Apple Sued Over iTunes Gift Cards

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A couple has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in southern Illinois against Apple for "wrongful, illegal, improper and fraudulent acts." What were these terrible acts? The company’s gift cards say songs are all $0.99 each when in fact they range from $0.69 to $1.29. :rolleyes:

The Owens claim that Apple markets the gift cards as selling individual songs on iTunes for 99 cents each. The couple argues that not all songs in the iTunes Store are that cheap--some actually cost $1.29. They contend that they have been "denied the benefit of their bargain to purchase any song" from iTunes for 99 cents.
Click to expand...
 
The fact that someone is wasting time on this is simply ridiculous. Really not sure why this is a news story and why it's posted on the [H] but there it is. ;)
 
Apple should have taken into account the mass quantities of 99 cent labeled gift cards (or worse yet if they are still manufacturing them...lol). Or had retailers RMA all the defunct cards in lieu of the changes. It is their fault.
 
Legitimate claim, but hopefully they tried to resolve this properly before taking to the courtroom.
 
The lawsuit is over ~$65 worth of gift cards. Assuming they were planning on purchasing 65 songs marked at $1.29 this would make a difference of 65*0.30 = $19.50.

In a perfect world, Apple would send them a $20 gift card, change their marketing and the couple would eat all the legal fees.
 
I've never bought one, but I seem to recall seeing these cards on display and they are sold as a monetary amount, not as a number of songs.

I could understand them being upset if the card said "15 Songs".

iTunes quite clearly shows the price of the song when you browse the store. Right next to the "Buy Song" button! If you are too stupid to even stop and ask the question when you see that, then you deserve all you get.

There are songs cheaper than the cards claim as well, how very convenient that they did not see THAT aspect of things (yes, I know, it does seem that more songs went up in price than down, but that is probably down to what you look for).

Bottom line, they bought a $15 card and got $15 value from it.

If it said "15 songs!" In big letters instead of $15 they'd have a case. But still, going to court over $20 is nothing more than looking for a pay-day.

If you're going to do that ... use the Zune Marketplace ... ignore the fine print, and then bitch when you find out that your "10 songs to keep a month for free" does not include LARGE parts of the catalog (and frequently anything really popular), some songs are an additional charge regardless, and there are plenty of songs that either cannot be bought at all or are only available as part of an album.

And yes, Apple does the album-only thing too.

Hope the judge sentences them to mandatory "Too stupid to live" counseling.
 
I actually don't think there is anything wrong with this suite. If your in a grocery store and see these gift card that say $30 gift card with $.99 a song then that is a classic bait and switch.
 
Blaineikans said:
The lawsuit is over ~$65 worth of gift cards. Assuming they were planning on purchasing 65 songs marked at $1.29 this would make a difference of 65*0.30 = $19.50.

In a perfect world, Apple would send them a $20 gift card, change their marketing and the couple would eat all the legal fees.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, the songs shall now all cost $1.29 and the cards will be labeled appropriately. :D
 
RangerXML said:
If your in a grocery store and see these gift card that say $30 gift card with $.99 a song then that is a classic bait and switch.
Click to expand...

Only if it is deliberately misleading. This is just badly worded old stock. Good luck proving Apple had intent to defraud.

They still got their full $15 value.

Suing because you can is not the same as suing because you should.

And I bet had these people gotten more songs as a result of going for all $0.69 songs they would not have been making a fuss about that and praising Apple for it.

They are still just looking for a pay-day.

And if they win, ultimately, we all wind up paying more. Same with those jokers that RMA perfectly good video cards because they will not overclock as much as the next one, but still meet the specs they were sold at perfectly.

As previous posters said, I hope their pay-day is no more than the amount they are out, which by my math is between ~$4.50 and $19.50.

At most this is a small claims court issue anyway, and at <$20 how the hell is it even worth their time?

With a bit of luck the 7th amendment will prevent them getting a jury trial on top of it.
 
Torq said:
Only if it is deliberately misleading. This is just badly worded old stock. Good luck proving Apple had intent to defraud.

They still got their full $15 value.

Suing because you can is not the same as suing because you should.

