Is The Apple Siri Lawsuit Extortion Or A Valid Complaint?

Controversy seems to be eternally tied to Apple, its products, and its late founder Steve Jobs. Whether it’s the cult-like following Apple has, the brash manner in which Mr. Jobs carried himself, or the success of the company’s wildly popular iPods, iPhones, and iPads, there are always people taking shots at the company. I have also been one to remark negatively against the high prices for items such as the iMac or MacBook line relative to the PC alternatives. But, even I have come to the realization that certain things just cannot be ignored, such as the complete and utter dominance of the iPad compared to any number of the Android alternatives in the tablet universe. All of this beings us to the most current controversy: the class action lawsuit against Apple concerning the operation of its Siri companion on the iPhone 4 line of smartphones.

 

The lawsuit basically revolves around the fact that a New York man is frustrated with the fact that Siri cannot understand his accent, or takes “unacceptable” time in determining the answers he is looking for, which tend to be the ones. He points to the smooth and seemingly flawless image of the feature the advertisements for the iPhone 4 present.

 

To that point I say get over yourself buddy (and everyone else who hopes to benefit financially from the potential class-action suit). Everyone knows that advertisements take advantage of consumers by appealing to their sense of aesthetics and their fandom for celebrities. For decades marketers have made their advertisements in such ways to show the products featured in the best possible way. Car ads tell you the absolute best fuel economy possible even though the results will most likely be much lower. Restaurant ads often times don’t even use real food in order to make the products look “perfect”. Actors are always airbrushed and touched up in print ads to remove all noticeable blemishes. Camera, smartphone and tablet ads use simulated images to illustrate the capabilities of those products.

 

It’s common practice, and only someone who has lived in a cave for most of their life would think that these ads represent what they will get in real life experiences. In fact, most of the ads come with disclaimers stating this fact, regardless of how minuscule those facts may be shown.

 

I would also ask this guy, and everyone else who jumps on the bandwagon two simple questions:

 

  1. If you have 30 days to return the product, why would you not do so when you find the product not living up to your expectations? and
  2. What if your employer finds that you do not live up to their expectations of your work, could they sue you?

 

These are two valid questions. The first revolves around the consumers own indifference to the operation of the Siri feature. Particularly with Apple products, people who buy them get right down to business and start using them right away. If you mean to tell me that someone held the item sealed, allowing the return period to pass, I’d have a hard time believing that. Or, that if after using the product for more than a few times that people didn’t realize it didn’t work to their expected level of proficiency they continue using it rather than exchange it, I would scoff at them. When you have a full month to essentially test a product in-home risk-free, there is no reasonable excuse for not figuring out that an important feature doesn’t work as well as you would like. And if it wasn’t important enough to return it then why is it so important to cause you to sue over it?

 

The second question is a bit more abstract but quite poignant. The premise of this lawsuit is the “misrepresentation” of the performance of the Siri feature. When people are hired for a job, they are doing the exact same thing–selling themselves based on certain features and abilities. If anyone in the proposed class was to fall short of their advertised abilities, it would be the same as Siri not performing as advertised. Would it be ethical or even right for their employers to take them to court for “misrepresenting” themselves in the same manner?

 

Bottom line

Is this a lawsuit based on realistic expectations of the way a product should operate or is it a way of extorting a settlement from one of the largest US companies? People, especially money-hungry lawyers (and we all think many of these types of lawyers are unethical to a degree) know that large corporations would rather reach a quick, out-of-court settlement than face a long, drawn-out attention-grabbing court case. This is especially true in this age of sensationalized and immediate media coverage.

 

If this is a lawsuit that is truly based on the observations and expectations solely gained from viewing a television commercial, then it’s a complete joke. This is especially true if you consider all of the other examples of similar marketing tactics seen on a daily basis that this man and every single litigation attorney on the planet have allowed to exist without a peep.

 

What are your thoughts on the issue? Is showing the optimal performance of a product in a n advertisement unethical? Is that a good reason to sue the manufacturer when the product doesn’t perform to that standard in real-world applications?

