Carson et. al. v. HP Inc.: Case No. 1:22-cv-00208-CFC (D. Del.). Migliaccio & Rathod, LLP, is representing a group of consumers in a suit against HP for releasing a series of laptop computers with defective hinges. HP allegedly manufactured and marketed a series of laptops, sold in or after the year 2017, that break after regular, everyday use. These include the Envy & Pavilion line of HP laptops, as well as some laptops marked as “360” (e.g. “Envy 360,” “Pavilion 360”, etc.), indicating the full range of motion in their hinges. However, after only regular use, opening and closing the laptops causes brass bolts in the hinges to twist and tear against the plastic holding those bolts in place. Learn more about this on our blog.
Gisairo v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.: Case No. 0:19-cv-02727 (D. Minn.). and MacKay v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.: Case No. 1:20-cv-01149 (D.Del.). Migliaccio & Rathod LLP has brought a class action and is co-counsel on another class action suit against Lenovo for their Flex 5, also known as Yoga 520, laptops which exhibit screen flickering. Users of this model have reported that the flickering causes large portions of the screen to black out, making the 2-in-1 device unusable. Further, Lenovo customers have noticed that the screen flicker and subsequent blackout is triggered when the laptop is moved or when the screen is first opened. Being that it is a 2-in-1 device, meant to be transformed interchangeably from laptop to tablet, its central purpose is hampered by this defect caused by movement. For more information or if you have experienced this defect in your Flex 5, visit our blog here.
McCoy et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.:Case No.: 2:21-cv-19470 (D. N.J.). Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, together with co-counsel, has filed a lawsuit against Samsung over reports that their 2-in-1 Chromebook Plus device suffers from a common hinge defect that causes damage to the device when opened, oftentimes shattering the screen and rendering the device unusable. Affected consumers claim that after around one year of use, one or both hinges will lock into place at random, and any attempts to open and operate the device will cause them to crack and potentially rupture or otherwise damage the screen. The timing of the defect often leaves affected consumers outside of the warranty period. Read more about this on our blog.
Pares et. al. v. Apple, Inc.:Case No. 5:21-cv-07112 (N.D. Cal.). Migliaccio & Rathod LLP is currently investigating Apple over widespread reports that the retina display in their recent line of M1 MacBook laptops is vulnerable to screen defects during normal usage. Many users allege that they have opened their devices from the closed position, without applying any undue pressure, only to find dramatic cracks in the retina display. These cracks are often accompanied by black bars or multicolored lines and squares running across the screen. In worst case scenarios, it results in a blacked-out screen that ceases to function altogether. Others report that these defects followed even only a simple adjustment of the screen’s viewing angle. Learn more about this on our blog.
Twardzik v. HP Inc, et al: Case No. 22-2650 Migliaccio & Rathod is in litigation against HP concerning consumers across the country who purchased an HP laptop computer containing the slowed variant of the NVIDIA GeForce MX150 graphics processor unit. This case ( 1:21-CV-00396) was originally litigated in the Delaware district court and is now on appeal in the 3rd Circuit Court of appeals. Learn more about this on our blog.
West v. Apple Inc: Case No.: 22-CV-408209 ( S.C Santa Clara). Migliaccio & Rathod LLP recently filed suit against Apple Inc in relation to their defective 2020 Macbook Air laptop with Intel processors. This action arises from Apple’s concealment of a material defect in the cooling system that is central to the operation of the Class Laptops, and Which ultimately causes the Class Laptops to be unable to dissipate processor heat fast enough to maintain reasonable performance.
Other Overheating Devices
Misc. Tech Failures:
*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome