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: Federal Judge Dismisses iPhone Battery Lawsuit

News

Federal Judge Dismisses iPhone Battery Lawsuit

Friday, September 26th, 2008 at 12:35 PM - by

A U.S. District judge gas dismissed a lawsuit brought against Apple for the limited battery life in the iPhone, without a trial. The judge found that no deception could have occurred because Apple has labeling on the box advising the customer.

Judge Matthew Kennelly granted a summary judgment on September 23 citing the labeling on the iPhone box that says: "Battery has limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by Apple service provider." In his ruling he said, "Under the circumstances, no reasonable jury could find that deception occurred."


iPhone box

Jose Trujillo sued Apple in Illinois court in 2007. He accused Apple of fraud for not advising customers that they may have to replace the battery at some point at a cost of US$86 and sought class-action status. Apple was able to have the case moved to the U.S. District federal court in Chicago.

3 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

ctopher said:

member since 25 Aug 2006 with 134 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:36 pm

But who paid Apple's legal fees?

Quote this post ↓

j.martellaro said:

member since 07 Dec 2006 with 97 posts, TMO Staff, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:00 pm

I a told that it's customary for the plaintiff, in a case like this, to pay his own legal fees. Apple pays their own as well.

Quote this post ↓

ctopher said:

member since 25 Aug 2006 with 134 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:18 pm

j.martellaro wrote:
I a told that it's customary for the plaintiff, in a case like this, to pay his own legal fees. Apple pays their own as well.

So if the plaintiff's counsel took the case on contingency then they'll likely be out very little as there was probably no investigative services or expert witnesses to pay. Thus, they would only have to pay court and associated costs. I wonder if those costs are high enough to discourage frivolous suits? I'm guessing no since an attorney will likely advise a potential plaintiff on the costs even if the attorney is working on the come.

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.