And I bet had these people gotten more songs as a result of going for all $0.69 songs they would not have been making a fuss about that and praising Apple for it.

They are still just looking for a pay-day.

And if they win, ultimately, we all wind up paying more. Same with those jokers that RMA perfectly good video cards because they will not overclock as much as the next one, but still meet the specs they were sold at perfectly.

As previous posters said, I hope their pay-day is no more than the amount they are out, which by my math is between ~$4.50 and $19.50.

At most this is a small claims court issue anyway, and at <$20 how the hell is it even worth their time?

With a bit of luck the 7th amendment will prevent them getting a jury trial on top of it.
Click to expand...

That's a dangerous attitude. It opens the floodgates to letting merchants walk all over everyone because nobody would take the initiatives and tell them to back off. Someone's gotta do it, even if it means a sacrifice on their part. Aside from customers keeping vigilence, competition is also what keeps prices down.
 
Torq said:
And if they win, ultimately, we all wind up paying more. Same with those jokers that RMA perfectly good video cards because they will not overclock as much as the next one, but still meet the specs they were sold at perfectly.
Click to expand...

I love people that do that, because then I can pick it up as a "recertified" or "open box" part on the cheap. :) I couldn't tell you the last time I paid retail for a vid card. Plus, this way I don't have to deal with all those stupid MIRs...
 
Azhar said:
That's a dangerous attitude. It opens the floodgates to letting merchants walk all over everyone because nobody would take the initiatives and tell them to back off. Someone's gotta do it, even if it means a sacrifice on their part. Aside from customers keeping vigilence, competition is also what keeps prices down.
Click to expand...

Nothing dangerous about it.

If you have genuinely been wronged, sue away. As I said, there is a difference between suing because you can, and because you should.

Getting $15 of value for something that said it was worth $15 and you paid $15 for is not anybody walking all over anyone, and these people have suffered no loss as a result.

If the card said 15 songs instead of $15 and there were no prices marked on the store, or you could buy without seeing them, or you did not have to agree to the new TOS for using the store in the first place and applying your card to account then I would take their side.

None of those things are true.
 
Well, people slammed other companies for this type of marketing, why not this. I can't blame them, the gift cards were stating 99 cents per song.
 
So can I sue the post office when my stamps suddenly aren't enough to mail a letter any more? Anywho, I hope they rack up a ton of legal costs and applie is ordered to give them 20 bucks to cover the inflation.
 
Torq said:
Nothing dangerous about it.

If you have genuinely been wronged, sue away. As I said, there is a difference between suing because you can, and because you should.

Getting $15 of value for something that said it was worth $15 and you paid $15 for is not anybody walking all over anyone, and these people have suffered no loss as a result.

If the card said 15 songs instead of $15 and there were no prices marked on the store, or you could buy without seeing them, or you did not have to agree to the new TOS for using the store in the first place and applying your card to account then I would take their side.

None of those things are true.
Click to expand...

But the thing is the card clearly states that it's a $15 card and songs are 99 cents apiece.

If it didn't mention the 99 cents, then yes, it's legitimate.
 
anyone who sues over this kinda sissy shit should have to pay their own legal fees. im not a die hard fan of apple, but i do use the itunes gift cards for just about every thing from birthdays to christmas and personal use. The card's value is CLEARLY marked... get over it...
 
The purchase of the card is not the point, nor time, of value redemption.

Value is redeemed upon application of the card to your iTunes account and/or purchase of actual songs.

In both cases it was necessary to agree to the new terms and conditions BEFORE redeeming that value. Prior to redemption the card can be returned and refunded.

Did not read the new terms and conditions? Your fault.

The only concession I can see here at ALL is if the card in question was produced by Apple AFTER that change in terms on the store. And if that was the case, sure you could make a case that it is deliberately misleading. If Apple still have that wording on cards issues since the change, screw them to the wall.

The bottom line is still that they PAID $15 and GOT $15 of value for it.

If you want to argue that they paid $15 and were somehow entitled to $19.50 of value for it, that is a different issue. If the VALUE of the CARD had changed, again, I would be on their side.

It did not.

