lawsuit


'lawsuit' Articles

Law Firm Sues Apple and Samsung, Claiming Phones Exceed Radiofrequency Radiation Safety Levels

Chicago-based law firm Fegan Scott has levied a lawsuit against both Apple and Samsung, claiming that independent testing suggests the radiofrequency radiation levels in recent smartphones "far exceeded the federal limits" when used "as marketed by the manufacturers." The basis for this lawsuit dates back to August, when The Chicago Tribune launched an investigation into the radiofrequency radiation levels output by popular smartphones. RF Radiation Testing Results from a Chicago Times Investigation in August The paper hired an accredited lab to test several smartphones according to federal guidelines, and found that some of Apple's iPhones are allegedly emitting radiofrequency radiation that exceeds safety limits. Apple disputed the results and in a statement, said that the testing was inaccurate "due to the test setup not being in accordance with procedures necessary to properly assess the ‌iPhone‌ models.""All ‌‌iPhone‌‌ models, including ‌‌iPhone‌‌ 7, are fully certified by the FCC and in every other country where ‌‌iPhone‌‌ is sold," the statement said. "After careful review and subsequent validation of all ‌‌iPhone‌‌ models tested in the (Tribune) report, we confirmed we are in compliance and meet all applicable ... exposure guidelines and limits."At the time, the FCC said that it would launch its own investigation into the results, and a day after The Chicago Tribune published its findings, the Fegan Scott law firm pledged to launch its own investigation into the claims. Fegan Scott enlisted an FCC-accredited laboratory to do its own testing of six

Lawsuit Against Apple's Faulty Butterfly Keyboards Moves Forward

A federal judge this week rejected Apple's request to dismiss a class action lawsuit over its faulty butterfly keyboards, reports Reuters, which means the lawsuit will proceed. The complainants believe that Apple knew of and concealed the fact that its 2015 and later MacBook models had keyboards prone to failure and that its repair program does not serve as an effective fix because replacement butterfly keyboards can also fail. San Jose District Judge Edward Davila said that Apple must face the claims that the repair program is inadequate or compensate customers for their out-of-pocket expenses for repairs. The lawsuit covers customers who purchased 2015 MacBook models or later and 2016 MacBook Pro models or later, which includes all machines that are equipped with Apple's butterfly keyboard. Apple has faced public scrutiny and many, many complaints over the butterfly keyboard's penchant to fail when exposed to dust and other small particulates. Apple launched a repair program that covers all of its MacBook, ‌MacBook Pro‌, and MacBook Air models that have a butterfly keyboard, but at the current time, all keyboard replacements are also butterfly keyboards. Apple has attempted to revise the butterfly keyboard several times to make it more durable, but ultimately, it's still prone to failure. With the recently released 16-inch MacBook Pro Apple eliminated the butterfly mechanism and reverted to a more reliable scissor mechanism, but the new 16-inch ‌MacBook Pro‌ keyboard is limited to that machine and older models are still getting repairs with

Apple and Intel Sue SoftBank-Owned Firm Over 'Endless, Meritless' Patent Lawsuits

Apple and Intel on Wednesday jointly filed a lawsuit against SoftBank-owned investment firm Fortress Investment Group, accusing the company of violating U.S. federal antitrust laws by pursuing "endless, meritless" patent litigation. The complaint alleges that non-practicing patent assertion entities like Fortress aggressively pursue patent litigation against large companies like Apple and Intel, knowing that even if they lose several cases, they could eventually win a case with a large monetary reward that exceeds their losses. Apple and Intel argue that Fortress-backed entities have "sought billions of dollars" from the two companies over the years, forcing both tech giants to spend "millions of dollars" on outside resources like counsel and expert witnesses to defend against Fortress-backed demands and assertions. Fortress-backed entities like Uniloc, DSS Technology Management, and Seven Networks are also named in the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters. The complaint was filed in Northern California federal court. Apple and Intel v. Fortress... by MacRumors on Scribd

Corellium Responds to Apple Lawsuit, Claims its iOS Virtualization Software Helps Apple

