iPod Lawsuit Loses Last Plaintiff as Judge Discusses Halt Amid Search for Replacements

ipod_classic_roundupU.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, presiding over Apple's iPod/iTunes lawsuit that began last week, has disqualified the last plaintiff in the case and judged that the trial will continue while lawyers scramble to find a replacement, reports Associated Press.

That last plaintiff, Marianna Rosen, was disqualified by Judge Rogers after Apple successfully proved that the devices Rosen bought were either not from the timeframe covered by the lawsuit or were purchased using a credit card issued to her husband's business.

With all plaintiffs now removed from the case, Apple has attempted to have the case dismissed, claiming it is too late to name a new plaintiff. The original plaintiff's attorneys were given a deadline of today to name a new lead plaintiff, but The Wall Street Journal's Jeff Elder reports the judge is conferring with attorneys for both sides this morning to discuss a possible two-day delay in the trial while the situation is addressed.

According to the AP's account of the proceedings that saw the case lose its last plaintiff, Judge Rogers "scolded" Rosen and her attorneys and called Rosen's purchases "inadequate," showing impatience at having spent a week sifting through irrelevant testimony.

"I am troubled," the judge said, citing Rosen's failure to adequately account for her iPod purchases and "the failure of plaintiffs' counsel themselves to investigate sufficiently." But the judge said she has an obligation to the "millions of absent class members" to let the case continue if another lead plaintiff can be identified.

Two other plaintiffs withdrew from the case when their purchased iPods also inadequately aligned with the devices included in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs' attorney Bonny Sweeney claims many more possible plaintiffs are lining up after reading about the story making headlines last week, telling Judge Rogers that "there are plaintiffs who stand willing and ready to step in and we will have them in court tomorrow." Apple's lawyers will be given the names of the possible volunteers and judge whether or not they are eligible.

The case has been making waves since it began last week, with several Apple executives voicing their positions on the issue, a video deposition of the late Steve Jobs being shown in court last Friday, and today's news that major media outlets are seeking to broadcast Jobs' deposition to the public.

Popular Stories

iPhone 17 Pro Dark Blue and Orange

iPhone 17 Release Date, Pre-Orders, and What to Expect

Thursday August 28, 2025 4:08 am PDT by
An iPhone 17 announcement is a dead cert for September 2025 – Apple has already sent out invites for an "Awe dropping" event on Tuesday, September 9 at the Apple Park campus in Cupertino, California. The timing follows Apple's trend of introducing new iPhone models annually in the fall. At the event, Apple is expected to unveil its new-generation iPhone 17, an all-new ultra-thin iPhone 17...
xiaomi apple ad india

Apple and Samsung Push Back Against Xiaomi's Bold India Ads

Friday August 29, 2025 4:54 am PDT by
Apple and Samsung have reportedly issued cease-and-desist notices to Xiaomi in India for an ad campaign that directly compares the rivals' devices to Xiaomi's products. The two companies have threatened the Chinese vendor with legal action, calling the ads "disparaging." Ads have appeared in local print media and on social media that take pot shots at the competitors' premium offerings. One...
iPhone 17 Pro Iridescent Feature 2

iPhone 17 Pro Clear Case Leak Reveals Three Key Changes

Sunday August 31, 2025 1:26 pm PDT by
Apple is expected to unveil the iPhone 17 series on Tuesday, September 9, and last-minute rumors about the devices continue to surface. The latest info comes from a leaker known as Majin Bu, who has shared alleged images of Apple's Clear Case for the iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max, or at least replicas. Image Credit: @MajinBuOfficial The images show three alleged changes compared to Apple's iP...
maxresdefault

The MacRumors Show: iPhone 17's 'Awe Dropping' Accessories

Friday August 29, 2025 8:12 am PDT by
Following the announcement of Apple's upcoming "Awe dropping" event, on this week's episode of The MacRumors Show we talk through all of the new accessories rumored to debut alongside the iPhone 17 lineup. Subscribe to The MacRumors Show YouTube channel for more videos We take a closer look at Apple's invite for "Awe dropping;" the design could hint at the iPhone 17's new thermal system with ...

Top Rated Comments

jcmeyer5 Avatar
140 months ago
Seems to me that the lawyers are the ones pushing this case... not consumers. Blood sucking leeches!
Score: 29 Votes (Like | Disagree)
jayducharme Avatar
140 months ago
I wonder if there's something else going on here. I mean, for both of the plaintiffs to NOT have even owned an iPod -- that's pretty egregious. How could they (or their lawyers) even remotely think the lawsuit would succeed?
Score: 19 Votes (Like | Disagree)
A MacBook lover Avatar
140 months ago
Shun me as a fanboy, Apple really is a company that tries to do the right thing, and succeeds most of the time.
Score: 16 Votes (Like | Disagree)
jdag Avatar
140 months ago
Just because a lead plaintiff cannot be found it does not mean that Apple isn't guilty of what is being charged

Agreed, this doesn't proove anything either way.

However, this feels like a lawsuit that some lawyers are trying to fabricate. The lawyers are having to actually search for people that may or may not have been harmed.

I'll find a hole to twist my ankle in if I walk enough unpaved paths.
Score: 12 Votes (Like | Disagree)
MacLawyer Avatar
140 months ago
Just because a lead plaintiff cannot be found it does not mean that Apple isn't guilty of what is being charged

True, but is it fair to add a plaintiff after trial has started? Apple won't have a chance to depose this new person. What if his/her iPod doesn't qualify either?
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
cariacou Avatar
140 months ago
they should make a movie out of this instead
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)