The price of the merchandise did, and they had the opportunity to back out of their side of the deal prior to using the card on said merchandise.
 
I am not an Apple hater, they make alot of good products. but I think theres alot of lawsuites out there against Apple for doing the same thing alot of other companies do without fear of lawsuites.

I remember when the first iPhone dropped in price. All those people who stood in line for days were like, how dare you lower the price and then they ran to there lawyers and sued.
Every technology out there has price drops after a while. You don't see other computer enthusists sueing because the product they bought has sense dropped in price.
 
Some lawyers have nothing better to do but search for this type for garbage. Had a friend that owned a popular club in san jose that received several lawsuits shortly after advertising "ladies night" and etc where women would get in either free, or reduced cost. The lawyers, ie multiple, never attended the club, nor planned to, but the lawsuits indicated he was being sexist. Obvivously, they didn't want this changed, just settle out of court a few thousand. Pretty rediculous and he later came to find out speaking with other owners that certain lawyers just make a business going around doing this.
Even though I'm no fan of apple, in the real world they would just give consumers a credit for the mistake. Instead some firm will get millions while the consumer gets something rediculous like $3 coupon off your next apple Ipod purchase.
 
I have to agree with this some. If the cards in the store state on them that songs are $0.99. Then you get home and see they are $1.30 you have been lied too. Lets say I got to McDonalds and they have a a banner outside saying that if you buy 1 BigMac you get one free. But then buy 1 bigmac and they tell me I don't get a free one as that deal is over, I have been lied too and that is false advertising. While it is true that I did not get ripped of as I got what I paid for and got it everything I paid for, they were still advertising a deal that was no longer valid thus it is false advertising.

Same holds true here. Yes, the people got $20 worth of music from a $20 gift card. Yes they only paid whatever the cost of a song was. HOWEVER if the card or the display that cards on all claims that all songs are only $0.99 each, then the songs need to be $0.99 otherwise it is false advertising. It doesn't matter if they are old cards or old displays. Apple should have taken that into consideration when they changed their prices. Just like with my example above McDonalds should have taken down all their signs when the deal is over and not left them up. In this case, Apple should have recalled all old cards that stated that cost of a song.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...tunes+gift+card&type=product&id=1122652611158

Look at this to see the problem. Here on bestbuy's site right now it states

&#9702;Choose from more than 3 million songs for 99 cents each
Click to expand...

Now it doesn't tell you that EVERY song is only 99 cents, however for the average person I could see how they could take it to mean that as there is no clause telling you that prices range from x and y.

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=9855661

Here is walmart, again
Choose from millions of songs for 99 cents each
Choose from hundreds of TV shows for $1.99 each
Click to expand...

Again with the songs being 99 cents, this one adds that movies are only $1.99



This shows that to the average person they are basicly telling you when you buy the card that songs are only $0.99, and movies are only $1.99



To me that seems like a lie and could see where this comes suit comes from.

So what if they get $5 from Apple, if it makes them change what they advertise their prices to be then these people have got what they wanted.
 
Well, this is interesting in that I'm not really sure what I think should happen. There are reasonable arguments for both sides.
 
Exavior said:
So what if they get $5 from Apple, if it makes them change what they advertise their prices to be then these people have got what they wanted.
Click to expand...

Trust me. They will not ask for $5, but quite a few zeros after that.
 
Exavior said:
This shows that to the average person they are basicly telling you when you buy the card that songs are only $0.99, and movies are only $1.99.
Click to expand...

As long as there are millions (3,000,001 to be precise, based on that wording) of songs available for $0.99 then there is no misunderstanding here.

The customer may make an incorrect extrapolation and assume it means all songs, and it may be better for the provider to be more explicit to prevent this, but that is not the same as intent to defraud.
 
Story would be a little sweeter had the consumer suing Apple been #2 on the liver transplant list...
 
Torq said:
Nothing dangerous about it.

If you have genuinely been wronged, sue away. As I said, there is a difference between suing because you can, and because you should.

Getting $15 of value for something that said it was worth $15 and you paid $15 for is not anybody walking all over anyone, and these people have suffered no loss as a result.

