• On TechRepublic: 10 cool USB flash drive tricks
June 26, 2009 8:52 AM PDT

Apple sued over iTunes gift cards

by Jim Dalrymple
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 146 comments
Update at 9:25 a.m. PDT: A few more details added.

Illinois residents Daniel and Barbara Owens are suing Apple, accusing the company of fraud related to its iTunes gift cards.

(Credit: Apple)

The suit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in southern Illinois and obtained by CNET, shows that the couple is seeking monetary damages for Apple's "wrongful, illegal, improper and fraudulent acts."

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.

In April, Apple changed the pricing structure of the iTunes Store from 99 cents per song to a variable model in which songs cost 69 cents, 99 cents, or $1.29. The Owens say they purchased several iTunes cards including two $25 cards on March 1, 2008, from Sam's Club and a $15 card on May 19, 2009, from Wal-Mart.

Apple has expanded its presence in many retail outlets over the years, allowing stores like Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Walgreens, and others to sell gift cards.

The company is being sued on four counts including two counts of breach of contract, one count of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and one count of violating the Consumer Protection Statutes.

Apple could not immediately be reached for comment.

Jim Dalrymple has followed Apple and the Mac industry for the last 15 years, first as part of MacCentral and then in various positions at Macworld. A guitar player for 20 years, Jim also writes about the professional audio market, examining the best ways to write and record songs on a Macintosh with Logic Pro and Pro Tools. Jim is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET.
Recent posts from Apple
Judge rules for Apple in Psystar case
Apple fixes AirPort problems marring video playback on 27-inch iMacs
Apple banks on retail stores
Photos of Apple's fourth Manhattan store
Microsoft denies Windows 7 is based on Mac OS
Microsoft exec: Mac OS inspired Windows 7
Google plans Chrome Mac beta for December
Orange sells 30,000 iPhones in U.K. on first day
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 4 pages (146 Comments)
by David Dudley June 26, 2009 9:10 AM PDT
Ahh yes, the cockroaches want their scraps of food.
Reply to this comment
by MyRightEye June 26, 2009 10:09 AM PDT
+!
by tektaktyks June 26, 2009 10:14 AM PDT
u the cockroach
by karpenterskids June 26, 2009 11:06 AM PDT
u, tektaktyks, can't spell.
by mjconver June 26, 2009 9:14 AM PDT
Perfect. Apple owes them $65.
Reply to this comment
by DrtyDogg June 26, 2009 9:38 AM PDT
Actually I believe it should be around $4.50 to bring the value of the card up to being worth at least 15 songs.

It is kind of an interesting case. If I where a juror I would probably find in their favor for the card bought in March like I said earlier, the award I suggest is $4.50. A petty case, but I'd like to know how it turns out. Though I'd bet Apple sends them a $100 gift card to keep their lawyers out of court.
by talking poo June 26, 2009 9:53 AM PDT
Agreed. Send them $100 gift card which is overcompensation, but if they ask for anything more, its frivolous.
by ckh1272 June 26, 2009 10:26 AM PDT
I thought these BS cases only took place in Texas!!
by unknown unknown June 26, 2009 11:59 AM PDT
Breach of contract allows for punitive damages as well as actual damages.
by Vegaman_Dan June 26, 2009 12:29 PM PDT
Well, the RIAA believes songs are actually worth $22,000 a piece, so maybe they should ask for damages in a similarly silly manner?
by sharmajunior June 26, 2009 3:54 PM PDT
Uhhhh, $80,000 to be exact...;)
by Seaspray0 June 27, 2009 5:34 PM PDT
Does this mean we can sue the post office for all those times they raised the rate and I had to get a stack of 1 cent stamps to compensate?
by Lerianis3 June 29, 2009 7:34 AM PDT
by DrtyDogg June 26, 2009 9:38 AM PDT
Actually I believe it should be around $4.50 to bring the value of the card up to being worth at least 15 songs.

