illegal about it.
There are many phones that are exclusive to certain carriers. It is just that the iPhone is one of the most popular. People who don’t want AT&T;and still want the iPhone are just whining babies about this. Their only thought is to sue and the money grubbing lawyers are the ones egging them on.
This judge should never have let this lawsuit go forward. It should NEVER have gained class action status. The judge should have sanctioned the lawyers for ever filing this suit in the first place!
Think of the Comcast class action case that just settled: each person who actually signs up and admits to using P2P software for downloads (and thus invites a lawsuit from the RIAA and MPAA for tens of thousands of dollars) gets $16 (yes, $16) and the lawyers get $3 million (yes, $3 million). Thus, because of the RIAA/MPAA risk, few will file for their $16. The lawyers still get $3 million. Who wins here but the damn lawyers.
This is why I believe the old adage: 99.9% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
@Shadowself
Do you mean how I can’t buy a Cadillac at a Ford dealership? Can I get my Ford fixed at a Cadillac dealership?
Great- now we’ve got racism going on here!…
The public perception, as discussed in the latest Tech Owl report, is beginning to turn to that “iPhone 4 has too many problems.” AT & T exclusivity and class action suits are part of the equation. The antenna issue is way overblown, as even Consumer Reports has stated- normally not exactly Apple advocates.
Apple survived all these years because of its devoted following. It is now being attacked by both foes and fans who happen to be whiners. They have their work cut out for them. Me, I have no problem buying a case if necessary, and I trust Steve Jobs and Co. over the long haul.
I think one factor is that there was no way to buy an unlocked phone. In my view, locked phones are more of a consumer issue than ATT contract.
@ Silverhawk
No, this is like there are only certain dealerships and shops that are authorized by Ford or Cadillac to do warrantee work on your car. If you have a 10 year powertrain warrantee and 9.5 years after you buy it, if you want that powertrain repaired you must go to a place that Ford or Cadillac says you must.
When a person bought their iPhone there was NO, I repeat — NO, promise by Apple or AT&T;that you could ever use it on anything other than AT&T;’s network in the U.S. The exclusive deal was announce to the entire world. When people bought those phones they were told the only carrier was and is AT&T;. Neither Apple nor AT&T;has said anything differently.
The exclusive deal has always been rumored (no formal statement from Apple or AT&T;no matter what people are saying) that the deal was a five year deal. That would put it through late June 2012. Anyone who bought an iPhone before now is foolish to assume they could go to any non AT&T;system before then.
If Apple & AT&T;extend their exclusive deal it might go beyond 2012. Unless either Apple or AT&T;makes a statement to the contrary, people should not assume the exclusive deal is going away any time in the foreseeable future.
The MDN site hasn’t gone downhill, Apple is selling so many macs that even racists like peter panic who lives in Forrest County Arkansas can now afford to own one.
…”1. The original iPhone was not subsidized. The user owned it from day 1. It should have been unlocked after the initial contract, every other cell phone can be. – down Apple”
That is completely wrong. Original iPhone was as subsidised as all subsequent ones. Its subsidised price was $400 (around $800 was the unsubsidised price Apple charged AT&T).
As for unlocking the phones after the initial contract, there is no justification for AT&T (nor Apple) prohibit unlocking of iPhones. All GSM carriers in US (that’s T-Mobile and AT&T) provide instructions for unlocking of phones upon request. The only exception is iPhone, and there really is no reason for that. If the class action suit were about that, it would possibly make sense. However, it isn’t, so it doesn’t (make sense).
I hope they use the Chewbacca defence and have this case thrown out.
“Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense!”
Since I don’t want to be part of this lawsuit who can I sue for including me without my permission?
Sue the guy who made the racist comment earlier.
“Since I don’t want to be part of this lawsuit who can I sue for including me without my permission?”
Why would you sue when anyone can easily opt out of a class action suit?
That makes no sense.
As an owner of 4 generations of iPhones, I would like my name taken off of this bogus lawsuit. I’m adult with the ability to choose to not buy an iPhone if I’m unhappy with the carrier. I’m also a shareholder who realizes that Apple is only being targeted because of their success.
Ok, wait… I don’t get it. What’s the difference between this and me buying a Verizon phone but not being to move that Verizon phone to AT&T;or T-Mobile because they aren’t compatible? With that logic shouldn’t all Cellphone carriers be sued?
I’m with Michael Perry.
I had an LG Chocolate from Verizon that I loved (until it crapped out 6 months after I got it so I got another one and it crapped out 6 months after I got IT and since the warranty period was only a year, I was left with one more year on my Verizon contract but no phone) but wanted to take to AT&T;.
IF my LG Chocolate hadn’t been such a big pile of steaming crapgoodness, I would have loved to have switched it over to AT&T;to get away from Verizon’s bad customer service.
Since I couldn’t, I stopped using Verizon since I had no CDMA phone and ended up buying a BB Curve with AT&T;.
Where is the CA lawsuit against Verizon for this?
-Beeb
By the way, anti-semitism, at least as it is usually practiced, is not technically racist.
Quiz: Name which ONE of the following three groups is not part of the Caucasian race:
Hispanics
Ashkenazi Jews
African Americans.
Thanks and goodnight.
LOL US legal system is RETARDED!
The agreement between Aplle and AT&T;is, or was, corporate secrets. This judge is stupid.
Fraking Lawyers and Democrats! Can’t live with them and….uh, er…
If you keep on working on your smashing data just about this good topic, would you please give some facts just about buy essay paper, because I will to buy essays written in the custom essays service.