Lawyers in iPod Class Action Lawsuit Track Down New Plaintiff

Late last week and early this week, both of the plaintiffs in the ongoing class action iPod lawsuit that Apple is fighting in court were disqualified, leading Apple to file for a dismissal. The judge presiding over the case ruled that the lawsuit would continue, however, and lawyers for the plaintiffs have now tracked down a replacement, reports The Wall Street Journal.

Barbara Bennett, a 65-year-old amateur ice dancer from Boston was flown into Oakland this morning to testify in the U.S. District Court. Bennett reportedly purchased an iPod in late 2006, which falls within the September 12, 2006 to March 31, 2009 dates covered in the lawsuit.

ipod-original
Bennett told the court how she learned to skate backwards and used iPods while skating. Attorneys questioned her about when she purchased the devices. The iPod Nano she bought in late 2006 appeared to qualify her as a class member.

"We're on the right track," Judge Rogers said to the attorneys after they interviewed Bennett.
Judge Rogers initially offered to put the trial on hold for two days to give Apple time to investigate new plaintiffs, but the company declined, leading the judge to continue the trial. She also informed Apple that the snafu over plaintiff purchase dates could give the Cupertino company a reason to appeal. "You now have an appealable issue," she told Apple attorneys.

The iPod lawsuit has received quite a bit of attention since it began last week, as it featured a video deposition and emails from former Apple CEO Steve Jobs. In the case, the plaintiffs have argued that Apple had an obligation to allow third-party companies to load music onto the iPod, and that its moves to block competitors created a monopoly.

Apple, however, has argued that pressure from record companies and a desire to protect customers from malicious content kept it from making iTunes and the iPod more accessible to third-party companies. The lawsuit, which seeks $350 million in damages, is expected to last for several more days, with the jury deliberating on a verdict next week.



Top Rated Comments

(View all)
Avatar
55 months ago

Bennett told the court how she learned to skate backwards...

Kind of like the plaintiff's legal team.
Rating: 13 Votes
Avatar
55 months ago
they googled "ebay 2006 ipod" and "craigslist actors"
Rating: 8 Votes
Avatar
55 months ago

This is almost at the level of ambulance chasing. Have they done a late night, cheap television commercial as is done by law firms for pharma or product liability lawsuits?


Don't delay. Call now!
Rating: 6 Votes
Avatar
55 months ago
Congratulations. How did they possibly find a person from 8 years ago that owned an iPod?
Rating: 5 Votes
Avatar
55 months ago
Objection your honour. The witness is confusing an iPod with a piss bag.
Rating: 4 Votes
Avatar
55 months ago

Just what I was thinking. They need a plaintiff who has been damaged.

Did this plaintiff in question have DRM'd music from another vendor that was erased by Apple?


Maybe it's enough to prove they wasted money on an iPod thinking it would play their DRM'd library. However, I've just done a quick google and there were around 150 million iPods sold in that period. Assuming that one third of these were sold in the US (number pulled out of ass for mathematical convenience) then that $350 million equates to $7 per iPod (God I hope that's right) , which is the cost of a few songs. I hope if Apple loses, the court orders the money be paid to charity, because the idea of millions of $7 cheques being mailed out for something that happened over 5 years ago offends me on so many levels.
Rating: 4 Votes
Avatar
55 months ago
This case is starting to sound like something out of The Onion. A 65-year-old amateur ice dancer? Really?
Rating: 4 Votes
Avatar
55 months ago
So you didn't even have to aware of the issue until you read it on a tech news site days ago to be a plaintiff?
Rating: 3 Votes
Avatar
55 months ago

I don't see how her hobbies or occupation are relevant to the case or for anyone here to comment. What difference does it matter. All that matters is whether or not she purchases the iPod in the timeframe and is a viable plaintiff. End of story.


It's a well known fact that 65 year old backward ice skaters use ghettoblasters, not iPods.
Rating: 3 Votes
Avatar
55 months ago
I don't see how her hobbies or occupation are relevant to the case or for anyone here to comment. What difference does it matter. All that matters is whether or not she purchases the iPod in the timeframe and is a viable plaintiff. End of story.
Rating: 3 Votes
[ Read All Comments ]