Apple in August filed a lawsuit against Corellium, a mobile device virtualization company that supports iOS, with Apple accusing Corellium of copyright infringement for replicating the operating system that runs on the iPhone and iPad. As noted by Motherboard, Corellium today filed its response to Apple's lawsuit, accusing the Cupertino company of owing $300,000 and claiming that its software helps Apple by making it easier for security researchers to track down iOS bugs. A virtual ‌iPhone‌ on Corellium's website used as evidence in Apple's lawsuit against the company According to Apple, Corellium's product infringes on its copyrights by creating digital replicas of iOS, iTunes, and other apps and software. "Corellium has simply copied everything: the code, the graphical user interface, the icons - all of it, in exacting detail," reads Apple's lawsuit. Corellium designed its software to create virtual iOS devices able to run iOS, and has encouraged researchers and hackers to use it to find and test vulnerabilities. According to Corellium, Apple's code in its product is "fair use" and the software makes the world better by allowing security researchers to look into iOS, find flaws, and inform Apple so the bugs can be fixed. Corellium argues it's easier for researchers to find and test bugs in iOS using virtual instances of iOS rather than physical devices. With this lawsuit, says Corellium, Apple is aiming to control who is allowed to find vulnerabilities in its software. This is a position that is also supported within the security community, according to Mo

Former Apple Lawyer Facing Criminal Charges for Insider Trading

Former Apple lawyer Gene Levoff, who was in charge of enforcing Apple's Insider Trading Policy, is facing criminal charges related to insider trading of Apple stock, reports CNBC. Levoff was today indicted for insider trading, and he is facing six counts of security fraud and six counts of wire fraud. According to the U.S. government, Levoff used inside information from Apple, including financial results before they were published, to sell Apple stock ahead of weaker than expected earnings results between 2011 and 2016 as well as to purchase stock during stronger quarters. This scheme to defraud Company-1 and its shareholders allowed Levoff to realize profits of approximately $227,000 on certain trades and to avoid losses of approximately $377,000 on others. When Levoff discovered that Company-1 had posted strong revenue and net profit for a given financial quarter, he purchased large quantities of stock, which he later sold for a profit once the market reacted to the news.The United States Securities and Exchange Commission first filed charges against Gene Levoff in February, but now he is facing criminal charges in addition to civil charges. Levoff worked for Apple from 2008 to 2018, and prior to when he was fired from the company, he was the senior director of corporate law. Apple declined to comment on the criminal charges filed today, but in February, said the following: "After being contacted by authorities last summer we conducted a thorough investigation with the help of outside legal experts, which resulted in

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear University of Wisconsin's Appeal in Patent Lawsuit Against Apple

The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear the University of Wisconsin's appeal in its patent fight with Apple, according to Reuters. In July 2017, a U.S. district court ordered Apple to pay $506 million to the University of Wisconsin's Alumni Research Foundation for infringing on a patent related to computer processing technology with its A7, A8, and A8X chips. In September 2018, however, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the damages that Apple had been ordered to pay, ruling that no reasonable juror could have been able to find infringement based on the evidence that was presented in the liability phase of the original 2015 trial. The decision comes on the first day of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2019

U.K. Court Reinstates Lawsuit Accusing Google of Bypassing Safari's Privacy Settings to Track iPhone Users

An appeals court in London has reinstated a lawsuit filed against Google that accuses the company of unlawfully gathering personal information by circumventing the iPhone's default privacy settings, according to Bloomberg. The collective action, equivalent to a class action lawsuit in the United States, alleged that Google illegally tracked and gathered the personal data of over four million ‌iPhone‌ users in the U.K. between 2011 and 2012. The case was first brought in November 2017 and had been dismissed in October 2018. "This case, quite properly if the allegations are proved, seeks to call Google to account for its allegedly wholesale and deliberate misuse of personal data without consent, undertaken with a view to a commercial profit," wrote Judge Geoffrey Vos in a ruling today, per the report. A similar lawsuit was filed in the United States in 2012, when Google was discovered to be circumventing privacy protections in Safari on iOS in order to track users through ads on numerous popular websites. Specifically, Google took advantage of a Safari loophole that made the browser think that the user was interacting with a given ad, thus allowing a tracking cookie to be installed. With that cookie installed, it became easy for Google to add additional cookies and to track users across the web. At the time, Safari blocked several types of tracking, but made an exception for websites where a person interacted in some way — by filling out a form, for example. Google added code to some of its ads that made Safari think that a person was submitting an

Apple Sued Over Listing Memoji as One of Its Registered Trademarks Despite Ongoing Legal Battle [Updated]

