N.Y. Judge Refuses to Grant Handset Plaintiffs Class Action Status
A federal judge in N.Y. refused to grant class-action status in the remaining handset antitrust case brought against the major U.S. carriers on the grounds that they forced subscribers to buy handsets with features they don’t want and only in combination with cellular services.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Plaintiffs represented by N.Y. attorney Scott Bursor filed similar lawsuits in major cities across the U.S. They were consolidated in 2 cases before U.S. Dist. Judge Denise Cote. Plaintiffs sought upwards of $15 billion in damages, and injunctive relief. Last year, Cote threw out the first of the suits - the Brook case. Last week, she refused to grant class-action status to a case brought in the name of subscriber Michael Freeland. Defendant carriers will now ask Cote for summary judgment, throwing out the case. The Freeland case was filed against the carriers in Northern Cal. 2 years ago and transferred to the N.Y. court in Nov. 2004.
“It’s very significant,” a carrier source said of the decision. “If this had gone forward to a jury trial there could have been huge settlements… The alternative would have been a big problem.” The source said if the plaintiffs had won it could have created a challenge like the one carriers face in the Twombley case. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear that case - a class action started on behalf of 2 phone subscribers and alleging the Bells conspired not to compete against each other.
Cote cited similarities between the Freeland and Brook cases. “While the named plaintiffs are different, Freeland and the consolidated… actions involve all of the same major players,” Cote wrote. “Plaintiffs’ counsel, defendants’ counsel, and defendants are the same in both. The named plaintiffs in each case brought their action ‘on behalf of persons who have purchased cellular or PCS telephone products from the 5 major carriers within the United States’ and sought certification of a class consisting of all such purchasers.”
Cote said the thrust of the both cases was the same: “That the defendants have illegally locked handsets so that they cannot be used on another service provider’s network and tied the sale of handsets to the sale of their cellular services.”