Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Apple Sued Over iPhone Price Cut

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

October 3, 2007, 11:50 AM

Apple is finding itself in the center of yet another skirmish over its $200 USD price cut for the iPhone, although this one has landed it in court.

Dongmei Li, a resident of Queens, NY filed the lawsuit Sept. 24 in federal court in New York. It accuses Apple, Steve Jobs, and AT&T of price discrimination, discrimination in offering rebates versus credits, underselling, and unfair and deceptive practices, among other charges.

Li apparently is so upset that she is seeking some $1 million in damages from the company. She also took issue with Apple's offer of a $100 credit to early adopters: those who purchased the phone within 2 weeks of the price cut could still have gotten the $200 difference back in cash.

Worse yet for Li, she bought the $499 4GB model, the version of the phone that ended up being discontinued by the company. She claims that the resale value for her phone model is much less now due to Apple's actions.

"Apple's discrimination in price between early and later purchasers substantially caused the early purchasers to be injured because early purchasers cannot resell their iPhones for the same profit as later purchasers," her suit reads.

Li is also accusing AT&T of unfair business practices due to the requirement that purchasers of the iPhone must sign a two-year contract with the company.

Apple could not be reached for comment on the suit. AT&T had no immediate comment, as it did not have a chance to look over the suit as of press time.

Add a Comment (35 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By ZenWarrior

posted Oct 4, 2007 - 4:58 PM

Why is everyone harping on the plaintiff? The real focus in this should be on the lawyer who thought it wise to take the case. Win or lose, the lawyer gets some valuable publicity.

Score: 0

By unistyle

posted Oct 4, 2007 - 2:53 PM

she knew the price of the phone when she stood in line. she knew that electronics are constantly dropping in price and being replaced by newer models. she knew she wanted it so bad she was willing to wait in line for 20hours and pay $600.

why can't the company drop the price without getting sued? she knew the price and was more than willing to pay it! it's not like she was tricked into paying a higher price, it was clearly printed on the box she read as she stood in line to buy the damn thing. why can't people understand this concept. when i bought my car, it was a 2 year old model, i talked the guy down to a price i thought the car was worth to me, a price that i was willing to pay. sure people probably have gotten the same car for cheaper, but when i paid for it i was ok with parting with that money. i totally understand that apple did lower the price very soon, but still you knew what you were paying when you paid it.

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted Oct 4, 2007 - 2:13 PM

I never understood this, if you buy something that is 600 dollars, what gives you the right to 100 times that amount in return? I can see a full refund, I can see a year credit towards the bill etc.

I can see Apple being told to knock it off, or to make it right, I can them being ordered to give everyone who bought one from day a credit equal to the difference in price, but why does the person suing, get 1 million? What about everyone else that got "screwed over" if you want to call it that, I think a company has a right to lower the price if it chooses, it even tried to make it right by offering a credit but thats not good enough? Come on.

Score: 0

By ModderXManiac

posted Oct 4, 2007 - 12:05 PM

Look, Apple could've taken the full $600 and laughed all the way to the bank, but they didn't. A $100 reimbursement is more fair than any policy I've seen from any company in a loooong time.

The only thing that got me is just how SOON the price drop occured, but the lady suing is a moron.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 4, 2007 - 12:35 PM

but the lady suing is a moron.

...unless she, like, wins....and stuff.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 9:55 PM

"Apple's discrimination in price between early and later purchasers substantially caused the early purchasers to be injured because early purchasers cannot resell their iPhones for the same profit as later purchasers," her suit reads.

1. Is this moron in the habit of buying cellphones just to sell them.

2. how is there a profit to be made from selling a used phone. In order to make a profit she would have to sell it for more than she paid.

Score: 0

By mdn777901

edited Oct 4, 2007 - 6:21 AM

Doesn't this remind you of a hot coffee law suite? We all know the result of that one. It goes to show you how messed up our legal system is!

Score: 0

By ZenWarrior

posted Oct 4, 2007 - 4:55 PM

As others have noted, the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was quite legitimate, provided one knows all the facts. McDonald's truly deserved to lose that one.