Atlanta-based company Social Technologies LLC today filed a lawsuit against Apple that accuses the iPhone maker of falsely indicating that it holds the federal registration for the trademark Memoji in the United States. Apple has included MEMOJI® in its U.S. trademark list on its website since June 2019, with the ® symbol signifying a federally registered trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, despite the federal registration for the trademark belonging to Social Technologies LLC and not Apple. Of note, Apple has successfully registered the Memoji trademark in some countries outside the United States, and several foreign countries also use ® to indicate that a mark is registered in that country, but fine print on Apple's website says its list is for trademarks and service marks in the United States. Memoji is the name of Apple's personalized emoji feature for iPhone and iPad, introduced as part of iOS 12 at WWDC 2018. Apple has applied for two trademarks for the feature with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, but both are currently suspended due to ongoing litigation with Social Technologies LLC. Social Technologies LLC offers an Android app named Memoji on the Google Play store, which it describes as "the world's best messaging app that will capture the facial expression of the end user with full-motion capabilities, and transpose the image into a custom, personalized emoji of the users actual face." Social Technologies LLC already sued Apple for trademark infringement in September 2018, and alleges that Apple even unsuccessfully tried to

Class Action Lawsuit Against Apple for Offering Refurbished Replacement Devices Under AppleCare Moves Forward

A U.S. District Judge in San Jose today certified a class action lawsuit that accuses Apple of using "inferior" refurbished products as replacements for its AppleCare and ‌AppleCare‌+ protection plans despite promising consumers new or equivalent to new replacements. [PDF] The class action lawsuit was first filed against Apple in July 2016 by customers in California who were unhappy that their iPhones and iPads were replaced by refurbished devices under Apple's ‌AppleCare‌ or ‌AppleCare‌+ plan. The plaintiffs, Vicky Maldondo and Joanne McRight, claimed that Apple's decision to offer refurbished devices violate its own ‌AppleCare‌ Terms and Conditions and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. From the original lawsuit:The Apple Plans purport to provide consumers with Devices that are "equivalent to new in performance and reliability." What that phrase means is 'new' as refurbished devices can never be the equivalent to new in performance and reliability. Plaintiffs allege that it means refurbished. Refurbished is synonymous with the term "reconditioned," that is, a secondhand unit that has been modified to appear to be new for all purposes relevant to this litigation. "New" means a Device that has never been utilized or previously sold and consists of all new parts. The word "refurbished" appears only once in the ‌AppleCare‌+ terms and conditions even though the printed booklet is 33 pages long.The lawsuit seeks compensation for iPhone, iPad, or iPod owners who purchased ‌AppleCare‌ or ‌AppleCare‌+ coverage. The law firm behind the lawsuit says that Apple customers

Apple Faces Yet Another Class Action Lawsuit Over 'Secretly Throttling' Older iPhones

A group of 18 individuals have filed a class action lawsuit against Apple this week in a Northern California federal court, accusing the company of "secretly throttling" older iPhones starting in January 2017. The complaint, seen by MacRumors, refers to the iPhone slowdown saga as "one of the largest consumer frauds in history, affecting hundreds of millions of mobile devices across the globe," adding that Apple intentionally degraded devices as part of a planned obsolescence scheme to maximize profits:While Plaintiffs and the class need not attribute any motive behind Apple's intentional degradation of the Devices, it is evident that Apple continued to do so for the simple reason most frauds are committed: money.Apple previously denied any kind of planned obsolescence by flat out stating that it never has and never would do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience, to drive customer upgrades:We have never — and would never — do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades. Our goal has always been to create products that our customers love, and making iPhones last as long as possible is an important part of that.Apple faces over 60 class action lawsuits worldwide over this matter. The first was filed in December 2017, after Apple revealed that it throttles the maximum performance of some older iPhone models with chemically aged batteries when necessary in order to prevent the devices from unexpectedly shutting down. This latest

Developers Sue Apple Over App Store Fees in Latest Class Action Lawsuit

Apple is facing a new class-action lawsuit from iOS developers who claim that the company uses its monopoly in the App Store to impose "profit-killing" commissions. Filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose, the lawsuit argues that the tech giant's practice of instating a 30 percent commission rate on all app sales is anticompetitive and "sets the stage for Apple to abuse its market power." The suit also takes aim at Apple's minimum $0.99 price requirement for paid apps in the ‌App Store‌ and in-app purchases, as well as the annual $99 Apple Developer fee, calling these policies "especially damaging to smaller and new developers." "Between Apple's 30 percent cut of all ‌App Store‌ sales, the annual fee of $99 and pricing mandates, Apple blatantly abuses its market power to the detriment of developers, who are forced to use the only platform available to them to sell their iOS app," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney representing the proposed class of developers. "In a competitive landscape, this simply would not happen." "Today's lawsuit seeks to force Apple to end its abusive monopoly and allow competition in the distribution of iOS apps and related products, to get rid of its pricing mandates, and to reimburse developers for overcharges made through abuse of its monopoly power." "We think app developers should be rewarded fairly for their creations, not over-taxed by a corporate giant," Berman said. "After 11 years of monopoly conduct and profits, we think it's high time

