You're viewing an article in iPO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site: First Class-Action Lawsuit Filed Related to iPhone

News

First Class-Action Lawsuit Filed Related to iPhone

Friday, July 27th, 2007 at 5:15 PM - by

The first class-action lawsuit related to the iPhone has been filed by a plaintiff named Jose Trujillo against Apple and AT&T. Mr. Trujillo claims that he didn't know the iPhone's battery is a sealed unit, according to Gizmodo on Friday.

The plaintiff claims that the iPhone battery can only be charged 300 times before it needs replacement -- a claim that appears to be at odds with the technical information Apple has previously supplied.

Apple's statements about iPhone battery life and a battery replacement program, if required, were previously covered at iPO.

The key allegations and the text of the class-action suit were posted at Gizmodo which broke the story.

32 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

Tiger said:

member since 17 Jun 2003 with 1018 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:31 pm

did he NOT read any of the weeks of press stories leading up to the launch of the new product? Did he just run out and buy a $600 phone without doing any sort of research on the Internet? Did he not go into a store and see one? It's not like there's an access port for the battery.

Is he the guy suing Starbucks because his hot tea was HOT?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:32 pm

Hey Jose, you loser!

Do you always shell out 4-500 bucks before reading about the product?

It is likely that you are just a worthless bloodsucker trying to sponge some bucks from our favorite creator of cool stuff.

Why don't you go a slip on the floor at Walmart, or find some other way to make some money. Or better yet, get a job, and a life while you're at it.

Quote this post ↓

Sir Harry Flashman said:

member since 08 Feb 2007 with 792 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:35 pm

Blast from the past, was he living in a cave for 7 months without access to news the outside world until the day he came out and bought an iPhone? If not he doesn't have a chance.

Well if he does win, then I am going to sue Apple because the iPhone doesn't have an FM tuner.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 1002 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:48 pm

Jose can you see?

By the iPhone's bright light.

The battery is sealed

And you can not replace it.

-----

And his lawyer's red glare...

The judge yelling through the air...

"Give proof to the court

that Apple and AT&T don't play fair!"

-----

Jose does it really matter

if you can't change the iPhone's battery?

Cuz you're now the most hated

Apple customer in all history.

Quote this post ↓

geoduck said:

member since 30 Dec 2003 with 1922 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:03 pm

Sung to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner?

Bosco wrote:
Jose can you see?

By the iPhone's bright light.

The battery is sealed

And you can not replace it.

etc. etc.

<snip>

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:08 pm

The height of frivolity.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 1002 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:08 pm

geoduck wrote:
Sung to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner?

If you sing it to the tune of "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer", you have to yell "like Columbus" at the end.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:10 pm

Bosco wrote:
geoduck wrote:
Sung to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner?

If you sing it to the tune of &quot;Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer&quot;, you have to yell &quot;like Columbus&quot; at the end.

"like George Washington."

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 1002 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:17 pm

Anonymous wrote:
"like George Washington."

No, I'm pretty sure that when the kids sing, RTRNR, they end it with "You'll go down in history! (like Columbus!)". Of course, kids in the future may sing... "You'll go down for history! (like Lewinsky!)".

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:37 pm

A new meaning for Going Down in history

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:55 pm

I'd like to sue that they're too expensive and too cool not to have!!! Who's with me!!!

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:11 pm

what happened to "buyer beware"

or take some responsibility.... for your actions.....

He won't win. This was clearly published prior to the release.

Maybe some other phone company is paying him to do this to try to get apple some bad press?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:55 am

Hey it's all hip to be a Democrat these days, so what's the problem? It's not this guy's job to watch out for himself! You can't hold him responsible for his actions. I blame the current administration for not enacting laws that would have protected this guy. The system failed in this case. This poor guy was apparently expected to educate himself and take personal responsibility for his actions. Hopefully if Hillary gets elected, she'll take steps to ensure these kinds of things don't happen in the future!

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:10 pm

Yeah, it's a pretty stupid lawsuit for sure. But, it's also a pretty stupid design.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:03 pm

Won't this guy spend enough on legal fees to have his iPhone battery replaced dozens of times?

