Home ›

Apple Sued For Bricking iPhones

Submitted by Edward Kirk on October 6, 2007 - 4:54pm.
in

A California man represented by lawyer Damian Fernández has filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple for bricking iPhones with their latest firmware update, v1.1.1. While this is neither the first, nor will it likely be the last lawsuit aimed at Apple, this one is unique in that it seeks a permanent injunction against Apple to prevent them from selling locked iPhones in the future.

Fernández cites the Cartwright Act, arguing that "Apple prohibits iPhone consumers from using and purchasing a cell phone service other than through AT&T."

The suit also seeks damages resulting from the bricking, but interestingly enough, the lawyer doesn't specify an amount in the court documents. Instead, Fernández says that they are seeking an amount "according to proof at trial." When asked, Fernández responded:

The complaint alleges that we are seeking "an amount according to proof at trial." We do not yet know the exact number of iPhone owners and the exact number of consumers damaged by the iPhone update. In California, it is not necessary to state the exact amount of money sought. It is sufficient to state that it will be proven at trial.

You can view more information on the damages sought from the court papers below:

courtesy of Information Week:

Gizmodo speculates that the trial will most likely rely on their ability to prove that Apple intentionally attempted to break the iPhone maliciously with the update, according to their own investigations into the technical and legal aspects of the bricking.

[Gizmodo via Information Week]

Submitted by Eurisko on October 6, 2007 - 7:08pm.
All the power to them. If you won't release your white knuckle control over the iPhone Steve, hopefully it can be taken from you.

I want to get in on this!

Submitted by Jay (not verified) on October 6, 2007 - 8:07pm.
How do I sign onto this class action sue?

This definitely would be a more substantial way to communicate to Apple our anger over them bricking the iPhone.

Submitted by unity on October 7, 2007 - 12:08am.
But the suit will fail. By that I mean maybe it will get Apple to sell unlocked phones, but no iBrick owner will see a cent or get a repair.

If you were dumb enough to ignore the warning/terms that MUST be agreed to in order to install the 1.1.1 update, well, tough. Apple did not brink it, the owner did! If I enter a river after seeing a sign that says "warning, alligators" and get attacked, do I sue the state or county after clearly ignoring a warning?

This would also be like me making a performance tune adjustment to my car using third party tuning software. Then later I take it in for service and there is a program update, but since I messed with the factory program the computer gets hosed. Who is to blame? Who should pay to fix it?

I understand the frustration of not wanting to be tied to ATT or wanting to have the phone NOW and not waiting for it to come to a county. But this was not an over-the air update that was forced on all iPhone owners. Anyone with an unlocked phone has likely been on these forums and predictions of this happening were all over. Apple's warning was just icing on the cake!

This is as stupid as the price drop lawsuit! Things like this make me a little embarrassed to live in America, it just adds to the global perception that we are ALL idiots. It takes just a few...... lol

valid lawsuit

Submitted by jlaylor (not verified) on October 7, 2007 - 8:16am.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unity View Post
But the suit will fail. By that I mean maybe it will get Apple to sell unlocked phones, but no iBrick owner will see a cent or get a repair.

If you were dumb enough to ignore the warning/terms that MUST be agreed to in order to install the 1.1.1 update, well, tough. Apple did not brink it, the owner did! If I enter a river after seeing a sign that says "warning, alligators" and get attacked, do I sue the state or county after clearly ignoring a warning?
actually, if it can be proved that apple intentionally went out of their way to harm modified iphones, then an argument can be drawn against them for damages. If the state PUTS alligators in a river, and then puts up warning signs is the state still not liable?

Submitted by FirstChoice on October 7, 2007 - 12:37pm.
If I illegally park my car and Steve INTENTIONALLY collides into it, can I sue him?

After 1.1.1 is successfully jailbreaked, I think it'll be easy to prove that Apple intentionally bricked the phone and made it exceedingly difficult to unbrick it.

Which came first.

Submitted by Bernie on October 7, 2007 - 1:21pm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlaylor View Post
If the state PUTS alligators in a river, and then puts up warning signs is the state still not liable?
You are correct!

Apple put the sign up long before they released the alligators.

Now I miss my applications and my ring-tones. People did not have to update iTunes and lose their ability to hack.
People did not have to update iTunes and lose their ability to call on an unauthorized carrier.
Telling a Police officer you did not realize how fast you were going is also a waste of breath. But there are Lawyers out there who will represent and agree with you no matter how silly you are, so long as there is a buck in it for them.

Submitted by unity on October 7, 2007 - 5:43pm.
My point is not so much as to WHO put the alligators in there or who placed the sign! lol

My point is no one MADE you "jump in the river" and the warning was posted. It does not matter if it was intentionally done. In the end the user made the choice to install the software after being warned.

Now if Apple had not warned? Then yes, by all means they should pay up!

Submitted by chr1s60 on October 7, 2007 - 8:51pm.
Oh look, someone else trying to make money off of Apple. In the end, Apple is going to win this case. From my experience, many of these hackers that think Apple is some evil enemy because they lock a device are nothing but a bunch of whiners. I am sick of hearing about this same thing on a daily basis.

Submitted by *iphonelessinVA (not verified) on October 7, 2007 - 10:47pm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlaylor View Post
actually, if it can be proved that apple intentionally went out of their way to harm modified iphones, then an argument can be drawn against them for damages.
But Apple doesn't have a bonafied class action countersuit of all those people who intentionally went out of their way to modify the iPhones, irregardless of whatever, to harm Apple's deals made with AT&T, as well as, whatever the enduser agreed to in purchasing and or activating the product?