Apple Sued Over “Touch Disease” Flaw In iPhone 6s

It was really only a matter of time: owners of iPhone 6 and 6 Plus devices affected by the so-called “touch disease” have sued Apple over a supposed flaw that leads touchscreens to become unresponsive, essentially rendering the devices useless.

The proposed class-action lawsuit [PDF], filed Saturday in U.S. District Court for Northern California, accuses Apple of fraud and violating California consumer protection laws, claiming the tech giant concealed the defect and hasn’t done anything to address the problem.

According to the lawsuit, the issue, which surfaces after a flickering gray bar appears atop the touchscreen, is the result of Apple’s decision not to use a metal “shield” to protect chips that control the touchscreen.

These two chips translate your finger pressure into information the phone can use, iFixit reported about the flaw last week. When the chips go bad, they don’t register even the most forceful touch.

The lawsuit claims that Apple previously used a metal shield to protect the chips in earlier iPhone models, but chose not to with the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus.

 

The lack of protection makes the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus “substantially less durable to foreseeable and reasonable use by consumers and ultimately causes the touchscreen defect.”

Had owners known about the defect or Apple addressed the issue previously, the plaintiffs say these people might not have made the purchase or would have paid substantially less for the devices.

Fixing the issue isn’t easy for customers either, the suit — filed on behalf of two Pennsylvania and Delaware residents — alleges.

For one thing, according to the complaint, Apple has reportedly refused to fix the problem when customers bring in affected phones.

Both claimed to have taken their affected phones to an Apple store or contacted Apple Care for repairs related to “touch disease.”

Each say they were told by Apple that they would need to pay more than $300 for a replacement iPhone.

“Many other iPhone owners have communicated with Apple’s employees and agents to request that Apple remedy and/or address the Touchscreen Defect and/or resultant damage at no expense,” the complaint states. “Apple has failed and/or refused to do so.”

iFixit reports that only third-party repair techs can replace the chips, as Apple repair Geniuses aren’t allowed to make specialized repairs to logic boards.

“As a result of Apple’s unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices, owners of the iPhones, including Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or value,” the case states. “The unfair and deceptive trade practices committed by Apple were conducted in a manner giving rise to substantial aggravating circumstances.”

The suit seeks unspecified damages and an order that requires Apple to repair, recall, and/or replace affected iPhones and to extend the warranties of those devices for a reasonable period of time.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

The Battle Between Trader Joe’s & Pirate Joe’s Rages On

Can you effectively recreate a supermarket by buying a bunch of that store’s products, shipping them across the border and selling them in a store with a deliberately similar name? That’s the question at the center of a years-long legal battle between Trader Joe’s and its Canadian lookalike Pirate Joe’s.

We first wrote about this dispute back in Aug. 2013, when Trader Joe’s filed a lawsuit against Pirate Joe’s, a small Vancouver retailer that re-sold TJ products bought in the U.S. and shipped across the border.

Trader Joe’s argued that this was a case of trademark infringement and dilution that could cause possible confusion and harm to the brand. The Canadian store sells TJ-branded products, but at a substantial markup. Additionally, the U.S.-based chain said its reputation could be indirectly hurt if someone were to fall ill from eating frozen food that was improperly transported.

But the court disagreed, dismissing the lawsuit and ruling that the Lanham Act — the U.S. law that bars abuse of trademarks — does not apply to Pirate Joe’s conduct in Canada because the potential for harm posed by one small Vancouver shop does not merit extraterritorial application of the law.

However, last week the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s decision, ruling that TJ’s had indeed met the standard for allowing the company to bring a Lanham Act complaint against the Canadian owner of Pirate Joe’s, and that it didn’t matter that the alleged trademark infringement occurred in another country.

The appeals panel says that the effect on Trader Joe’s need not be substantial for the case to move forward, just “some effect.” This is important here because this effect usually involves foreign goods coming into the U.S. and allegedly harming a trademark. In this case, TJ’s makes no claim that the items sold at Pirate Joe’s are working their way back south of the border.

Nevertheless, argues the retailer, the fact that PJ’s is selling Trader Joe’s branded food at a significantly higher price to people who are familiar with — and may even drive to the U.S. to shop at — Trader Joe’s is sufficient to make the “some effect” claim.

What about the doctrine of “first sale,” which holds that after you buy something you’re pretty much free to do with it as you please? This is why there are used book stores, yard sales, eBay, Craigslist, etc. Why shouldn’t you be able to just resell Trader Joe’s brand food at whatever price you want to charge?

Trader Joe’s contends that unfettered reselling of its products may result in harm to its reputation and reduce the value of its trademarks if, for example, people get sick after eating a resold item, or obtain a substandard product that was harmed during the shipping process.

