Skip to main content

Last plaintiff in iTunes antitrust lawsuit disqualified, but the show must go on as lawyers search for replacement

Image (1) first_gen_ipod.jpg for post 16162

In the latest twist in the iPod antitrust lawsuit that has already given us a deposition of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs and details about Apple’s deal with record labels to sell music in the iTunes Store, a judge ruled on Monday that the trial will continue even though there are no plaintiffs left.

Yes, you read that correctly. Every single plaintiff in the case has been disqualified. Marianna Rosen, the last complainant standing, was discovered to have never purchased an iPod that was affected by the song-deleting software updates in question.

Technically, Rosen did own two iPods that were impacted by the issue, but Apple’s lawyers were able to prove that the credit card used in the transaction belonged to her husband’s business, not Rosen herself. Because of that, she was not legally considered the “purchaser” of the iPods, and could not sue Apple.

The Associated Press notes that roughly 8 million people bought iPods affected by the updates, and the judge in the case has ruled that if the lawyers suing the Cupertino company can find one of those 8 million willing to serve as the plaintiff by Tuesday, the trial can proceed.

Those lawyers have said that they’ve already located several people who may be willing to fill the role. Apple’s own legal team will then attempt to determine whether they are truly eligible. If none of them are, the case may end up being dismissed altogether.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. TechSHIZZLE.com - 9 years ago

    What a sham. Effin’ lawyers.

  2. iSRS - 9 years ago

    Look, they’ve been working on this for years. They should have known better. They weren’t prepared. Game over.

  3. 89p13 - 9 years ago

    This is a waste of the Taxpayer’s (read – you and I) money. I totally agree with iSRS and TechSHIZZLE – this is a sham and the Judge plays right into it and allows it to continue!

    Where is Justice Blind – Not in this Judge’s courtroom!

    • vkd108 - 9 years ago

      “This is a waste of the Taxpayer’s (read – you and I) money.”

      That type of mental terrorism is only specific to Brits; it’s not relevant to Yanks as they are not subject to that particular type of oppression.

      • 89p13 - 9 years ago

        Not sure I understand your post, but . . .

        Our taxpayer $$$$ support the court system – so anything like this waste of a Judge and court time is paid from the taxes we pay into the federal government. If this were a fair and equitable system, the clowns – sorry, lawyers – who filed this case would have to reimburse what it’s cost the legal system, as well as Apple’s legal costs so far, to take this case as far as it’s gone.

        Again – It’s a waste of the American Taxpayer’s money.

  4. standardpull - 9 years ago

    It seems to me that this is a great opportunity for Apple to put this to bed. It is easy for the prosecution to re-file, but much harder for them to be successful with these proceedings.

  5. Luis Alejandro Masanti - 9 years ago

    I think that the Judge should penalized the lawyers for not doing their job… in 9 years!
    And congrat Apple’s lawyers to check any point in the trail…

    It seems to me that all this (although could be correcto to sue Apple) was only moved by lawyer’s greediness… “We took $300 millions from Apple!” (Very similar to the iBook’s case!)

  6. Kevin Rye (@RyeMAC3) - 9 years ago

    Wow. Someone really, really wants to cash in on this.