Score: 0

By unistyle

posted Oct 4, 2007 - 2:19 PM

you sir are an idiot .. the hot coffee case was a completely legit case with total negligence on mcdonalds behalf.. terrible comparison.

Score: 0

By Secret Agent Man

posted Oct 4, 2007 - 8:10 AM

I hate it when people try to use this example. The hot coffee case is not an example of a greedy/stupid American lawsuit! The coffee was actually much hotter than what safety regulations required, and the woman received third degree burns from the coffee. It was not a lawsuit without merit.

Score: 0

By auiotour

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 6:37 PM

They came up with a new model, this isn't anything new, Apple does this all the time. omg my macbookpro its a 2.17Ghz, whent he 2.2 came out mine dropped by $200 retail!

Man apple released new ipods but I think that my 5th gen video ipod. I should get a credit towards the apple store to buy a new ipod. I only had it for 2 weeks before the new 160 came out for the same price! I want to sue.

Seriously, $1,000 isn't a huge amount of money even if you don't have a lot of money. And the price she i seeking is huge for the small price she paid more for.

Score: 0

By kbsoftware

edited Oct 3, 2007 - 4:30 PM

I never have been and never will be an early adopter, new products always have bugs to be worked out etc. Plus I get to see what the problems are with the product, with everything I have read I would not buy an iPhone, that's a nice chunk of change that won't be wasted.

As for comments about she will not win, I've been reading articles about all sorts of court cases online (slashdot, and yes even BetaNews) and on a few occasions my jaw dropped when a person who filed an incredibly stupid lawsuit would actually win. Today with the little faith I have in the justice system it would not surprise me the slightest if Li won. I sometimes thing the court system goes like this, if you did not do it, you are guilty, if you are the victim you will be punished and if your lawsuit is stupid you will win as well :)
And don't get me started on the lawyers, they've found a way to justify the jokes about them :)

Personally cases like this, the plaintiff should be taken in the back and slapped and the lawyer who represented the plaintiff who clearly is not in it for justice but for the money should be slapped twice, but that's just my thoughts on it :)

And the comments made by Joco had me laughing for a few minutes. I was thinking you should return to the store with the toilet paper and hit the manager with a roll, that will teach him to lower the price lol

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 4:20 PM

Dongmei Li stood in line for 20 hours and payed $600 for a phone she just had to have that very day. Now Dongmei Li wants to sue Apple.

Maybe Dongmei Li should sue on the grounds that Dongmei Li is mentally retarded or just really stupid.

Score: 0

By terminalx

edited Oct 3, 2007 - 2:17 PM

Its a shame you can't sue oil companies for gouging consumers. I paid $2.98 a week ago now its $2.52

I am suing!

/not really
//relevant?
///I like slashies because they are so delicious...
////wait, where was I going with that

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 2:47 PM

/not really
//relevant?
///I like slashies because they are so delicious...
////wait, where was I going with that

...I doubt even God knows. :p

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 2:06 PM

This is headline-seeking garbage. I hate when consumers get taken for a ride, but this is just as wasteful.

Hopefully Apple get their legal fees back from this moron.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 2:03 PM

Good Lord...

Did they guarantee her *anything*? Resale value? Fixed pricing?

Time to work on the giant catapult that'll toss payloads to the Moon, I think we just found our first test-subject.

Score: 0

By Joco

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 1:51 PM

I suffered the same distress. I bought a pack of toilette roll paper last month. Now the price of that pack has been scandalously reduced by $0.50. The emotional distress each time I use these toilette papers is beyond words.

The price cut also severely reduces the attractiveness of the resale value of the remaining rolls I still have.

If ever I hear that this lady win her case. The retailer who has had the bad idea of reducing the price of his merchandise is going to suffer. I am not cheap, if I sue, it will be in the range of billions.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Oct 3, 2007 - 1:32 PM

Li apparently is so upset that she is seeking some $1 million in damages from the company.

For what? $999,800.00 worth of pain and suffering?

Score: 0

By Secret Agent Man

posted Oct 4, 2007 - 8:13 AM

It's ridiculous that one can sue another entity for more-or-less whatever price you ask for based solely on emotional distress, etc. Now, there really is no way to measure this type of distress in terms of currency, is there? I'm sure a large sum of money would relieve that distress, but there's no reason whatsoever that anyone should have to pay that much in emotional damage. If she wins, she should be entitled to no more than a refund + legal fee reimbusrement (sp).