“There is nothing implausible about the concern that Trader Joe’s will suffer a tarnished reputation and resultant monetary harm in the United States from contaminated goods sold in Canada,” writes the Ninth Circuit. “Incidents of food-born illness regularly make international news, and Trader Joe’s alleges that it is aware of at least one customer who became sick after consuming food sold by Pirate Joe’s. Courts have held that reputational harm to an American plaintiff may constitute ‘some effect’ on American commerce.”

Additionally, there is the similarity of the names of the two stores and Trader Joe’s contention that Pirate Joe’s is attempting to pass itself off as an authorized partner of TJ’s.

If Pirate Joe’s customers mistakenly believe the two retailer’s are linked, the shoppers may incorrectly assume that Trader Joe’s is okay with the higher prices being charged at Pirate Joe’s, notes the ruling. TJ’s also contends that Pirate Joe’s provides a lower quality of customer service, which it says could harm the U.S. retailer’s reputation if shoppers believe the two stores have an official relationship.

“False endorsement gives rise to an actionable harm under the Lanham Act,” notes the court, “and Trader Joe’s contends it will suffer this harm in the United States because it draws international shoppers to its northern-Washington stores, and its trademarks stand to lose value in the United States.”

Finally, while Pirate Joe’s only resells the TJ’s items in Canada, Trader Joe’s alleges that the smaller store is nonetheless doing business in the U.S., by purchasing the food for resale in Washington and also allegedly hiring U.S. citizens to buy food on PJ’s behalf.

“This domestic economic activity weighs in favor of applying the Lanham Act” to Pirate Joe’s, says the court, which overturned the District Court’s 2013 dismissal of the case.

None of this means that Trader Joe’s has won the dispute or will ultimately prevail. The Ninth Circuit ruling only means that the Trader Joe’s lawsuit against Pirate Joe’s has been given new life and can continue to move forward.

A lawyer representing Pirate Joe’s tells the WSJ Law Blog that “We are obviously disagree with, and are disappointed in, the Court’s ruling. We are evaluating the opinion and our options going forward.”

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Chipotle Hopes Freebies For Kids & Students Will Convince Customers To Return

In its continuing effort to make everyone forget about all that food-borne illness stuff from last year, Chipotle is trotting out two new promotions in September aimed at the younger set.

The chain announced different freebies for different age groups: kids 12 and under will eat free on Sundays next month if their adult purchases one regular-priced entrée; and high school and college students will get a free drink with their order of an entrée if they show proper school ID.

“It’s back-to-school time, and students — particularly high school and college students — have always been such loyal customers, so we thought a promotion directed specifically to them would be a great way to help them ring in a new school year,” a Chipotle spokesman said.

That, and also it’d be super great for Chipotle if it could create loyal customers early that then grow up to be loyal adults willing to spend their money on burritos.

Other efforts in the Chipotle campaign to make people forget its run-ins with e. coli and norovirus: a new loyalty program called Chiptopia, free booze at some locations, and (e. coli-free!) free burritos.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

You Can Go Livestream 400 PlayStation 3 Games On Your PC Today

To people immersed in the world of video games, some things read as a given. You only play Halo titles on Xbox consoles. You only play Uncharted games on Sony hardware. PCs are yet another planet; there are worlds of exclusives that simply never meet. And yet today, it seems some streams will cross.

Sony announced today that its PlayStation Now streaming service is now available on Windows PCs, for all the PC gamers out there who want to get a taste of the console life.

PlayStation Now is basically a Netflix for video games: you pay your monthly fee, log in when you want, and can play games available on the service through live-streaming tech as long as you’re a subscriber in good standing.

When PlayStation Now first launched in 2015, it was expensive and limited. Subscriptions ran for $20 per month, and were basically only useful as a partial work-around for the absence of backward compatibility on the PS4 — you could use the new console to stream some PS3 titles, and that was it.

Nearly two years on, though, Sony’s now pushing a big expansion.The full list of PS3 games available on the service is now a fairly comprehensive sampler of the PS3 generation, from indie art-game darlings like The Unfinished Swan and Journey to major blockbusters like the God of War and Uncharted series.

Opening the service and all its Sony-exclusive titles to PC gamers is also a big move, especially since it’s going to come with an adapter that lets you connect a PS4 DualShock 4 controller to your computer for easy play.

To promote the new offering, Sony is also repeating / extending its earlier promotional offer of a year’s subscription for $100.

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Sears Bringing Paint Back To Store Shelves Nationwide

Now that home improvement materials are selling like hot cakes,, Sears is hoping it can capitalize on the DIY trend by selling paint for the first time in four years.

Noting that a strong housing market has prompted an increase in home improvement projects, Sears said it will sell Craftsman, Weatherbeater, and Easy Living paint brands in 23 locations first, before eventually expanding to the rest of its U.S. stores. Paint accessories like brushes and tape will also be available in Sears home improvement sections, the company said, along with “a trained sales team in all paint stores to assist customers in finding the best product for their project.”