Quote this post ↓

Sir Harry Flashman said:

member since 08 Feb 2007 with 792 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:53 pm

Guest wrote:
Yeah, it's a pretty stupid lawsuit for sure. But, it's also a pretty stupid design.

Specifically how is the lawsuit stupidly designed?

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 1002 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:34 pm

Sir Harry Flashman wrote:
Specifically how is the lawsuit stupidly designed?

Well, for starters, it has no buttons. And it only works against one wireless provider.

Quote this post ↓

geoduck said:

member since 30 Dec 2003 with 1922 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:28 pm

Maybe this whole lawsuit is just because Mr. Trujillo doesn't know the battery is rechargeable. I'd be annoyed too if a $600 phone had to go into the shop every 10 hours or so. Just a quick "Dear Mr. Trujillo, plug it in you moron." from every iPhone owner out there could stop the whole thing right now.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:42 pm

LIKE A LIGHTBULB!!!

Bosco wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
&quot;like George Washington.&quot;

No, I'm pretty sure that when the kids sing, RTRNR, they end it with &quot;You'll go down in history! (like Columbus!)&quot;. Of course, kids in the future may sing... &quot;You'll go down for history! (like Lewinsky!)&quot;.
Guest wrote:
A new meaning for Going Down in history

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:53 pm

Who's stupid here? $500.00 for a gizmo PLUS $72.00 per month after taxes! Bend over morons.

Quote this post ↓

farmboy said:

member since 05 Feb 2002 with 17 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:42 pm

Guest wrote:
Who's stupid here? $500.00 for a gizmo PLUS $72.00 per month after taxes! Bend over morons.

You, apparently. Your car is a "gizmo", so is your toaster. Cheaper (purer) alternatives are always available. As far as "after taxes"--isn't everything you pay for coming out of after tax income?

Quote this post ↓

Sir Harry Flashman said:

member since 08 Feb 2007 with 792 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:24 pm

Bosco wrote:
Sir Harry Flashman wrote:
Specifically how is the lawsuit stupidly designed?

Well, for starters, it has no buttons. And it only works against one wireless provider.

After some research I have found that there is a "charge" of "will fill battery."

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:27 pm

farmboy wrote:
Guest wrote:
Who's stupid here? $500.00 for a gizmo PLUS $72.00 per month after taxes! Bend over morons.

You, apparently. Your car is a &quot;gizmo&quot;, so is your toaster. Cheaper (purer) alternatives are always available. As far as &quot;after taxes&quot;--isn't everything you pay for coming out of after tax income?

My $500 car takes me to work where I GET $72.00 a month (after taxes of course)

...If my toaster cost $500, I'm twice the idiot for buying a $500 toaster.

Quote this post ↓

Sir Harry Flashman said:

member since 08 Feb 2007 with 792 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:23 pm

Guest wrote:
My $500 car takes me to work where I GET $72.00 a month (after taxes of course)

...If my toaster cost $500, I'm twice the idiot for buying a $500 toaster.

If you are only making $72 a month, after taxes, you could barely afford day old Wonder Bread much less the electricity needed to run a power toaster.

But point taken, if you can't afford an iPhone you will just have to settle for a cheaper cell phone and service.

Quote this post ↓

LaurieF said:

member since 15 Jun 2001 with 3547 posts, TMO Forum Mod, send him a message or view his profile

Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:13 pm

Anonymous wrote:
Who's stupid here? $500.00 for a gizmo PLUS $72.00 per month after taxes! Bend over morons.
All I can suggest is that you don't buy one - it's not for you.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:05 pm

I own a working man's cell phone and I don't use it that much. It's a tracfone and it costs me $10.00 a month for two months with a usage limit of 60 minutes over two months. If someone could make the case that they use their iPhone for work and the profit offsets the total cost each month, I'd accept that argument. But the cost as it is for reasons of fashion is just stupid. Let's see the latest revolutionary phone for "the everyman" at a reasonable cost and stop exacerbating the destruction of the middle class in America by accepting the choice of either a poor man's phone or a rich man's phone.. And remember, AT&T is being sued for spying on Americans, illegally or not for Christ's sake! My money and my Liberty is too much for me to give for the latest fade. ...and you?

