Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
10Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Complaint Tietze Apple FINAL

Complaint Tietze Apple FINAL

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10,892 |Likes:
Published by erica_ogg6631

More info:

Published by: erica_ogg6631 on Jul 02, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/03/2010

pdf

text

original

 
 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT-1-12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728IRA P. ROTHKEN, SBN 160029ROTHKEN LAW FIRM3 Hamilton Landing, Ste 280 Novato, CA 94949Telephone: (415) 924-4250Facsimile: (415) 924-2905ira@techfirm.comSETH R. LESSER (Pro Hac Vice Pending)KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLPTwo International Drive, Suite 350Rye Brook, NY 10573Telephone: 914-934-9200Facsimile: 914-934-9220seth@klafterolsen.comAttorneys for Plaintiff STEVE TIETZE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASan Jose DivisionSTEVE TIETZE, on Behalf of Himself and for the Benefit of All with theCommon or General Interest, AnyPersons Injured, and All OthersSimilarly Situated,Plaintiff,vs.APPLE, INC., a California Corporation.Defendant.Case No:CLASS ACTIONATIONWIDE CLASS ACTION ANDREPRESENTATIVE ACTIONCOMPLAINT FOR (1) UNFAIR COMPETITION (BUSINESS &PROFESSIONS CODE §17200); (2)FALSE AND MISLEADINGADVERTISING (BUSINESS &PROFESSIONS CODE §17500); (3)BREACH OF WARRANTY; (4)BREACH OF SONG-BEVERLYCONSUMER WARRANTY ACT(CALIFORNIA); AND (5) VIOLATIONOF THE CONSUMER LEGALREMEDIES ACT, , CALIFORNIACIVIL CODE SECTION §§1750 ETSEQ.DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
 
 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT-2-12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Plaintiff STEVE TIETZE (“TIETZE” or “Plaintiff,”) brings this actionagainst APPLE, INC. (“APPLE” or “Defendant”), on behalf of himself, all otherssimilarly situated and the general public, and alleges upon information and belief,except as to his own actions, the investigation of his counsel and the facts that are amatter of public record, as follows:
I.
 
OVERVIEW
1.
 
This is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of a class (the“Class”) of all consumers who purchased the Defendant’s iPhone 4 phone(“iPhone4”). As alleged more fully below, Defendant misrepresented andconcealed material information in the marketing, advertising, sale and servicing of its iPhone4 particularly as it relates to the quality of the mobile phone antenna andreception and related software. The iPhone4s were marketed, advertised and soldas high quality smartphone products designed to meet consumer and businessrequirements and during the relevant period were among the most expensiveconsumer mobile phones sold. The iPhone4s were sold as powerful, full-featuredmobile phones with a high quality redesigned case and antennae, high quality voicecommunications over the AT&T mobile network, wireless email, text messaging,web browsing and hundreds of applications available for download. The mobile phone case and antenna design is defective. The case and antenna design has led toa substantial degradation in signal quality and dropped calls when the phone isused in a normal and foreseeable fashion by users. Related “mobile reception”software provides users with a misleading manifestation of the quality of themobile signal it its display of the number of “bars” and fails to optimize theantenna reception.2.
 
At all pertinent times Defendant represented to the public, includingClass members, that the iPhone 4 was a dependable and reliable mobile device;
 
 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT-3-12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
that they were free from defects; and that they were of merchantable quality andworkmanship.3.
 
In fact, the iPhone4 suffered from an extremely defective antennasystem built in to the body of the phone where it was subject to substantialinterference and degradation of the wireless signal when held in a normal manner and held in a manner reasonably expected by users of such device. Defendantfailed to ensure a dependable mobile antenna system was in place.4.
 
Furthermore, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant has been aware for a substantial period of time that the iPhone4 was prone tounreasonably poor reception, antenna design defects, and dropped calls. Nevertheless, Defendant failed to warn its customers of the problem or tried to prevent them from suffering poor reception. Defendant’s main response to date isto buy a $29.95 dollar case. Defendant has failed to effectively remedy the problems and defects inherent in the iPhone4. Unwilling to admit fault, Defendantsat silently while consumers purchased these defective products without warningcustomers about the risks inherent in purchasing and relying upon a iPhone4 as amobile telephone communication device.5.
 
In addition to the reception problems with the antenna and case designDefendants designed their smartphone antenna related software in a materiallydefective manner including, but not limited to, inaccurately manifesting thenumber of bars or quality of the reception of the iphone4 devices and notoptimizing the antenna signal quality. Defendants knew or should have known of the material defects in their antenna related software design and taken steps toadvise potential purchasers of the defects and taken steps to fix such software before the iphone4 was placed into the marketplace for purchase or at least in amore expedient fashion.

Activity (10)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
davidps liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->