Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
By Kasper Jade
Sep-28-2007
01:00 PM

Apple Inc., along with its chief executive and exclusive U.S. iPhone wireless partner AT&T, have been hit with a new lawsuit from a disgruntled customer who charges the trio with a variety of offenses stemming from the recent iPhone price cut.

In the suit, filed Sept. 24 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Queens resident Dongmei Li accuses the parties of price discrimination, underselling, discrimination in rebates, deceptive actions, and other wrongdoings for their role in the Sept. 5th price drop on iPhone, which saw the handset's price tag slashed an unprecedented $200 less than two months after its debut.

Li was among the thousands who waited hours in line on June 29, 2007 for her chance to purchase one of the touch-screen devices, according to the suit. When she reached the front of the line, her local Apple store only had 4GB models remaining, which she purchased anyway despite having intended to buy the larger-capacitied 8GB model.

She, like thousands of others, the suit claims, is now the victim of price discrimination in that she cannot resell her iPhone for the same profit as customers who purchased the device after price drop. Similarly, she cannot trade up to 8GB model she had initially hoped to obtain and is now left with a product that has been discontinued.

Li also feels cheated by Apple's rebate policy because she was only offered a $100 store credit towards a future Apple store purchase when those customers who bought the same iPhone within a two week window period immediately preceding the cut received the full $200 refund under the company's price protection policy.

Li included in her 8-page complaint historical stock graphs that show Apple's share price to have risen in between the time it released iPhone in late June and when the company instated the price cut. She argues that this is proof that there was no sound reason for the cut, which she equated to "underselling."

"Market conditions did not require Apple to change its price," Li's attorney, C. Jean Wang of Wang Law Offices, PLLC wrote in the filing. "iPhone was selling very well because Apple's stocks were increasing since August 16, 2007 and rose as high as $144.16 on September 4, 2007, the day before Apple announced that it was cutting the price of iPhone."

The lawsuit goes on to accuse Apple, Jobs and AT&T of forcing customers into 2-year service agreements with AT&T and imposing hefty $175 termination fees. These requirements are unfair, the suit continues, because customers who purchased the iPhone later in the year were able to utilize unlocking solutions that allowed them to forgo such terms and fees.

Given Apple's since stated stance on this matter -- and the recent consequences faced by users of unlocked iPhones in recent days -- it would seem this portion of the suit is now of lesser merit.

For those claims which the Court is still likely to take into account, Li is requesting compensatory damages in the amount of $1 million, punitive damages in the amount to be determined at trial, and a court order that she is entitled to "threefold her damages", the costs involved in maintaining this action, and attorney's fees."

People are naive, I think the $100 was an unnecessary gift.

No doubt. She made the choice to wait in line to be one of the first. She made the choice to purchase a model other than the one she had hoped to buy. She made the choice to sign the service agreement. She made all of those choices so that her friends would "ooh" and "aah" over her swanky new iPhone and she could enjoy being envied for a little while. What new technology *doesn't* drop in price after introduction? If she wanted to save money she should have waited. If she wanted to be first, she should be prepared to pay the price. Steve Jobs didn't put a gun to her head to buy his product.

Apple should stand its ground on this one and fight the frivolous lawsuit with every resource they have. She needs to accept responsibilities for her actions.

__________________
Jonathan

2011 Mazda2
2000 E320 4Matic Wagon
1994 C280 (retired)

Exactly! This is the worst kind of frivolous lawsuit and should be thrown out of court. If she was dumb enough to wait in line and then buy something she did not want it is HER FAULT. Although I must admit that Apple and AT&T must have been using subliminal messages or something in their ads because I have not seen mania like that since "Cabbage Patch Kids"

Next thing people will be suing car manufactures because their cars are not worth as much used as they were new.

Of course she will get her day in court and a jury will give her 40billion dollars...

Then nothing will ever go down in price again...

__________________
"I have no convictions ... I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy"

Current
Monika '74 450 SL
BrownHilda '79 280SL
FoxyCleopatra '99 Chevy Suburban
Scarlett 2014 Jeep Cherokee
Krystal 2004 Volvo S60
Gone
'74 Jeep CJ5
'97 Jeep ZJ Laredo
Rudolf ‘86 300SDL
Bruno '81 300SD
Fritzi '84 BMW
'92 Subaru
'96 Impala SS
'71 Buick GS conv
'67 GTO conv
'63 Corvair conv
'57 Nomad

geez i think the last time i got a new phone (not an iphone) i had to sign a 2 year agreement with a 175 dollar termination fee.as the old saying goes"some people are alive simply because it is against the law to kill them"

Kind of like the head of KB homes (I think) they had that big sale a couple of weekends ago. Cut like 200k off the price of the houses.

His comment was if the price went up 200k would they give us the money.



So her own complaint contains the perfect defense.

I assume if we hadn't cut the price and you sold it for a profit, you would have gladly split that with us.

__________________
KLK, MCSE

1990 500SL

I was always taught to respect my elders.
I don't have to respect too many people anymore.

She needs to get a life. It's only a hundred dollars. If you can afford to drop 500 bucks on a cell phone anyways whats $100?

__________________
1985 CA 300D Turbo , 213K mi

If the lawyer can boost it to a class action, what's his fee?

1/3 of whatever he can get! could be MILLIONS$$$

__________________
"I have no convictions ... I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy"

Current
Monika '74 450 SL
BrownHilda '79 280SL
FoxyCleopatra '99 Chevy Suburban
Scarlett 2014 Jeep Cherokee
Krystal 2004 Volvo S60
Gone
'74 Jeep CJ5
'97 Jeep ZJ Laredo
Rudolf ‘86 300SDL
Bruno '81 300SD
Fritzi '84 BMW
'92 Subaru
'96 Impala SS
'71 Buick GS conv
'67 GTO conv
'63 Corvair conv
'57 Nomad

Well some solution for the frivolous lawsuits.

This and the other one talked about in another thread, about the dry cleaner and the pants.

How about if the Lawyers become liable for the defense costs if it is tagged frivolous.

Right now most companies don't even bother trying to recover costs because the defend (you and I types) don't have enough money to make it worth while.

Personally I think some of these are so bad you could sue the school that gave them their law degree.

__________________
KLK, MCSE

1990 500SL

I was always taught to respect my elders.
I don't have to respect too many people anymore.

suck it up and deal with it