FTC Wins Antitrust Lawsuit Against Qualcomm [Updated]

The FTC today won its antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm over the chipmaker's anticompetitive business practices. As first reported by legal expert Florian Mueller on his blog FOSS Patents, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh has ruled that Qualcomm's so-called "no license, no chips" model, under which the chipmaker has refused to provide chips to companies without a patent license, violates federal antitrust laws. The ruling has significant implications for Apple, as Koh ordered that Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with its customers in good faith without threatening to cut off access to its cellular modem chips or related software and technical support, according to Mueller. Qualcomm also must make patent licenses available to rival cellular modem suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory or "FRAND" terms, and may not enter exclusive agreements for the supply of modem chips. Apple sued Qualcomm in early 2017 over these anticompetitive business practices, and unpaid royalty rebates, but the two companies announced an agreement to end all ongoing litigation worldwide last month. The settlement includes a six-year licensing agreement and a multiyear chipset supply agreement. It's unclear if Apple had any hint that the FTC was likely to win its antitrust case and if that had any implications on its settlement with Qualcomm. While it appears that Intel will remain the sole supplier of LTE modems in 2019 iPhones, Qualcomm is expected to supply Apple with its industry-leading 5G modems for 2020 iPhones now that the companies have

Supreme Court Allows App Store Monopoly Lawsuit Against Apple to Proceed [Updated]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 against Apple in an anticompetitive case involving the App Store, allowing iPhone users to move forward with their class action lawsuit against the company, as first reported by CNBC. From the Supreme Court's ruling:In this case, however, several consumers contend that Apple charges too much for apps. The consumers argue, in particular, that Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to charge consumers higher-than competitive prices. A claim that a monopolistic retailer (here, Apple) has used its monopoly to overcharge consumers is a classic antitrust claim. But Apple asserts that the consumer plaintiffs in this case may not sue Apple because they supposedly were not "direct purchasers" from Apple under our decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720. We disagree. The plaintiffs purchased apps directly from Apple and therefore are direct purchasers under Illinois Brick. At this early pleadings stage of the litigation, we do not assess the merits of the plaintiffs' antitrust claims against Apple, nor do we consider any other defenses Apple might have. We merely hold that the Illinois Brick direct-purchaser rule does not bar these plaintiffs from suing Apple under the antitrust laws. We affirm the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lawsuit was filed in 2011 by a group of ‌iPhone‌ users who believe Apple violates federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through its ‌App Store‌, where it collects a 30

Apple Wins Lawsuit Over Group FaceTime Eavesdropping Bug

Back in January, there was a major FaceTime bug that allowed a person to force a FaceTime connection with another person, providing access to the user's audio and sometimes video even when the FaceTime call was not accepted. The bug led to a lawsuit from Houston lawyer Larry Williams II, who claimed that the vulnerability allowed an unknown person to listen in on sworn testimony during a client deposition. Williams filed his lawsuit in January, just a day after the bug was publicized, and yesterday, a court ruled in Apple's favor and dismissed the case. The court did not find Williams' argument that the FaceTime vulnerability was "unreasonably dangerous" to be valid, nor did the court believe that he provided sufficient evidence to prove that Apple knew of the defect.Williams's petition does not allege facts about any available alternative design. He fails to allege facts about the iOS 12.1 software as to whether the defect that allegedly allowed a third party to "eavesdrop" on his group FaceTime call was "unreasonable" for the product's ordinary use. Williams's generalized allegation that the iOS 12.1 software was "unreasonably dangerous" and caused him injury falls short of the Rule 8 threshold. Williams's petition recites the pleading elements, but it does not allege facts that could show Apple's knowledge of the defect or that Apple could reasonably have foreseen that an unknown third party would listen to Williams's group FaceTime call without his permission. Williams's claim also fails because he did not state facts that could show that Apple's alleged

