SAN DIEGO (CN) – Apple computer and AT&T unjustly profited by misrepresenting the speed and performance of Apple’s 3G iPhone and the bandwidth network through which AT&T backs it up, a class action claims in Superior Court. “(T)he G3 iPhone demands too much power from the 3G bandwidths,” the complaint states. “The AT&T infrastructure is insufficient to handle this overwhelming 3G signal based upon the high volume of 3G iPhones it has sold.”
The “affected models” are the 3G-8GB and 3G-16GB iPhones.
The complaint states: “Apple’s prior EDGE-based iPhone had complaints of being too slow over the Internet, despite early ads that made it appear as if the iPhone could surge at desktop-like speeds. Due to the overloaded 3G network, it is quite common for 3G iPhone users to be on the 3G network for only a few minutes before their 3G iPhone switches over to the slower EDGE network, even in areas with rich 3G coverage.
“AT&T has misrepresented the performance of its 3G network. AT&T spokesperson Brad Mays stated that iPhone 3G is ‘performing great’: ‘Customers in 300 major metro areas in the United States and 350 by the end of the year are experiencing the fast network connectivity that our 3-G network provides,’ according to Mays in an email interview. Mays also stated that ‘We have anticipated the influx of users and have reported that the strength of the network can, does and will continue to support that.'”
However, the complaint continues, “According to Information Week, Apple CEO Steven Jobs responded to an upset 3G-iPhone owner via email stating that ‘This is a known iPhone bug that is being fixed in the next software update in September.’ So far, Apple has issued two firmware updates to make corrections to the device’s many bugs. Neither of Apple’s Affected Models contain a disclaimer on the outside of each and every one of defendant’s 3G iPhone boxes.”
Plaintiffs demand an injunction, disgorgement and punitive damages for unlawful business practice and false advertising. They are represented by Hiden, Rott & Oertle.
A similar class action was filed in Newark Federal Court.