A class action lawsuit against Apple claims the company deceived users into paying $1 more for HD Version of the film even though their device did not support the format.
In his complaint in San Francisco, plaintiff Scott J Weiselberg claims Apple's default download offering is the more expensive HD option, confusing customers into purchasing the more expensive content even though their older iPhones and iPods did not support the format. Weiselberg Claims he rented the movie "Big Daddy" for $4.99 in June 2010 and was not aware that the SD version was available for $3.99.
Eventually Apple added a notice to the download process to indicate that people with older devices could not play HD content, however the company had already collected millions of dollars in profits.
Apple failed to disclose to consumers they were paying a premium for HD downloads that would not be supported by the SD mobile Apple device, and that the consumers would actually be viewing SD content that was downloaded at the time of the rental.
The plaintiff believes these practices violate California's Unfair Competition Law and seeks restitution, disgorgement, an injunction and damages for unjust enrichment.
Read More via Gigaom
In his complaint in San Francisco, plaintiff Scott J Weiselberg claims Apple's default download offering is the more expensive HD option, confusing customers into purchasing the more expensive content even though their older iPhones and iPods did not support the format. Weiselberg Claims he rented the movie "Big Daddy" for $4.99 in June 2010 and was not aware that the SD version was available for $3.99.
Eventually Apple added a notice to the download process to indicate that people with older devices could not play HD content, however the company had already collected millions of dollars in profits.
Apple failed to disclose to consumers they were paying a premium for HD downloads that would not be supported by the SD mobile Apple device, and that the consumers would actually be viewing SD content that was downloaded at the time of the rental.
The plaintiff believes these practices violate California's Unfair Competition Law and seeks restitution, disgorgement, an injunction and damages for unjust enrichment.
Read More via Gigaom