It is kind of an interesting case. If I where a juror I would probably find in their favor for the card bought in March like I said earlier, the award I suggest is $4.50. A petty case, but I'd like to know how it turns out. Though I'd bet Apple sends them a $100 gift card to keep their lawyers out of court.
__________________________________

Yep, because if it goes to court, it has a good chance of becoming a 'class action' case. While I wish that you didn't have to sue for things like this..... unfortunately you have to usually to get a company like Apple to live up to their part of a bargain.
Yes, I do work in the law industry.... however, I dislike ambulance chasers as much or MORE than anyone else.
by rogerS23 June 26, 2009 9:16 AM PDT
well i bought a gift card before april, can i sue apple?
Reply to this comment
by karpenterskids June 26, 2009 11:07 AM PDT
Only if the other 10 billion people who've done the same can sue as well. :)
by abundantsnotbob June 26, 2009 9:17 PM PDT
Hey roger, there's only 6 billion people in the world
by faceless128 June 26, 2009 9:20 AM PDT
i'm no apple fan, but if they bought the cards when the price was accurate, why are they suing?
Reply to this comment
by Random_Walk June 26, 2009 11:56 AM PDT
...even more curious - the price differences (even if all iTMS songs were priced at $1.29) would barely qualify as a small claims suit, let alone this laughable example of over-litigation. The diff comes to a grand total of (drum roll please...) $18.50 for the cards they purchased, assuming they only bought the $1.29 songs.

That's right, folks - they're suing over nebulous claims that, even if they were as fully alleged, comes four bits short of twenty bucks. At 30% contingency, the lawyer would be entitled to a hefty fee of $5.55 of the "injury". (now, note that even in small-claims court, filing fees alone are well north of $20.00 USD...)

Hope these idiots (and their even less-intelligent lawyer) realize what they're getting into, because it'll likely cost them far, far more than they'll ever receive, even if by some cosmic happenstance they did win.
by b_baggins June 28, 2009 7:39 AM PDT
They're looking to make money on the punitive damages. Which is why the tort lawyers lobbied so hard to kill tort reform under the Gingrich congress back in 1994. It would have limited punitive to 3 times actual and would have instituted "loser pays."
by ITcomposer June 26, 2009 9:23 AM PDT
Because the dumb broad is a roach looking for scraps like the commenter above mentioned, i hope apple wins this baseless lawsuit, this is a friggin waste of courts time, and i hope in turn apple sues this idiot back to the stone age.
Reply to this comment
by El_Segfaulto June 26, 2009 10:37 AM PDT
Bitter much? I highly recommend switching to decaf.
by sciontcya June 26, 2009 10:58 AM PDT
Bitter? Yes, most Americans are fed up with these bottom-feeding, Oprah-watching section-8 scumbags.
I know I am.
[CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
by Lerianis3 June 29, 2009 7:48 AM PDT
This isn't a 'baseless lawsuit'. A contract is a contract is a contract, unless it has stipulations in it that go against Constitutional protections.

[CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
by Jack K1 June 26, 2009 9:23 AM PDT
It's the cockroaches seeking their scraps of food who keep companies honest. The government sure as heck won't do it. I just hope the losing side has to pay all court costs (including salaries & benefits) so that the taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill.

It's a great system, but if you don't like it - try living in a country where organizations are accountable to no one.
Reply to this comment
by ITcomposer June 26, 2009 9:25 AM PDT
Valid point, i just wanted to point that its not a bad system, just idiots like these 2 are sue happy!, again i hope she gets sued back to the stone age after she loses to apple.
by Stormspace June 26, 2009 9:45 AM PDT
False advertising is illegal and it's typically someone that was defrauded that makes a company change it's ways. If Apple had a display case or something printed on the packaging that said all songs are 99 cents and that wasn't the case then yes they are liable. If they printed new cards and literature, but the existing stock hadn't been depleted yet will be Apples best hope of dodging this. But if they never changed the literature and advertising to reflect the new pricing they'll be on the hook for damages. Fortunately, punitive damages are taxable so if these two win SAM will take his pound of flesh from them.
by El_Segfaulto June 26, 2009 10:39 AM PDT
Apple will send a Surface to Air Missile (SAM)?
by Random_Walk June 26, 2009 12:08 PM PDT
"It's the cockroaches seeking their scraps of food who keep companies honest."

If we were talking about companies whose products strangled infants? Okay...

If we were talking about pet-food companies who product killed dogs? Sure...

If we were talking about an automobile company whose products suddenly burst into flames for no reason at highway speeds? Definitely...

...but a lawsuit based on, oh: "OAMG! they're not all 99 cents each anymore after I sat on the unused gift cards for (literally) months!? I just lost $18.50, you bastards!" ?

