Intel ducks class action false advertising claims over slow CPUs

OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge on Friday dismissed multiple false advertising and fraud claims against Intel Corporation from a group of consumers who say the company knowingly sold them CPUs with security vulnerabilities that could only be fixed by making the hardware up to 50% slower.

In his 16-page order, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. tossed the plaintiffs’ claims under the California False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, ruling they couldn’t prove that they relied on a fraudulent misrepresentation or omission by Intel when they decided to buy the products.

The judge ultimately said that the consumers failed to claim anything more than a “tenuous, speculative connection” between their purchases and the sources and marketing materials they reviewed beforehand.

“Since plaintiffs have not pled actual reliance on any misrepresentation, the court dismisses plaintiffs’ UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims brought under a fraudulent misrepresentation theory,” Gilliam wrote.

The Barack Obama appointee also ruled that the consumers didn’t adequately plead any defects the CPUs had were “central” to their function, which is a requirement for a fraudulent omission claim. Because the defect didn’t render the hardware “incapable of use,” he found the consumers fell short on their claims.

“This distinction, while subtle, is fatal to plaintiffs’ claims,” Gilliam said.

The decision was a significant blow to the consumers’ lawsuit, since the nationwide classes’ claims, which were based on California law, were all dismissed in their entirety without leave to amend.

However, the judge left multiple claims alive in the lawsuit under Oregon, Kansas, Illinois and Minnesota law, calling Intel’s efforts to get rid of them “insufficient.”

“The court denies Intel’s motion to dismiss these claims on the ground that it did not adequately present its dismissal arguments,” the judge said.

Gilliam directed the plaintiffs to file a joint case management statement by September, where they will decide if they want to continue fighting the multiple state-level claims in the case or if they would like to proceed directly to judgment so they can pursue an appeal.

Attorneys for both sides did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The group of consumers first filed their class action against Intel in late 2023 for product liability and unfair business practices.

According to the plaintiffs, Intel knowingly sold a series of CPUs that have a serious security vulnerability known as “Downfall” that leaves the systems vulnerable to attacks. They further claim that this vulnerability, which Intel discovered in 2018, inhibited the CPUs’ “memory protections and memory access mechanisms,” which make up the “bedrock” of modern, multi-tasking CPUs.

Although Intel eventually remedied the problem, the consumers claim the defect can only be fixed through a patch that slows CPU performance by up to 50% during everyday computing tasks.

This solution, they claim, is “on par with the disease” when it comes to addressing the problem.

Intel later moved to dismiss the class action, which the judge granted in August 2024, although he granted the plaintiffs leave to amend. The group of consumers filed their now-repaired class action the following month.

As part of their new complaint, the plaintiffs also brought several claims under Oregon, Kansas, Illinois and Minnesota law that largely resembled the violations claimed on behalf of the nationwide classes under California law.

Intel moved to dismiss the amended complaint in October 2024.

This case was filed in the Northern District of California.