You may have heard about consumer woes back in 2012, when iPhone users switched to Android phones. Some consumers who made the switch complained that they were unable to send texts or receive texts from other iPhone users. This caused three plaintiffs to file a class action lawsuit against Apple, claiming a violation of the Federal Wire Tap Act. The lawsuit finally came to a halt today after a federal judge made a decision.
With a single line in her final order, the U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh dismissed the lawsuit against Apple. This is a second victory for the electronic giant, as Judge Koh also declined to give the lawsuit a class action status back in November 2014. However, the lawsuit would still proceed without the class action status.
The Story Behind The Alleged Failed Messages
The three plaintiffs (with one even requesting to become an unnamed plaintiff at one point during the litigation) originally purchased Android phones in 2012, making the switch from Apple iPhones. They accused Apple of violating the Federal Wire Tap Act since they were unable to receive texts or messages from other iPhone users. However, the catch in this case came when all three plaintiffs disposed of their old iPhone prior to filing the case.
Eventually, Apple did find there to be a bug or glitch of some kind, creating a tool to help with the issue. While this particular consumer issue has come to an end with Apple, what remains to be seen is what future complaints will come to fruition in a class action against Apple. The tech giant is still facing legal woes, including a class action for the iPhone 5 Wi-Fi defect.
If you have a case in which you believe you have been a victim of fraud or misrepresentation as a consumer, seek the help of a lawyer experienced with consumer law and litigation.
Quick Navigation
Free Consultation
"*" indicates required fields
Undisclosed
Settlement
TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.
TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.
Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.
TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.
TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.
Class-wide settlement in wage and hour independent contractor misclassification class action on behalf of approximately 1,800 valet employees. Final approval granted.
Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.
$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.
One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.
Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.
Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.
With so many law firms in Southern California and throughout the United States, why choose the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman?
Todd Friedman has been named a 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 Super Lawyer, a distinction of professional achievement and peer recognition.
Speak directly with attorney Todd Friedman about your case. Todd will evaluate your situation and provide prompt and straightforward feedback, saving you time and alleviating uncertainty.
Our firm has earned an A+ Rating from the Better Business Bureau, and has been accredited since 2010.
We are strong advocates for our clients and have the resources necessary to take on powerful opponents and win.
Contact Us
and start fighting back
We offer Free Initial Consultations.
If you have experienced a violation of your rights, call us at 323-690-1688 or fill out the form to the right →
Not ready to commit yet? Check out our Testimonials page and see what others have said about their experience working with us!
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site, including collecting and providing that information to third party vendors to improve our experience, and for marketing purposes. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
