Technology Litigation

Litigation against consumer electronics companies helps to hold them accountable for their products and, in doing so, makes consumers safer. In a world where very few people are untouched by the consumer electronics industry, needing to use laptops, phones, and other devices in their daily lives, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP knows that the impact of these sorts of defective products not only harms consumers’ wallets, but also has real world safety, lifestyle, and work implications. We are committed to making the marketplace safer and fairer for consumers by bringing class actions on their behalf when they experience such defects that consumer electronics companies and manufacturers fail or refuse to remedy.


Beture v. Samsung Electronics America: Case No. 17-cv-05757 (D.N.J.). M&R was appointed as co-lead interim class counsel in action brought on behalf of a nationwide class arising from a hardware defect affecting hundreds of thousands of Samsung Galaxy Note 4 smartphones. You can read the 37-page complaint here.

Carlotti v. ASUS Computer International, et al: Case No. 18-cv-00369 (N.D. Cal.). Represented plaintiffs in a class action suit brought on behalf of purchasers of ASUS Rog Strix GL502VS or GL502VSK laptops with defective batteries or which overheat due to their insufficient cooling system. Benefits of the resulting settlement include cash payment of up to $110 or credit certificate of up to $210 for any impacted individual. Settlement was valued at $16 million. To learn more about this settlement, visit our blog here.

In Re: Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation: Case No. 3:18-md-02828 (D. Or.)In January 2018, it was publicly revealed for the first time that Defendant Intel’s processors (also known as chips or central processing units), have significant security vulnerabilities. A CPU is the “brain” in every computer and mobile device and processes all of the essential applications, including the handling of confidential information such as passwords and encryption keys. Maintaining the security of confidential information is a fundamental function of all CPUs. The attacks identified in 2018, dubbed “Meltdown,” “Spectre,” and “Foreshadow,” exploited defects in Intel’s CPU design. More specifically, when Intel’s processors engaged in speculative execution, the processors made information, which should have remained secure and inaccessible to unauthorized use, accessible in the processors’ unsecured cache subsystem. In so doing, Intel’s processors created a vast security vulnerability that could be accessed through a number of different exploits. The Defects that allow these attacks are the direct result of Intel’s knowing decision to sacrifice security in favor of speed in its ongoing competition with rivals such as AMD. For more information, visit our blog here.

In Re: Macbook Keyboard Litigation: Case No. 5:18-cv-02813-EJD-VKD (N.D. Cal.)M&R served as Plaintiff’s Counsel in a class action brought on behalf of consumers whose MacBook laptops were equipped with defective butterfly keyboards that result in characters repeating unexpectedly, letters or characters not appearing, and the keys feeling “sticky” or not responding in a consistent manner. The settlement amounted to $50 million.For more information, visit our blog here.

McFadden et al. v. Microsoft Corporation: Case No. 2:20-cv-00640 (W.D. Wash.). M&R served as co-lead interim class counsel in an action brought on behalf of a nationwide class arising from a hardware defect affecting Microsoft X-Box video game controllers. Consumers have experienced “Stick drift,” when their controller’s joystick registers movement when there is none and causes major difficulties in standard use of the Xbox One console. For more information and to see if you qualify to get involved, follow the link to our blog post here.

Walsh et al. v. Globalstar, Inc.:Case No. 3:07-cv-01941 (N.D. Cal.). Represented Globalstar satellite telephone service customers who brought claims that Globalstar knew that it was experiencing failures in its satellite constellation and its satellite service was rapidly deteriorating and was no longer useful for its intended purpose, yet failed to disclose this information to its potential and existing customers. Served as Court-appointed class counsel in a nationwide settlement that provided an assortment of benefit options, including, but not limited to, monetary account credits, free minutes, or cash back for returned equipment.

Wheeler et al. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.: Case No. 13-0007150 (D.C. Sup. Ct.). and Kacsuta v. Lenovo (United States), Inc.: Case No. 13-00316 (C.D. Cal.). Represented plaintiffs in a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Lenovo laptops that suffered from Wi-Fi connectivity problems. Served among the Court-appointed class counsel in a nationwide settlement where Lenovo agreed to refund $100 cash or issue a $250 voucher (which required no purchase to use) to owners of the laptops.

Williams et al. v. Apple, Inc. or In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation: Case No. 18-MD-2827-EJD (N.D. Cal.). This is a consumer class action alleging that Apple failed to disclose to Plaintiffs that Apple’s iPhone operating system (“iOS”) would materially degrade the operation of their iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, or 7 Plus models smartphones by reducing their processor speeds in certain circumstances, including when their non-user replaceable batteries lost storage capacity after multiple charge and discharge cycles. As detailed herein, Apple surreptitiously throttled the processor speeds of iPhones to mask the manifestation of sudden shutdowns that iPhones with degraded batteries were experiencing. Plaintiffs hereinafter refer to this surreptitious throttling – and its causes and impacts – as the “throttling defect”. This case has been settled, but is pending court approval.

For information on current Technology Litigation cases, visit Our Technology Litigation Lawyers in DC.