Apple Hit With Two Class Action Lawsuits Over iPhone 7 Audio Issues

Apple potentially has a legal battle on its hands over iPhone 7 audio chip issues informally known as "Loop Disease." Two class action lawsuits filed against Apple in California and Illinois over the last week accuse the company of knowingly selling the iPhone 7 and ‌iPhone‌ 7 Plus with an audio chip defect that causes issues ranging from a grayed-out speaker button to customers not being heard during phone calls and FaceTime video chats. The nearly identical complaints, viewed by MacRumors, allege that "the materials used in the ‌iPhone‌'s external casing are insufficient and inadequate to protect the internal parts," eventually resulting in the audio chip losing electrical contact with the logic board due to "flexion" of the device during regular use. Apple is accused of actively concealing the defect and failing to provide free repairs to affected customers outside of a brief period last year, thereby breaching its warranties and violating multiple California and Illinois consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs, including California residents Joseph Casillas and De'Jhontai Banks and Illinois residents Brianna Castelli, Karen Lyvers, and Matthew White, are seeking damages "likely in the millions of dollars" on behalf of all other affected ‌iPhone‌ 7 and ‌iPhone‌ 7 Plus customers in the United States. The plaintiffs are also seeking an order that requires Apple to repair, recall, and/or replace the affected iPhones and to extend the warranties of the devices for a reasonable period of time. A jury trial has been demanded. In an internal document

Class Action Lawsuit Over Broken iPhone 4, 4s, and 5 Power Buttons Finally Proceeding to Trial

A class action lawsuit originally filed against Apple in 2013 over broken iPhone 4, ‌iPhone‌ 4s, and later ‌iPhone‌ 5 power buttons is finally set to proceed to jury trial in San Diego state court beginning October 25, 2019. The lawsuit alleges that Apple knowingly sold the aforementioned ‌iPhone‌ models with "defective" power buttons and refused to properly remedy the issue. For this, Apple is accused of "deceptive" or "fraudulent" business practices, breach of warranty, and violating multiple California consumer laws. The proposed class includes California residents who purchased an ‌iPhone‌ 4, ‌iPhone‌ 4s, or ‌iPhone‌ 5 from Apple or a third-party retailer:‌iPhone‌ 4 and 4S Class: All California citizens who purchased one or more ‌iPhone‌ 4 or 4S smartphones from Apple or a third-party retailer, from June 24, 2010 through October 10, 2011 for the ‌iPhone‌ 4, and from October 11, 2011 through September 20, 2012 for the ‌iPhone‌ 4S, and whose sleep/wake (power) button stopped working or worked intermittently during a one year period from date of purchase. ‌iPhone‌ 5 Class: All California citizens who purchased one or more ‌iPhone‌ 5 smartphones from Apple or a third-party retailer prior to April 1, 2013, and whose sleep/wake (power) button stopped working or worked intermittently during a three year period from date of purchase.In April 2014, Apple initiated a program offering free repairs of a "small percentage" of ‌iPhone‌ 5 models with power buttons that may "stop working or work intermittently," but the lawsuit alleges that the program went

Apple Hit With Securities Fraud Lawsuit for Hiding iPhone Sales Drop

Apple is facing a class action lawsuit accusing the company of securities fraud for making false statements and failing to disclose adverse information regarding its business prospects. These actions allegedly led to an artificially inflated stock price. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that Apple was not initially forthcoming about a drop in demand for the iPhone due to poor sales in China and the 2018 battery replacement program, both of which contributed to lower than expected ‌iPhone‌ sales in the first fiscal quarter of 2019. Apple is also accused of hiding the fact that production orders from suppliers had been slashed and prices had been cut, Apple's decision not to provide unit sales for iPhones and other hardware is also cited as a method Apple used to cause stock prices to rise to $209 per share. When Apple did reveal the dip in ‌iPhone‌ sales and announced that it would not make its quarterly revenue forecast, Apple's stock fell $15 per share from $157.92 on January 2 to $142.19 per share on January 3. According to the lawsuit, Apple knew its ‌iPhone‌ sales weren't on track months before the information was shared. The lawsuit, filed by the City of Roseville employees' retirement fund, is aiming to recover damages on behalf of people who purchased Apple stock between November 2, 2018 and January 2, 2019. Tim Cook and Luca Maestri are both named as defendants. Update: A second law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against Apple, which is essentially identical to the first lawsuit. It also accuses Apple of securities fraud for concealing the ‌i