C'mon. Let's ditch the romantic proletariat hyperbole, and think for a minute here, mm'kay?
by baconstang June 26, 2009 2:57 PM PDT
"Keep them honest"? Apple made a huge deal out of the fact that they went DRM free, and that pricing was variable. Do they owe Apple money if they buy 69¢ songs?
by Jefferson101 June 29, 2009 8:25 AM PDT
Why would the Government help. They are a corporation protecting the rights of corporations....not the people
by BirdDog01 June 26, 2009 9:28 AM PDT
A good reason for making our legal system "loser pays."
Reply to this comment
by ellunchboxo June 26, 2009 11:31 AM PDT
i'm all for that
by unknown unknown June 26, 2009 12:02 PM PDT
It can be in civil case. The winning party can ask the losing party reimburse them their attorney fees and court costs.
by Random_Walk June 26, 2009 12:48 PM PDT
depends on the state, IIRC... not all states have a 'loser pays' system.

Now what I would like to see is a system where if the litigant is suing for more than just financial losses (that is, if you're asking for punitive damages, which these yokels are obviously doing), you should be required to put up a bond for 25% of the pre-requested punitive damage amount (that is, if you're asking for a million bucks above and beyond any actual monetary loss, you get to pony up a bond for $250,000). You also should always have to demand a stated monetary amount before the lawsuit proceeds. If the plaintiff loses, that bond gets cashed and paid to the defendant - and on top of that still be responsible for paying any legal fees that the defendant had to put out.

Maybe up the bond to 50% or more for corporations and/or lawyers going for class-action? Nah - too many loopholes that could arise, but it would be nice.

Either way, it would put a screeching halt to frivolous litigation, since the plaintiff would have to put his own money where his mouth is... and nobody wants to take more risks than absolutely necessary. ;)

/P
by mbenedict June 27, 2009 7:30 AM PDT
@Random_Walk:

You forgot you're no longer PENGUINISTO.... stop signing off with a /P

(busted)
by tzs108 June 27, 2009 12:45 PM PDT
Loser pays would be an incredibly stupid thing for us to do, because the basis of civil rights enforcement in the US is private civil suits. Loser pays works fine in places like Europe, where they use government bureaucracy to enforce civil rights laws.

Here in the US, for example, if you get fired because your boss doesn't like your race or religion, its up to you to file suit if you want the civil rights laws enforced against that employer. A loser pays system would have a large chilling effect on that.

Our legal system is just that, a system. You cannot just go around changing parts of it with no understanding of how they fit in with the system as a whole.
by b_baggins June 28, 2009 7:41 AM PDT
@tzs,

not if you had a good case.

Loser pays stops frivolous lawsuits. Including ones with blacks who have a chip on their shoulder.
by June 26, 2009 9:28 AM PDT
But when you add all three values and then take the average it equals..... $0.99

That is Apple's ROCK SOLID DEFENSE CASE!!!!!

LOL
Reply to this comment
by kaibelf June 26, 2009 9:31 AM PDT
Someone just slap these people. Please.
Reply to this comment
by liven2 June 26, 2009 9:35 AM PDT
OMG they cannot be serious!! PEOPLE get LIFE!
Reply to this comment
by thewolfdogg June 26, 2009 9:42 AM PDT
$0.30 x $65 = $19.50

They are suing for an amount less than $20. Doesn't the 7th Amendment pretty much mean they should toss the case out?
Reply to this comment
by Random_Walk June 26, 2009 12:55 PM PDT
Dunno - devil's advocate says that when the US Constitution was written, $20 USD was a few months' pay for an average middle-class guy.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on this case, but when one adds a request for punitive damages to the pile, it gets a lot bigger than $20...
by Lerianis3 June 29, 2009 7:51 AM PDT
Plus, you are forgetting that this could become a class action lawsuit in the end, with a LOT of people getting in on this.

Personally, I think Apple was stupid in this case, they should have realized that "Hey, we might go to variable pricing in the future.... it might not be a good idea to guarantee these people a certain amount of songs that they can buy with these cards!"

Simple stupidity by Apple, and something that should be penalized for, because anyone else with a brain in the US would have thought about this.
by christophertran June 26, 2009 9:47 AM PDT
Wow. a BS lawsuit against apple. This is just funny.
Reply to this comment
by myles taylor June 26, 2009 9:51 AM PDT
Every time the iTunes Store is updated it has new terms of use which the user agrees to. If they don't want to use it anymore, that's their problem.

