Judge Gives OK for Apple, AT&T Class Action Suit

Serves AT&T right,

see the whole model for U.S. cellphone service is very broken, and maybe just maybe we will see the day that we can buy a cellphone, any cellphone, it be unlocked, and then chose who we want to sign up with based on quality of actual cell phone service and pricing, not this monopolistic model we have now where if you want a certain phone you have to pay some ridiculous fee to own the phone outright or sign a contract that is supposedly subsidizing the price of the phone.

They can buy unlocked phones in Europe. They have to pay full price for them. You can't get a free or discounted phone and expect to be free to move to another carrier. AT&T isn't the government. They have to pay for the phones and the network.

i can't stop smiling...

I have a entire file devoted to all the class actions suits, on almost every product and service I've bought in the last 20 years, and in the end the payouts are meaningless. they'll probably settle by sending everyone a free screen protector, while the lawyers eat at mortons and get paid millions

Give me a break people. This is like an AT&T DSL customer sueing Comcast and Verizon because neither offer 50Mb speeds in his area. And how the heck is it monopolistic when you can choose from RIM(Blackberry), Nokia, LG, Samsung, Motorola, just to name a few.

With this same logic, I am going to sue Ford because I can't get a flat-6 Porsche engine in a Mustang.

america's cellphone service sucks

god such a waste of money...i really hope it becomes like koreas
phone comes out quicker...and you dont pay for calls that you dont call your self...

I agree. I was stationed in Germany when I was still in the Army a few years ago. The European and Asian markets (Especially Korea and Japan) make the U.S. phone market look like the dark ages. Between all the newer, better and unlocked phones the competition for consumer $$ is fierce and drives the cost down substantialy compared to what we have here stateside.

I personally own an Iphone 3G, not a big apple guy but it does its job for my work and personal needs. But sadly AT&T's service just sucks for me where I am at (Southern California), and sucked when I first got the phone out on the East Coast in 2009. I shouldn't have to jump through my 4th point of contact and make my elbow go around my a** to switch carriers because of shoddy service, personal preference or other issues.

Lets hope this brings some change for the better for us consumers here stateside.

This is the kind of market I want here in North America. Europe and Hong Kong does it perfectly fine - their mobile ecosystem is much healthier than ours.

right so clearly all those customers should get their $199 back

so that will be 4 Billion dollars please.

Steve: "my wallet's in my left pocket"

Just another bogus lawsuit for some lawyer to get rich on an out of court settlement. Everyone who buys an Iphone knows AT&T is the only carrier. Just buy a different phone. Now on the other hand if this forces all phones to be unlocked for any carrier maybe it wouldn't be all that bad of a lawsuit.

Maybe making the iPhone 4G the way it was done so it kept losing signal was intentional just to piss off AT&T.

I believe the word we are all looking for in that situation is...Karma.

Sadly Karma was sued by Steve Jobs because only Steve Jobs can get even. And Steve Jobs won.

How can you sue a company when they aren't breaking the law? US law says that it's perfectly legal for a company to sell a mobile phone that can only be used on a specific network. Can I also sue Apple because I can't run Mac OS X on my Windows PC? Different market, same story.

Got your game face on?

When items are voluntary to buy, you all submit to the contract specified by the seller - no matter how "unfair" you think it is. Exclusivity deals have been and will always be a big tool in marketing department plans. This is exactly the same as Grand Theft Auto being exclusive to Sony for 1 year before Microsoft got it on the Xbox - does that mean that we can sue Rockstar for forcing us to buy a PS2 to play the game on? No. The only way this case will survive is on the very small fine print of the contract and what Apple actually laid out in its plans. As many have said this is just donw to keep lawyers in a job.

I don't know if anyone remembers, but Sprint used to have a lot of "Sprint Only" phones. There are many devices currently bound to one particular network.

The reason this has become an issue is because of the popularity of the device. People want freedom and the more people upset about a problem, the more "illegal" the problem seems to become. I don't think popularity needs to change the legality here. Yes, i want to see the iphone opened up to multiple carriers, but that's a business decision Apple made and I still have a choice whether or not I want to purchase that product given that business decision.

This case is violating Apple's freedom to make business decisions. People are choosing to be locked into AT&T by purchasing an iPhone. They do not have to purchase one.

I don't know if anyone remembers, but Sprint used to have a lot of "Sprint Only" phones. There are many devices currently bound to one particular network.

The reason this has become an issue is because of the popularity of the device. People want freedom and the more people upset about a problem, the more "illegal" the problem seems to become. I don't think popularity needs to change the legality here. Yes, i want to see the iphone opened up to multiple carriers, but that's a business decision Apple made and I still have a choice whether or not I want to purchase that product given that business decision.

This case is violating Apple's freedom to make business decisions. People are choosing to be locked into AT&T by purchasing an iPhone. They do not have to purchase one.

Why do so many people call it the iPhone 4G when it is not "4G" capable? Idiots!

So I can sue Sprint for being the only company to have the Evo?

The issue here isn't that the phone is locked, or exclusive to AT&T. The issue is that the contract is unclear. You want an iPhone, so you get a 2-year contract, planning to change to another carrier after that if the service sucks, or someone else is better/cheaper; only to discover that you can't, because of the exclusivity, which isn't described in your contract. You think it's for two years, but no, it's essentially for at least five years (if not for life) if you want to use that phone.

You should have both options...

Buy it with a contract, or buy it UNLOCKED. You can be under contract if you already know you'll be using that service for 2 years, or you can buy it unlocked and use it wherever you want. Exclusivity should only apply to networks that offer a service you cannot have elsewhere. Unless we're talking about GSM/CDMA or 4G, this shouldn't be an issue.

Agree, but I think DAK_59 was saying you also have to consider how much they would charge for an Iphone without a contract. In China the Iphone 3GS (without contract) was over $1,000 USD. I'm sure the price wouldn't be too different in the States (law of supply/demand).

For me, there still wouldnt be much of a choice between paying an exorbitant amount for just the Iphone and then paying for a Verizon contract on top of that...or joining AT&T for 2 years and geting an ~$800 USD discount on the phone.

Because that's an example of effective marketing by Apple, people think because it has a 4, it must be 4G.

Any smart person would know that when you buy a locked phone you're agreeing to exclusively use it with the carrier you bought it from. Legally in the USA a phone manufacturer has the right to permanently tie a phone to a specific carrier for as long as they want without telling you. AT&T can legally tell you that you can never, ever use that free flip phone on any other network. In most (if not all) countries that have both GSM and 2G CDMA carriers it's also legal for a phone manufacturer to make a high end smartphone running Android or Windows or any other OS that will only work on a GSM network, for example, in effect telling you that you can't take the phone to a competing CDMA carrier.