Major Consumer Electronics Company
Representative engagements include:
Power Button Litigation:
- An O’Melveny team is defending the Company against a series of class action claims over alleged defects in the power buttons of various editions of its smartphones. Of the three class actions that were filed, we convinced the courts in two of those cases to dismiss the claims outright. And O’Melveny won a significant victory in the last remaining case earlier this year, when we convinced the court to strike the plaintiffs’ class definition.
- O’Melveny is currently representing the Company in a series of class actions alleging that it failed to adequately disclose that its mobile operating system consumes what plaintiffs contend is a “significant” portion of the storage capacity of its mobile devices. Our motion to dismiss the lead case is currently pending.
- An O’Melveny team is representing the Company in class action litigation alleging that it did not disclose defects in the graphics processing units that were used in the 2011 model of its laptop computers. Of the three cases that were filed, one has been dismissed and one has settled on an individual (not class) basis. Our motion to dismiss the last remaining case is set for hearing this month.
- In 2013, O’Melveny won another victory for the Company when we convinced the court to dismiss a putative class action filed in the Northern District of California. In that case, the plaintiffs alleged that the Company had failed to disclose alleged “image retention” issues that plaintiffs contended impacted its laptop computers. We convinced the Court that the Company had no possible duty to disclose the alleged “issues,” and in August 2013 the court dismissed all off the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. O’Melveny is currently representing the Company in the plaintiffs’ appeal of that decision to the Ninth Circuit.
- O’Melveny won a major victory for the Company in 2014 in a putative class action involving its desktop computers. The plaintiffs in that case alleged that the Company had misrepresented the quality of the computer’s display, and had failed to disclose an alleged defect. In early 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, effectively ending the litigation.