“After stepping away from the paint business in 2012, we are seeing the demand from our customers to bring it back. With updated paint mixing technology, and by enlisting dedicated and trained associates, we are confident the time is right to re-enter the category and fill a need for our members,” said Dean Schwartz, vice president of Tools, Lawn and Garden at Sears in a press release.

The first stores to get paint will be: Albany, NY, Glen Burnie, MD, Oak Brook, IL, Aurora, IL, Des Moines, IA, Westland, MI., Sterling Heights, MI, Novi, MI, Livonia, MI, Saginaw, MI, Flint, MI, Muncie, IN, Altoona, PA, Lansing, MI, Louisville, KY, Whitehall, PA, Wilmington, Del., Moorestown, N.J., Pittsburgh, PA, Greensburg, PA, Waldorf, MD, St. Clairsville, OH., Niles, OH.

Sears is in need of a boost: after reporting last week that sales had dropped yet again, the company announced it would be borrowing $300 million from its own CEO.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Amazon Echo Will Let You Control Sonos Speakers

The Amazon Echo has a decent voice-controlled “assistant” in Alexa; too bad the speaker itself isn’t so great. Meanwhile, Sonos makes decent, web-connected speakers but without any voice control. You see where we’re going with this?

Sonos announced Tuesday that it had partnered with Amazon, and other companies, to “usher in a new era of connected home listening.”

This means that, starting in early 2017, Sonos speakers will work with Amazon’s Alexa. No, you won’t suddenly be able to shout orders at your $500 Play 5 speaker; you’ll need to have at least one of Amazon’s Alexa-enabled devices (Echo, Echo Dot, or Amazon Tap) connected to your network.

Folks who have both Sonos and one of these Amazon products will be able to ask Alexa to play music from Amazon Music, Spotify and other services and it will flow to any group of Sonos speakers in the home, Sonos says.

“Our mission is to fill every home with music,” Sonos President Patrick Spence said in a statement. “We don’t care what you listen to, how you get to it, or in what room – we just want it to be effortless, quick and epic. Alexa on Sonos will be all that, and fun too.”

In other connected device news, Sonos says that it has added Spotify Connect integration to devices, providing additional functionality to speakers that make them the only whole home sound system fully controlled by the Spotify app.

Sonos says that nearly 50% of all homes with one of its speakers uses Spotify.

“By tightly integrating the Spotify experience with the Sonos system, we’ve created an easier way for Sonos owners to get music out of their phones and playing all around their homes,” Sonos Vice President of Software Antoine Leblond says.

A software update will be available in October as part of the Sonos public beta program.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Consumer Privacy Groups File FTC Complaint Over Facebook, WhatsApp Data Sharing

It’s been less than a week since WhatsApp announced it would start sharing some user data with parent company Facebook, but in that short time, app users and privacy advocates alike have raised a ruckus over what they see as a broken promise. Now, some consumer privacy watchdog groups have filed a formal complaint with the FTC, asking them to look into it.

The complaint (PDF) comes from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD). The groups ask the FTC to investigate the new terms that Facebook and WhatsApp have set, saying it constitutes “an unfair and deceptive trade practice,” which is the legal term for all those misleading things the FTC’s responsible for quashing.

The change, EPIC and CDD claim, is widely viewed as a reduction of users’ privacy. They cite several tech journalists, international regulators, and experts who all shared negative views of the news when it broke. They also cite the FTC’s own previous communications to Facebook and WhatsApp about, well, exactly this.

Back when Facebook first announced its plans to buy WhatsApp back in 2014, the FTC warned the two to play nice when it came to users’ privacy. Facebook has been subject to strict privacy rules since a 2011 settlement with the FTC, and the feds warned the social network that it has to uphold its end of the bargain.

At the time, in 2014, the FTC advised, “WhatsApp must continue to honor these [existing] promises to consumers.”

And also at the time, both companies’ executives promised to do just that. In 2014, Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook was “absolutely not going to change plans around WhatsApp and the way it uses user data.” The CEO of WhatsApp echoed the sentiment, saying flatly, “We will never change our privacy policy.”

Given that the existing promise has now changed, as has the privacy policy, EPIC contends, Facebook and WhatsApp are now violating a promise to their billions of users, and are violating Section 5 of the FTC Act.

“When Facebook acquired WhatsApp, WhatsApp made a commitment to its users, to the Federal Trade Commission, and to privacy authorities around the world not to disclose user data to Facebook,” EPIC president Marc Rotenberg said in a statement. “Now they have broken that commitment.”

For what it’s worth, WhatsApp users have 30 days to opt out of having their data shared with Facebook. Clock’s a-ticking!

by Kate Cox via Consumerist