If every store had to guarantee the prices of everything would remain the same a year after they sell the cards, it would change the way gift cards work. The thing is ridiculous. Do they really feel cheated? If so, did they call Apple Customer Relations, who probably would have just issued them a $25 card and let it be over. No, they want to sue and spend a lot of money and give a lot of money to lawyers and hope Apple will settle and they'll get money.
Reply to this comment
by fortyonejb June 26, 2009 10:49 AM PDT
No, thats not what it is at all. The gift cards clearly stated that all songs were $.99 and that a $25 card gets you 25 songs no strings attached. What would be a better analogy is if a grocery store gave you a voucher for 5 1lb steaks with no expiration date, and any type of steak you want. Then, when you come in a year later they say "well we won't honor that contract, if you want filet mignon you can only get 4". They've broken the original contract, and for what its worth, they are in the wrong. Maybe only for the old card in 2008, but, legally, its still wrong.
by Random_Walk June 26, 2009 1:02 PM PDT
At home, I have an old (1940's?) newspaper, which has an advert from a grocery store. It says I can buy up to six loaves of Wonder Bread for $0.05 a loaf, with the presentation of the included coupon... there's also a coupon in the ad that lets me buy hamburger from their meat department at something like $0.08/lb, with a limit of 5 lbs.

...think I could take that to the local grocer (who still exists) and threaten to sue him into oblivion if he doesn't honor the prices?
by fortyonejb June 26, 2009 1:47 PM PDT
ahh hyperbole and hysteria, rational responses. I won't even bother with how ignorant your comment is clearly you are simply looking for a reaction, so let me provide you with one: Your comment is pointless and juvenile, please refrain from using the internet until you've reached at least the mental capacity of a squirrel.
by OscarWeb June 26, 2009 5:08 PM PDT
fortyonejb: Really? I don't have a card in front of me so I cannot vouch for that exact wording. However, I guess I should see about participating in this frivolous lawsuit since, living in NJ, I get taxed on all iTunes purchases so a $25 gift card would only get me 23 songs and leave me with some change in my iTunes account.
by patrick_i June 28, 2009 6:23 PM PDT
@fortyonejb "The gift cards clearly stated that all songs were $.99 and that a $25 card gets you 25 songs no strings attached".

Does it really say that? I thought you could buy anything in iTunes including movies, tv shows, albums, etc all with varying prices with your gift card.
by Lerianis3 June 29, 2009 7:55 AM PDT
by patrick_i June 28, 2009 6:23 PM PDT
@fortyonejb "The gift cards clearly stated that all songs were $.99 and that a $25 card gets you 25 songs no strings attached".

Does it really say that? I thought you could buy anything in iTunes including movies, tv shows, albums, etc all with varying prices with your gift card.
_________________________________________

NOW you can. You are forgetting that these cards were, by and large, printed BEFORE Apple got into the TV episode, video, etc. business. At the time, they were just 'music-only' and were stupid enough to guarantee ANY, repeat, A N Y 15 songs for 15 dollars.
That is why they are now getting clamped down on, and any corporate lawyer worth their salt who saw this wording before would have been "WHOA! Change this wording or there could be troubles in the future if you go to a variable pricing plan, which I (since they are usually insiders and know BEFOREHAND what the company is planning on doing in the future) know that you are thinking of doing!"
by medezark July 1, 2009 1:52 PM PDT
@Random Walk --->
We're not talking about a COUPON here. We're talking about a GIFT CARD. It's a pre-paid purchase agreement. I agree to pay you X dollars now for Y item(s) in the future (in this case, as the card in question specified $0.99 per card IN addition to a face value on the card).

