Another iPhone Antenna Lawsuit

On the rumored eve of the iPhone 5 release, I spotted this case–Jethro Magat v. Apple Inc.–in Justia Dockets & Filings.

The original complaint was filed on June 23, 2011 with the clerk of the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California. According to the complaint, the plaintiff purchased an iPhone 4 on January 19, 2011. The iPhone allegedly had a “connection problem caused by the iPhone 4’s antenna configuration that makes it difficult or impossible to maintain a connection.” “Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that this is a known defect in the iPhone 4 which was never disclosed to its purchasers.” “Had the true facts been disclosed, Plaintiff and other Class members would not have purchased the iPhone 4 at the price and under the terms and conditions to which they were and are subjected….”

Now, let’s review the timeline.

So, six months after the press conference on the iPhone 4’s connection problems, the Plaintiff purchased the same phone. So, what do you think about his claim that this was never disclosed to him and that he would not have purchased the phone?

7 comments… add one

  • I am always AMAZED at the attorney’s lack of research involved when cases are filed (I assume a lawyer was involved, although what happens when we assume…right).

  • shawn

    depends. Was the press conference considered actual and/or constructive notice under the law. Generally, to achieve such notice more than a press conference is necessary. Disclosure needs to be made at the source during the time of purchase. Also, legal notice needs to have been sent to past purchasers, should be sent to your mailing list, and should be given at the point of sale, if legal notice was not otherwise given.

    Finally, a press conference is not considered legal notice.

  • Robert

    If the iPhone4 didn’t work, it should have been taken off the shelves. It shouldn’t have been possible for the plaintiff to purchase a defective iPhone4 six months after Jobs admitted the defect. If the phone was still on the market, I think it was reasonable for the plaintiff to assume that the phone was no longer defective even if public notice of the defect had been given six months earlier.

  • Jose C

    Is it the responsibility of the company to advise you of a potential issue with said product or that of an educated consumer to do some homework about it? You don’t run out and simply purchase a certain vehicle because friends tell you they enjoy it without doing your own research about that vehicle, so why is a cell phone any different? His loss for taking a blind leap.

  • Lucy

    I do not really believe that the press conference can be deemed to a legal notice. To me, also a iphone 4’s purchaser got the information about connection bugs after purchasing which made me feel bad.

  • John L.

    Apple manufactures all of their products at a plant in Shenzen, China. The mother company is Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd out of Taiwan. The short name is Foxconn. How is this relevant?
    Apple has a Gross Corporate Product larger than most members of the UN. They had, at one point in 2011, more cash-on-hand than the U. S. govenment.
    I do not own any Apple products, although family members have received them as gifts from me over the years. No IPhones, though. Mostly Androids.
    Apple denied problems but identified a fix for problems they denied. The news was widely published. I knew about it because I stay informed. Some folks don’t. Caveat Emptor may apply in this case, and it may not. The courts will decide. Yes, the complainants should have done due diligence before spending their money. But yes, also, Apple should have presented a notice and had buyers sign that they understood at point of sale. Apple did not, and I believe the courts should find for the complainants and against Apple. The courts should find that Apple needs to pay the costs of litigation, all attourneys’ fees, refund the full cost of the phones for each buyer suing, including taxes, connection charges, application purchases and accessories. Apple should then receive the phones, etc, back via Apple-paid returns.

  • Painless Agony

    Apparently four months ago some 150 Foxconn workers making components for Apple and most everyone else took to the roof threatening to commit suicide. Many had reported 80-90 hours of overtime among other grievances. Now if there is one jumper, we would assume stress or mental illness caused the employee to snap, but when 150 people collectively threaten to take their lives, the working conditions have to be pure hell.

    Apple has some truly terrific products, and some exponentially excessive profit margins, but it seems that there is some true personal physical and psychic injury going into these products. Indeed it is hardly different to use any Apple or other high tech product than to use cotton picked by slaves 150 years ago. I understand clothing manufacturing sweatshops are even worse than high tech manufacturers.

    How much misery are we willing to ignore to have a luxury item to absorb our chatter, messages, and silly games, that will last less than two years. Slave owners and abolitionists ultimately had hell to pay for a bunch of cheap cotton, the ramifications which echo to this day. I wonder what the day of reckoning will bring for cheap iPhones that reap massive profits for a handful of Americans, so some Americans can put on their makeup, drive 65 on fossilized dinoshit, and blabber and text and snap photos concurrently.

Leave a Comment