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Oct 4, 2007 - 11:07 AM

If she wins, she should be entitled to no more than a refund + legal fee reimbusrement (sp).

Sadley, the legal fee reimbursement probably is close to that amount! (okay, not really...)

Score: 0

By Remco-

edited Oct 3, 2007 - 1:14 PM

Holy crap...
Imagine the damage she will do IF she is going to win this.
Companies won't be allowed to cut prices for their products anymore, everything will be sold for the maximum price...

That woman is nuts and could as well give the money she has to pay to her lawyers/court to me or some charity lol. She KNEW in advance that prices ALWAYS drop some time after products are released. When you are an early adopter you are, or should be, aware that you buy that product for a higher price than when you would buy it later.
She could as well sue every company she ever has bought products from, since all of the products have most likely dropped in price...

Also, how will she explain that she has suffered $1,000,000 from the price drop? I don't think that can be higher than the actual price she bought the product for...

Score: 0

By TomeOne

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 1:04 PM

I can't wait to see her lose and have to pay her lawyer fees.

Tee hee.

Score: 0

By sacaripasa

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 1:05 PM

probably a pre-law student who got illusions of grandeurs from a recent lecture.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 1:32 PM

She lives in NY too...I thought these BS suits could only be filed in Southern California?

Score: 0

By sacaripasa

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 12:58 PM

Well that didn't take long!

Score: 0

By Frostek

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 12:56 PM

This person is clearly an idiot. Half the things they're suing for they knew in advance, so why the hell did they buy the phone in the first place?

I think a lot more people who raise these spurious cases should get done for wasting the court's time.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 12:38 PM

You can't make a case out of that. It just isn't possible to win.

I agree with the person's sentiments entirely, but come on, that's how pricing works.
They set the price, you buy for that price, you're happy.

It's not terribly fair if they make a large price cut 2 months down the line, but there is no come back against the company.

I do however believe the company should reimburse the early adopters fully if they're going to take the piss and drop the price so soon (for something so expensive).

Score: 0

By Jordanr05

edited Oct 3, 2007 - 12:37 PM

You guys will sue over anything hey. Quite sad - and she wants $1 million? Christ that's a long shot. Oh the life of an early adopter.

Score: 0

By arossetti

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 12:46 PM

Never underestimae the idiocy of a NY jury...

Score: 0

By sacaripasa

edited Oct 3, 2007 - 1:02 PM

All in favor of jury $$ caps say I.

Score: 0

By TomeOne

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 12:01 PM

Early adopters are the biggest group of sucks around. :)

Score: 0

By Michael.Hatamoto

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 12:19 PM

Even though I agree that most of the people understood a price cut was coming, no one expected it to come so quickly! I was at the Apple announcement where Jobs disclosed the price cut, and a few people around me were cursing a bit because they purchased their iPhone recently.

Score: 0

By sacaripasa

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 1:04 PM

Tortise and the Hair..

Score: 0

By Famguy929

posted Oct 3, 2007 - 2:07 PM

lol Joco.

Score: 0

Sep 5 - 8:44 PM ET Mozilla's Aza Raskin: The journey back to Ubiquity

Sep 5 - 7:10 PM ET Red Hat buys virtualization specialist Qumranet

Sep 5 - 7:06 PM ET Analysts: Online news viewers rising as newspaper readership falls

Sep 5 - 6:55 PM ET Where does Sarah Palin stand on technology issues?

Sep 5 - 6:51 PM ET Adobe Flash to deliver NFL games in full

Sep 5 - 4:29 PM ET Exclusive beta invitation from GameTap and BetaNews

Sep 5 - 4:09 PM ET Report: OLPC buy one, give one deal returns

Sep 5 - 3:45 PM ET No ruling yet in TiVo vs. EchoStar patent case

Sep 5 - 3:37 PM ET Google Analytics starts tracking Chrome, with intriguing results

Sep 5 - 2:14 PM ET Comcast challenges FCC's authority in sanction appeal