Feeds

Angry iPhone users bring antitrust class action against Apple

New suit argues AT&T tie-in and App Store are anticompetitive

Designing a Defense for Mobile Applications

Four American iPhone users have launched a class action suit against Apple over its exclusive deals with carriers in the country and the way it runs the App Store.

Apple partnered with US carrier AT&T when it first brought the Jesus-mobe to stores in 2007, in a five-year exclusivity agreement that tied users to an AT&T SIM card with no option to use another network.

The four plaintiffs* in the case are arguing that the restrictive partnership violates the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, because it didn't give customers the "absolute legal right to modify their phones to use the network of their carrier of choice".

The complaint (23-page PDF/1.2MB) states:

Prior to launch, Apple entered into a secret five-year contract with AT&T that established AT&T as the exclusive provider of cell phone voice and data services for iPhone customers through some time in 2012. As part of the contract, Apple shared in AT&T's revenues and profits with respect to the first generation of iPhones launched, known as the iPhone 2G, which was a unique arrangement in the industry. The Plaintiffs and other class members who purchased iPhones did not agree to use AT&T for five years. Apple's undisclosed five-year Exclusivity Agreement with AT&T, however, effectively locked iPhone users into using AT&T for five years, contrary to those users' knowledge, wishes and expectations.

While the iPhone fanbois knew that their shiny new toy was coming from Apple in partnership with AT&T, they claim that they didn't know that the length of that partnership was five years and they didn't know they wouldn't get the unlock code if they asked for it, something AT&T does give out for other phones bought under contract.

As well as taking issue with being stuck with one carrier, the complainants are also suing over the fruity firm's handling of its App Store.

They want the court to decide that Apple's refusal to approve third-party apps that don't pay the annual fee for the software development kit, or don't hand over 30 per cent of their sales to Apple, is unlawful. If Cupertino doesn't approve an app and iPhone users download it anyway, it voids their phone's warranty – a pretty risky move on such an expensive piece of kit.

The complaint alleges:

Through these actions, Apple has unlawfully stifled competition, reduced output and consumer choice, and artificially increased prices in the aftermarkets for iPhone voice and data services and for iPhone software applications.

The four people bringing the case against Apple say they're not sure how many people could be counted in the suit, but estimate that it is somewhere in the tens of millions.

The lawsuit is seeking a court order that stops Apple from selling locked iPhones unless it makes the terms clear and forces it to hand over the unlock code to everyone who already has a locked Jesus-mobe. The suit also wants the court to end the firm's monopoly in the App Store.

Naturally, the complaint is also looking for attorney's fees and costs, as well as "treble damages for injuries caused by Apple's violations of the federal antitrust laws". (Multiplying the award for damages by three is something the court ordinarily does in the US for wilful violation of antitrust laws.)

Class actions over Apple and AT&T has been knocking around in one form or another since 2007, but this version of the complaint was officially filed in California at the end of December last year and is only being brought against Apple.

Another case (PDF) against both Apple and AT&T for the same antitrust violations, but brought by different plaintiffs, was already filed in 2008 and is currently moving through the courts.

Apple had not replied to a request for comment at the time of publication. ®

* including the intriguingly named Mr "Hayter".

Securing Web Applications Made Simple and Scalable

More from The Register

next story
You! Pirate! Stop pirating, or we shall admonish you politely. Repeatedly, if necessary
And we shall go about telling people you smell. No, not really
UK Parliament rubber-stamps EMERGENCY data grab 'n' keep bill
Just 49 MPs oppose Drip's rushed timetable
MPs wave through Blighty's 'EMERGENCY' surveillance laws
Only 49 politcos voted against DRIP bill
EU's top data cops to meet Google, Microsoft et al over 'right to be forgotten'
Plan to hammer out 'coherent' guidelines. Good luck chaps!
US judge: YES, cops or feds so can slurp an ENTIRE Gmail account
Crooks don't have folders labelled 'drug records', opines NY beak
Delaware pair nabbed for getting saucy atop Mexican eatery
Burrito meets soft taco in alleged rooftop romp outrage
LightSquared backer sues FCC over spectrum shindy
Why, we might as well have been buying AIR
ITC: Seagate and LSI can infringe Realtek patents because Realtek isn't in the US
Land of the (get off scot) free, when it's a foreign owner
prev story

Whitepapers

Reducing security risks from open source software
Follow a few strategies and your organization can gain the full benefits of open source and the cloud without compromising the security of your applications.
Consolidation: The Foundation for IT Business Transformation
In this whitepaper learn how effective consolidation of IT and business resources can enable multiple, meaningful business benefits.
Application security programs and practises
Follow a few strategies and your organization can gain the full benefits of open source and the cloud without compromising the security of your applications.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Consolidation: the foundation for IT and business transformation
In this whitepaper learn how effective consolidation of IT and business resources can enable multiple, meaningful business benefits.