|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 2705 | Technology | 08/30/2004
Numerous class actions have been filed against cellular phone manufacturers and cell-phone service providers on behalf of cell-phone users who allege that the companies sold them phones that would not connect to 911 services as required by regulations passed by the Federal Communications Commission. The actions seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
When mobile phones are used outside the geographic range to which they are assigned, they often make connections through base stations that do not belong to the company to which the phone user subscribes. Many analog mobile phone manufacturers restrict the user's access to cellular systems designated by the subscriber's cellular carrier, creating what is referred to as a preferred roaming list (PRL). Because of this, those phones will not work in areas that are not covered by a company on the PRL. In 1999, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a regulation requiring that all mobile phones manufactured after February 13, 2000, and capable of operating in an analog mode incorporate a special procedure for processing 911 calls. The regulation requires that analog phones be able to recognize when a 911 call is being made and override any programming in the phone that is designed to restrict the number of analog carriers who could take the call. The commission also set aside three processes that the phone manufacturer could use. This regulation ensures that when an analog mobile phone user calls 911 in a crisis that the call will go through even if the user is in an area that normal service would not be provided because of the phone's PRL. The actions allege that phones manufactured by Ericsson, LG Electronics, Inc., Sanyo, Motorola, Samsung, Kyocera, Toshiba, and Nokia do not comply with the commission's regulations, and therefore do not provide users with the safety that the commission intended when it passed the regulation. Cellular service providers who have allegedly authorized the use of non-conforming telephones have also been named as defendants in some of the actions. The actions filed thus far are Cynthia Dunn v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM, (8:02cv1086, Central District of California); Armando Lage v. LG Electronics, Inc. (3:03cv287, Northern District of California); Stephen J. Hubbard v. LG Electronics, Inc. (3:03cv6, Southern District of California); Charles Fasano v. Sanyo Fisher Company (1:02cv23630, Southern District of Florida); Alysa Liff v. Motorola, Inc. (2:03cv121, District of New Jersey); Lisa Bass v. Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc. (1:02-9140, Southern District of New York); Donna Clarke v. Kyocera Corporation (3:02cv2778, Northern District of Texas); Jed Becker v. Toshiba Corporation (3:03cv6, Western District of Texas); and Julie McMurry v. Nokia Corporation (2:02cv2319, Western District of Washington). These actions have been consolidated by the federal courts' Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation under the designation MDL-1521. At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Technology Cases of Interest Several class actions have been filed against online pharmacy drugstore.com, Inc., (Nasdaq:DSCM) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between January 20, 2004, and June 10, 2004. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The parties have reached a $10 million settlement in an SEC enforcement action filed against Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc., (Nasdaq:GMST) on behalf of stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between 1999 and 2002. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. Persons eligible to take part in the settlement should contact the attorneys who prosecuted the action for more information. Size matters in the rapidly advancing world of computer peripherals. A class action has been filed against Apple Computer, Inc.; Dell, Inc.; Gateway, Inc.; Hewlett-Packard Company; International Business Machines, Inc.; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Sony Corporation; and Toshiba Corporation on behalf of computer hard drive purchasers who allege that the companies' advertising deceptively overstates their hard drives' true capacity in violation of California consumer protection laws.
Several class actions have been filed against electric utility Gexa Corporation (Nasdaq:GEXA) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between August 14, 2003, and March 30, 2004. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities.
When a company misrepresents its value, stockholders who are hurt have the right to go to court. Several class actions have been filed against software provider Portal Software, Inc. (Nasdaq:PRSF) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between May 20, 2003, and November 13, 2003. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The parties have reached a final $7.5 million settlement in an action filed against Internet World Media, Inc. and Penton Media, Inc. on behalf of stockholders who tendered their shares of Mecklermedia Corporation to Internet World Media in the tender offer commenced by Penton Media in October 1998, or exchanged their shares of Mecklermedia stock in the subsequent merger of Mecklermedia and Internet World Media. Claims forms must be postmarked on or before August 30, 2004, to be considered valid. |
|
© 2000 - 2009 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