This is NOT like a decades old coupon. If the non-useage fees were not in effect, and that $0.08 per pound (up to 5 pounds/ .40 cents) hamburger coupon were a gift card, the "gift card" would have generated $213.48 in value for the issuer (90 years at 7% interest compounded montly as a rate of return), more than enough for the issuer to still make a handsom profit giving the holder 5 pounds of hamburger meet. Gift Cards are already ripping consumers off enough without letting issuers retroactivly change the terms of the agreement.
by clintbradford June 26, 2009 9:54 AM PDT
More litigation nonsense. There ARE 99 cent songs available.. "WalMart" ... "Illinois couple" ... I wish that those who bring such suits that are eventually tossed would be responsible for ALL costs involved. That might bring a little civility to our civil legal system.
Reply to this comment
by alaris3k June 26, 2009 10:02 AM PDT
I hope they win millions.
Reply to this comment
by jakemochas June 26, 2009 8:03 PM PDT
haha that's like 10 macbooks apple gets no profit for
by PaulTwo June 26, 2009 10:05 AM PDT
This is ridiculous. People try to sue for anything. Canada is becoming just as bad. What a waste of the court system. They should be charged hefty fees for filing a lawsuit. There would be a lot less people that are wasting their time trying to sue for these stupidities.
Reply to this comment
by Understarsidream June 26, 2009 10:08 AM PDT
This is another example of why our legal system is so backlogged real cases can't get any attention.
Reply to this comment
by gjohnson June 26, 2009 10:25 AM PDT
Maybe I am being naive but if you buy a $25 gift card for iTunes, aren't you just applying it to the first $25 you spend there? Is this card ONLY good for 99cent songs? what if they wanted to buy an album or TV show? I would be very surprised if there isn't some small print on the card stating that not every track is 99 cents. I would hope. even before they changed their pricing structure, I'm fairly certain that I saw some tracks at different prices.
Reply to this comment
by nopinktoday June 26, 2009 10:33 AM PDT
I actually wanna see where this leads to. This is gonna be hilarious! ^_^
Reply to this comment
by CrashPad63 June 26, 2009 10:53 AM PDT
Damn, one could only hope that Apple would get sued out of business.
Reply to this comment
by Get_a_life_Leo June 26, 2009 11:12 AM PDT
If you so hate Apple, why not sue them yourself? Apple is one of the genuine US company success stories. I wish I could sue you for your stupid remark.
by jakemochas June 26, 2009 8:04 PM PDT
@getalifeleo
wow apple has overpriced stuff that is made in the same exact factories in asia. People think steve jobs sprinkles ferry dust on every computer...
by CrashPad63 June 27, 2009 8:09 AM PDT
Get real!!! Apple is a genuine one trick pony show. Steve Jobs is nothing more than a Carnival Barker plying his wares to the lemmings that are Apple fanbois. Oh and I do apologize to the Carnival Barkers as a profession.
by shellcodes_coder June 27, 2009 9:55 AM PDT
Dude, I agree with you :) I would love to see that
by b_baggins June 28, 2009 7:46 AM PDT
@jakemochas,

Yep. Because every $499 Asus laptop has aluminum unibody construction, ambient light sensors, built-in webcams, fiber-optic backlit keyboards, EFI, optical glass LCD displays, infrared remote receivers, white LED sleep indicator, led battery charge indicators, magnetic power cord coupling, glass trackpads with multi-touch, and firewire 800.

After all, we all know that the only thing a computer is composed of is the CPU.
by jakemochas June 29, 2009 9:19 AM PDT
@bbaggins do you actually think those components are made here in the US or in california? Your answer should be no.... Its all made the in the SAME factories.... the MOBO the CPU the RAM the display... the aluminum is also made in taiwan
by jakemochas June 29, 2009 9:23 AM PDT
Operating System
Genuine Windows Vista Ultimate
Memory
8 GB DDR3 SDRAM 1066MHz (2 DIMMs)
Hard Disk Drive
256 GB Solid State Drive Ultra Performance
Video
256MB NVIDIA GeForce 9500M
Hardware Upgrade
6 Cell Primary Battery
125V Power Cord
90W AC Adapter
Media Bay
8X DVD +/- RW w/dbl layer write capability
Base
Studio XPS 13 (1340) Laptop: Intel Core 2 Duo P9600 (6MB cache/2.66GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
Bluetooth Wireless
Dell Wireless 370 Bluetooth Module

Do you see any 13" macbook with these specs?
Showing 1 of 4 pages (146 Comments)
advertisement

A CNET Conversation with Eric Schmidt

CNET's Tom Krazit and Molly Wood sit down with Google CEO Eric Schmidt to discuss the future of Android, the Chrome OS, the problem of real-time search indexing, and more.

Verizon tests sending RIAA copyright notices

The No. 2 phone company, known for its reluctance to intervene in antipiracy cases, strikes an agreement to forward copyright notices on behalf of the music industry.

About Apple

At the start of the 21st century, there's no tech outfit more influential than Apple. CNET News' Erica Ogg and other reporters will attempt to make sense of the rumors, hype, products, and people that will shape the future of the company. But Apple's not the only game in town, as the established cell phone companies and others strike back against the iPhone. E-mail Erica at erica.ogg@cnet.com.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Apple topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right