For what it's worth to most working class people, I'd shell out $299/$399 for the iPhone and pay $19.99 per month. However, my Liberty is not for sale. Go to hell AT&T.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 1002 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:13 am

Dude, if your're making $72/month after taxes, seriously, you should consider dealing crack. Even ethical crack dealers who don't sell to kids, pregnant women, or unemployed/homeless people make good money. And if you are an ethical crack dealer, no jury in the world is going to convict you. You'll probably be wiping your @$$ with 72 dollar bills. Seriously, none of us would hold it against you.

Quote this post ↓

Biff said:

member since 08 Apr 2004 with 1479 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:08 am

Guest wrote:
Who's stupid here? $500.00 for a gizmo PLUS $72.00 per month after taxes! Bend over morons.
Wait so am I stupid because I consider $600 and $60/month a fairly trivial amount of money? I'd think that if I were stupid I WOULD think it was alot of money (as you apparently do) since I'd be unable to command a reasonable salary.

Quote this post ↓

daemon said:

member since 17 May 2007 with 344 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:08 am

Like no one saw this case coming?

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2088 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:44 pm

Guest wrote:
I own a working man's cell phone and I don't use it that much. It's a tracfone and it costs me $10.00 a month for two months with a usage limit of 60 minutes over two months. If someone could make the case that they use their iPhone for work and the profit offsets the total cost each month, I'd accept that argument. But the cost as it is for reasons of fashion is just stupid. Let's see the latest revolutionary phone for "the everyman" at a reasonable cost and stop exacerbating the destruction of the middle class in America by accepting the choice of either a poor man's phone or a rich man's phone.. And remember, AT&T is being sued for spying on Americans, illegally or not for Christ's sake! My money and my Liberty is too much for me to give for the latest fade. ...and you?

For what it's worth to most working class people, I'd shell out $299/$399 for the iPhone and pay $19.99 per month. However, my Liberty is not for sale. Go to hell AT&T.

There are lots of phones available between free and $500, including smartphones like the Treos. Apple isn't exacerbating anything. That's the "false dichotomy" erroneous argument.

As for that last comment, apparently, most carriers caved in to the NSA, with a few notable exceptions like Qwest. Are you absolutely certain that your carrier did not? Most refused to comment because the orders from the NSA told them to not reveal that they had cooperated. You'd better ditch your cell phone, completely, plus your ISP.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:17 pm

It's not about about Apple. It's the traitors at AT&T. Stop buying from the bad people/businesses. It's bad capitalism. Let's hang one carrier and the rest will behave like good corporate citizens. Or "Waterboarding"? "Rendition" maybe? How about just taking AT&T's Rights away.

PEARL JAM NOT FIRST TO BE CENSORED BY AT&T

August 10, 2007

"AT&T’s controversial edit of comments about President Bush from a Webcast of Pearl Jam’s performance at Lollapalooza last week was not the first time the telecommunications giant has silenced political statements by musicians.

An AT&T spokeswoman initially characterized the sudden audio edit that silenced Eddie Vedder’s lyrics “George Bush, leave this world alone” and “George Bush, find yourself another home” during Pearl Jam’s performance in Grant Park last Sunday as “an unfortunate mistake” and “an isolated incident.”

But yesterday, a reader e-mailed the Sun-Times saying AT&T’s Blue Room Webcast also had silenced comments during two performances at the Bonnaroo Festival in Tennessee last June, cutting remarks by the John Butler Trio bemoaning the lack of federal response to Hurricane Katrina and comments about Bush and the war in Iraq by singer Wayne Coyne of the Flaming Lips."

http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/505989,10att.article

Quote this post ↓

Intruder said:

member since 07 Jul 2004 with 3149 posts, TMO Mac Specialist, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:13 am

Brought to you by ALCOA. Because what would this life be like without a good conspiracy theory?

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.