Apple may get off scot-free in the class action iPod suit filed against the iPhone maker because the plaintiffs, Marianna Rosen and Melanie Tucker, never actually purchased the affected iPods. Tucker this week was withdrawn from the case because it was uncovered she never owned an eligible iPod during the 2006 and 2009 period. Apple argues that Rosen, whose husband works for a law firm that assisted with the case, also never owned an iPod during the requisite time.
If true, the lawyers essentially have no case. Even the judge agrees.
“I am concerned that I don’t have a plaintiff,” said Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. “That’s a problem.”
It boils down to this: Apple says that the iPods Rosen says she owned were actually purchased by the law firm of her husband. The iPods in question were purchased in 2007 and 2008; Apple was able to determine who purchased the iPods by cross-checking the serial numbers.
“Because Ms. Rosen (made) no purchase of any alleged affected iPod in the class period, she has suffered no damages and thus lacks standing under Article III of the United States Constitution,” Apple filed on Friday.
Since Rosen didn’t purchase an iPod during the span required in the class period, she’s not eligible to collect damages. But even more important is that it’s required by law that the plaintiff suffer damages in order for the case to go through.That’s why the judge said she’s worried there is no plaintiff. Of course, there are 8 million other customers who purchased an iPod between September 2006 and March 2009, but someone would still need to come forward claiming they suffered because of Apple’s mischief.
The attorneys representing Rosen are supposed to file a response to Apple’s claims this weekend.