Second lawsuit challenges iPhone MMS advertising
updated 03:50 pm EDT, Fri August 14, 2009
Second iPhone MMS lawsuit
A second class action lawsuit has been filed over Apple and AT&T's lack of MMS messaging support, documents show. Submitted in a US district court for southern Illinois, on behalf of Tim Meeker and other unnamed plaintiffs, the suit accuses Apple and AT&T of having "misrepresented and/or concealed, suppressed, or omitted material facts as to the iPhone having MMS functionality." Representing Meeker's party is the lawfirm of Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers, Glass, P.C..
Apple first announced that MMS would be an option for iPhones when it unveiled the iPhone 3.0 firmware. At June's WWDC event however, the company also warned that the feature would not be available from AT&T until late summer. That fact has been left out of both companies' marketing efforts, lawyers charge, resulting in "deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation and unfair practices."
The suit is identical in many respects to one filed in Louisiana, down to the implication of damages exceeding $5 million. The size of the Illinois case's class is 10 times larger however, numbering over 100,000 people. "Each plaintiff will be claiming damages for the 3G or 3GS iPhone he or she purchased," filings read. The cost of an iPhone 3G is noted to be anywhere between $100 and $500.
Where's the harm?
08/14, 06:05pm reply
I've looked very hard and can't see where's that deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise and misrepresentation. Apple said iPhone 3.0 software will have MMS. When they announced it they were showing a slide with names of carriers that will support it when the software comes out. They then specifically said AT&T wasn't on the slide and the support will arrive late summer. So, what part of this statement was false promise (or any of those other qualifications).
As much as I agree with pretty much everyone that it is really crappy from AT&T to continue delaying this any further, but it does NOT merit a single lawsuit.
vasic
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: May 2005
Re: Where's the harm
08/15, 03:04pm reply
That's not the harm. No one looks at those slides. It's the current advertising that is the harm. If apple is advertising the iPhone to US customers and going all grandiose over it's MMS features, then you've got false advertising.
But I didn't know that was something you sued over. I thought it was something for the FTC.
BTW, this guy filed suit because he heard of the other guy filing. He's just trying to start a second class, so some court can rule that the two classes should merge, with the two main suers as the main defendants. The initial defendants get more of the cash than all the lazy people who just lop on to the suit later...
LouZer
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Nov 2000
Not free...
08/15, 08:01pm reply
If MMS is not being charged for, then I doubt this lawsuit has a chance.
AT&T wants to charge for everything. Unlimited data, but not text messages. No MMS.
By the time this lawsuit makes it to court, MMS may finally be supported.
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Joined: Oct 2001
Not free
08/16, 05:02am reply
It's not relevant whether you are being charged or not, if it is advertised that the product can do MMS then that is false advertising when it can't because of AT&T (regardless of whether the phone technically can). Simple as that.
rytc
Mac Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2001