Apple vs. Qualcomm Trial Begins Today

Two years after Apple sued Qualcomm over $1 billion in unpaid royalty rebates and anticompetitive patent licensing practices, the tech heavyweights are set to face off in a San Diego courtroom. The trial begins today with jury selection. Apple manufacturers Foxconn, Pegatron, Wistron, and Compal, whose complaints have been merged with Apple's, allege that they have collectively overpaid Qualcomm approximately $9 billion in royalties, a figure that could be tripled under antitrust laws to $27 billion, according to The New York Times. Apple argues that Qualcomm should also repay $3.1 billion associated with patents whose rights are exhausted, the report adds. Apple in January 2017:For many years Qualcomm has unfairly insisted on charging royalties for technologies they have nothing to do with. The more Apple innovates with unique features such as Touch ID, advanced displays, and cameras, to name just a few, the more money Qualcomm collects for no reason and the more expensive it becomes for Apple to fund these innovations.Qualcomm in turn estimates that Foxconn, Pegatron, Wistron, and Compal owe more than $7.5 billion in unpaid royalties. Qualcomm also argues that Apple should be held liable for a doubled penalty of at least $15 billion. Qualcomm in April 2017:Apple is the world's most profitable seller of cellular devices. But as a late-comer to the cellular industry, Apple contributed virtually nothing to the development of core cellular technology. Instead, Apple's products rely heavily on the cellular inventions of Qualcomm and others. Apple's iPhones and

Canadian Accountant Caught Buying Nearly $7 Million Worth of iPhones and iPads With Company Credit Card

The National Post has shared the story of a Canadian accountant who was caught after buying nearly $7 million worth of iPhones and iPads with her company credit card and reselling them to the owner of a small electronics store. Ian Gavan/Getty Images Nadia Minetto, who was as an accounting manager at Mississauga-based software company Wescom Solutions, started buying thousands of Apple products with her company-issued American Express card in 2011. It had been her job to approve business expenses for all employees, so her spending went unnoticed. Over the next two and a half years, the Ontario Superior Court found that Minetto sold 5,321 iPads and 4,942 iPhones to businessman Gabriel Fung, who in turn sold them at his store Plus One Solutions in the Toronto area and to wholesalers in Hong Kong, turning a profit of just over $1 million. Fung first met Minetto after responding to her ad for an iPad on Kijiji, a popular Craigslist-like classifieds site in Canada. Their transactions eventually became more elaborate, often involving 10 to 20 devices at a time, ultimately leading to bulk shipments to the address of a virtual business set up by Fung. The scheme came to an end in July 2014, when consultant Kristine Pacy discovered spending irregularities as Wescom was contemplating becoming a publicly traded company. The court determined that at least $6,831,834 of Wescom's money was misappropriated dating back to May 2009. Minetto admitted to her actions and, in October 2014, she consented to a judgment in the amount of $6,831,834.17 plus interest. Wescom also won

Apple Sued Over Swollen Batteries in Apple Watches

New Jersey resident Gina Priano-Keyser has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Apple this week in U.S. district court, accusing the company of fraudulent business practices and breach of warranty related to the Apple Watch, according to court documents accessed by MacRumors. ‌Apple Watch‌ with display popped off and swollen battery via Shawn Miller Priano-Keyser alleges that all Apple Watches up to and including Series 4 models are prone to a defect that results in the lithium-ion battery swelling and causing the screen to "crack, shatter, or detach from the body" of the watch "through no fault of the wearer, oftentimes only days or weeks after purchase." The plaintiff believes that Apple either knew or should have known that the ‌Apple Watch‌ models were defective before selling them, adding that they pose "a significant safety hazard to consumers" — a "number" of which have suffered "cuts and burns" as a result of the scratched, shattered, or detached screens. Apple has acknowledged the possibility of swollen batteries in select Apple Watch models in the past, and offered free repairs up to three years after purchase. However, the complaint alleges that the company often attributes the issue to "accidental damage" and thus "refuses to cover repairs" under warranty. Priano-Keyser states that she purchased an ‌Apple Watch‌ Series 3 in October 2017. In July 2018, while charging, she alleges that the screen "unexpectedly detached" from the watch's body and cracked. Her daughter "pushed the screen back into place," but the ‌Apple Watch‌ has been