 

This article was featured in Carnival of Personal Finance #364 – The Art of PF Blogging Edition

About Eric J. Nisall

Former NY'er, accountant & business consultant, founder of GreenBridge Advisors. Blogging about personal financial, small business topics, and other fun topics at DollarVersity. Fan of the NHL and everything hockey! Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and on Google+

  • http://www.thefreefinancialadvisor.com/average-joes-money-blog/ AverageJoe

    It sounds to me like someone trying to grab their 15 minutes of fame. Mission accomplished. I’m also tired of the Facebook lawsuits….really? So you thought you were going to get rich overnight and it didn’t happen, so now you’ll sue over it. Sad.

    • http://www.dollarversity.com Eric J. Nisall – DollarVersity

      Tell me about it.  Some people will do the most asinine things for a buck or to get their face/name in the news.  It doesn’t help that every shady firm in the world was probably knocking on his door to represent the case.  Funny thing is that they know it’s most likely a loser but their firm name is still out there.

  • http://onecentatatime.com/ SB @ One Cent at a Time

    Siri most of the time doesn’t understand my accent. Should I join the class action? :)  

    • http://www.dollarversity.com Eric J. Nisall – DollarVersity

      You know, that may actually be a better case than any other I have heard so far.  You can start your own class representing all those who don’t speak English natively and sue for discrimination.  I’m surprised it hasn’t been done before, unless I just didn’t care enough to notice it.

  • Joe

    To be honest, this seems to like a very valid complaint, even if the motive behind it is not so sincere. In their commercials, Apple falsely advertises Siri doing tasks that it cannot actually do, at speeds that are unrealistic.

    This man does not deserve any money from a lawsuit, but Apple is absolutely wrong in airing these commercials. False Advertising is against the law.

    That’s my 2 cents.

    • http://www.dollarversity.com Eric J. Nisall – DollarVersity

      Thanks for the input Joe.

      The problem with that is the disclaimer on all commercials. Each of the Siri ads display a line of text which states that sequences are shortened, just like all of the commercials for tablets and phones state that the screen images are simulated.  These are the same disclaimers that auto companies include on their ads to specify offer terms and conditions.  As long as that information is included, the companies are in compliance with government regulations and therefore not doing anything illegal.

      It’s been like this for years, so anyone who chooses to ignore this information does so at their own risk.  If someone actually thinks that everything they see on television is exactly as they see it, then I would have to put the blame on them.

  • anmont

    I think you might have a slight separation between legal and fundamentally wrong. I upgraded my Iphone4 to the 4s only for Siri. My expectation was not that it performed quickly, and i have no inflection to disturb native language interpretation, but that it worked to allow hands free operation of my phone.

    For the last 2 weeks with Siris’ beta functionality (can you show my where in their disclaimer that this is a beta function?) I have been unable to make any voice command. Apple stands by their ‘beta functionality’ and server issue responses for other consumers in the same situation.

    Back to the point. If I follow your logic, it is acceptable for me to make an advertisement about distributing your wealth to the poor, and my disclaimer that I am actually using that money to support water fowl in Canada makes it acceptable… caveat emptor..

    As a consumer, I do not have the time to record a TV advert and replay it so i can pause and read any disclaimers on the screen. I do not have time to do due diligence on the purchase of my next phone. While that may not make me a responsible buyer, I cannot credit case law justifications as to why I am responsible for and should accept lies/misrepresentations contradicted by disclaimer in advertising. In the proverbial jump off the bridge scenario, just because everyone else finds it acceptable that our society and legal system accept this at face value does not mean it is fundamentally correct.

    • http://www.dollarversity.com Eric J. Nisall – DollarVersity

      To your fist point, here is a link to the clearly worded disclaimer that Siri is in beta, from the Siri FAQ section of the iPhone on Apple’s site
      http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/siri-faq.html.

      This leads me to your comment about not having to to do your due diligence. If that is in fact the case, and you admittedly fail to properly research any purchase you make, then how can you justifiably blame anyone other than yourself? The bottom line is that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions, and if you, again admittedly, are an irresponsible buyer then you can only take the consequences of your non-actions and accept the fact that you may have made a different choice had you taken the time to do the little bit of research.

      This is the point I make in the post I link to regarding advertisers taking consumers for fools. They know that the majority of people will take all of the ads at face value, and many will not bother to do their own research on the products. Whether you think it’s fundamentally correct or not, there is nothing illegal about it. I happen to think it’s fundamentally incorrect for individuals to blame their buyers remorse or errors in judgement on everyone except for themselves, but that’s my personal deal.