If the card said 15 songs instead of $15 and there were no prices marked on the store, or you could buy without seeing them, or you did not have to agree to the new TOS for using the store in the first place and applying your card to account then I would take their side.

None of those things are true.
Click to expand...

The advertised price of the songs in on the card, getting home to see the price on the card is different is wrong PERIOD.

I honestly dont know how anyone can argue against it, putting a price on the card is an advertisement to help sell the card not honoring that price when the time comes to pick songs is FALSE advertisement.

Apple should honor these cards and recall what they can until they are gone, not doing so is bullshit and opens the door for every other company to pull shit like this with gift cards.
 
Usually in cases like these, it's the lawyers who send out a memo or ad in the papers asking for people who were "hurt" by these outrageous actions by Company XYZ. They try to get enough people signed on so that they can turn it into a class action. The people who signed on might get a few thousand bucks for their efforts if the lawyers are successful. Everyone else on the class action gets nickles and dimes. Now here's the important part: the lawyers get millions in fees.

Do you realize that even if Burger King or McDonald's advertise a B1G1 free on burgers, say on TV or in print, that any individual Burger King or McDonald's can refuse that offer? Each is a franchise and privately owned (subject to terms of the franchise) and can accept or refuse these offers as they please. Granted there is usually wording to that effect.

The most important thing is the wording on those iTune cards. Another very important point is whether there was an intent to deceive consumers. IMHO, Apple (love them or hate them) had no intent to deceive in this case. If Apple can prove they changed the wording on their new cards to reflect the changes in pricing structure and that all cards sold after the price hike was old stock then they have an extremely good chance of getting off scott free (minus lawyer fees). And in their favor when they present it to the judge, they lowered the prices on some of their songs to 69 cents.
 
akugami said:
Do you realize that even if Burger King or McDonald's advertise a B1G1 free on burgers, say on TV or in print, that any individual Burger King or McDonald's can refuse that offer? Each is a franchise and privately owned (subject to terms of the franchise) and can accept or refuse these offers as they please. Granted there is usually wording to that effect.
Click to expand...

They can refuse because they include the "Offer valid at participating restaurants" disclaimer not because they are franchised and independantly owned.
 
pfunkman said:
The advertised price of the songs in on the card, getting home to see the price on the card is different is wrong PERIOD.

I honestly dont know how anyone can argue against it, putting a price on the card is an advertisement to help sell the card not honoring that price when the time comes to pick songs is FALSE advertisement.

Apple should honor these cards and recall what they can until they are gone, not doing so is bullshit and opens the door for every other company to pull shit like this with gift cards.
Click to expand...

Then return the card. There's a lot of songs for .99, there's also songs cheaper. I guess Apple needs to raise those prices and then lower the 1.29 for people that use the mislabled gift card. Not a big deal at all, certainly not a big enough deal to get you all excited over it.
 
lathode said:
Then return the card. There's a lot of songs for .99, there's also songs cheaper. I guess Apple needs to raise those prices and then lower the 1.29 for people that use the mislabled gift card. Not a big deal at all, certainly not a big enough deal to get you all excited over it.
Click to expand...

Or better yet they could just honor the price they advertise :rolleyes: Really its not rocket science i bring in a coupon with a price on it you give me the price advertised.

I see it as a potential big deal because if apple gets away scott free how long before more companies are shipping out cards with prices they do not intend to honor on them?
 
pfunkman said:
The advertised price of the songs in on the card, getting home to see the price on the card is different is wrong PERIOD.

I honestly dont know how anyone can argue against it, putting a price on the card is an advertisement to help sell the card not honoring that price when the time comes to pick songs is FALSE advertisement.
Click to expand...

The statement made on the card is 100% accurate.

It claims millions of songs for $0.99. This statement is absolutely true, even today.

IF it said "All songs only $0.99" then you would have a point. It did not. Ergo you do not.

You want to argue the semantics of psychology and what a consumer MIGHT think in that situation that is one thing. But the cards make no false claims whatsoever, and consequently that is not false advertisment.
 
The main question I have here is: Are these cards old? Like produced BEFORE the price changes went into effect? And going on, do the newer cards also have this 99 cent price on em?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top