Oh no, you're thinking, yet another cookie pop-up. Well, sorry, it's the law. We measure how many people read us, and ensure you see relevant ads, by storing cookies on your device. If you're cool with that, hit “Accept all Cookies”. For more info and to customize your settings, hit “Customize Settings”.

Review and manage your consent

Here's an overview of our use of cookies, similar technologies and how to manage them. You can also change your choices at any time, by hitting the “Your Consent Options” link on the site's footer.

Manage Cookie Preferences
  • These cookies are strictly necessary so that you can navigate the site as normal and use all features. Without these cookies we cannot provide you with the service that you expect.

  • These cookies are used to make advertising messages more relevant to you. They perform functions like preventing the same ad from continuously reappearing, ensuring that ads are properly displayed for advertisers, and in some cases selecting advertisements that are based on your interests.

  • These cookies collect information in aggregate form to help us understand how our websites are being used. They allow us to count visits and traffic sources so that we can measure and improve the performance of our sites. If people say no to these cookies, we do not know how many people have visited and we cannot monitor performance.

See also our Cookie policy and Privacy policy.

This article is more than 1 year old

Wheels fall off bid to sue Apple over iTunes anti-piracy shenanigans

Turns out you can't file lawsuit on behalf of 'whoever'

The status of the class-action lawsuit against Apple over its iTunes store is in doubt, after it appeared that the plaintiffs were not actually eligible to sue.

On Friday, Apple filed a motion [PDF] to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs listed didn't actually own an iPod during the period for which they are suing the company for restricting songs on the devices.

The suit alleges Apple violated consumer protection laws between 2006 and 2009 by unfairly restricting iPod owners to playing music purchased through or ripped from CD by iTunes.

Apple has thus far argued that it was not violating antitrust laws but rather making reasonable efforts to protect the iPod and iTunes lines from hacking and tampering with the anti-piracy protections it was asked by labels to provide.

Now, however, it seems Cupertino is moving to have the case tossed out on different grounds related to the plaintiffs themselves.

While a class-action lawsuit allows attorneys to sue on behalf of a large group of customers and divvy up the penalties at a later date, to actually bring the case to court requires one or more people who were actually subject to the wrongdoing.

According to Apple, neither of the two people listed as plaintiffs in the Northern California District Court case owned an iPod during the aforementioned years. The company argues that both plaintiffs – Melanie Wilson and Marianna Rosen – purchased their Zune-killers outside of the period in which their attorneys are claiming Apple violated the antitrust laws.

Because none of the people filing the suit are actually subject to the damages described in the filing, Apple believes that the case should be binned. Wilson has already withdrawn from the legal fight.

“I am concerned that I don’t have a plaintiff. That’s a problem,” Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said in the Oakland court on Thursday. Apple first brought the issue to her attention in a letter on Wednesday evening.

If Apple's motion were to be granted, the class action would end – but Apple would not be out of the woods as others who did buy an iPod during the Sept 2006 to March 2009 period would be able to file other claims against Apple.

It would, however, end a case against the company which has been going on in various forms for nearly a decade. ®

 

Similar topics

TIP US OFF

Send us news


Other stories you might like