Apple doesn't want you to actually believe its advertisement

"Twice as fast for half the price" could be the statement that gets Apple in a heap of trouble. William Gillis of San Diego is suing Apple for its claims that the new iPhone 3G is indeed "Twice as fast for half the price". While it could be quick to write this off as another lawsuit get rich quick scheme, Apple's rebuttal is quite interesting.

Wired are reporting that Apple's lawyers have crafted a nine page response [PDF] to Gillis's complaint. While most of the rebuttal is standard lawyer gibberish about how Apple would never do such a thing; they do write "claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact". A quick translation says that the complaint about the "twice as fast for half the price" should not be taken at face value and the statement is not a fact.

The lawsuit has more ground than one might think; with other iPhone lawsuits Apple has moved to have them dismissed and the courts agreed, but not so in Gillis case. Is Apple going to admit that its advertisements were misleading? Apple will be able to prove that the phone is indeed faster but only under ideal conditions. Unfortunately for Apple you can't advertise non real world conditions. It would be as if Ford said their cars got 100 MPG but only going down hill with your foot off the accelerator.

The lawsuit accuses Apple of unsatisfactory performance from the iPhone 3G; claiming "frequently dropped calls to sluggish broadband speeds and the inability to stay on 3G before it switches to the slower EDGE network". Apple has promised to remedy the issues but users are still complaining about the issues since launch.

Apple, for the time being, has been able to protect itself in US courts. This statement can't be said though in the UK where the U.K. Advertising Standards Authority banned two iPhone 3G advertisements, deeming them misleading for exaggerating the speeds and internet capabilities of the handset.

The question remains if Apple is producing advertisements that are truly misleading; advertisements claiming the "full internet" even though it lacked flash and "twice the speed" while dropping 3G connections. Did Apple truly mislead customers? That's for the courts to decide.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows Live Wave 3 rolled out

Next Story

Linux Comparison: Introduction and Ubuntu

59 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Apple is only for those who like to get extremely overcharged for poor quality hardware and software. At least M$ tries to make their devices affordable to the average consumer instead of the "live at home in mom's basement" super slick 20 something that's just so darn hip. At least the PC in the Mac ads is capable of getting his own place by doing "boring spreadsheets." The Mac sure is trendy and friendly. Britney Spears is also trendy and friendly and her parents still have to wipe her arse. :-P And just like Apple she's on TV all the time saying how great everything is with her while TMZ shows video of her freaking out in real life. Perhaps Jobs' should stop emulating MTV and instead try and do business without having to lie through his teeth. Everyone on Neowin hates Microshaft, crApple and linSUX but yet no one is spilling the beans on the OSes and apps that don't suck. Strange that neowin comments often are just a bunch of women on the rag at the same time complaining to complain-it's all about getting attention right? :-D

I don't think any person could *reasonably* confuse what half price means or what twice as fast means. Those are pretty black-and-white terms.

But no, I'm sure Apple made those statements because no one could reasonably accept them as fact. Yes, that must be it. Apple needs to hire better lawyers. Start shifting money away from the Steve Jobs yacht fund and put it in their legal department.

surrealvortex said,
"twice as fast for half the price"
Compared to what? Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can see, it may even be twice as fast as a 90's mobile phone and for half the price of a laptop.
The statement is not complete and competent defence will be able to get any court to dismiss charges.


Oh please, any moron can see that "twice as fast for half the price" means that the new iPhone is twice as fast as the original iPhone. If Apple weasels its way using your excuse, then its proof positive that they are not looking after their customers.

"twice as fast for half the price"
Compared to what? Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can see, it may even be twice as fast as a 90's mobile phone and for half the price of a laptop.
The statement is not complete and competent defence will be able to get any court to dismiss charges.

surrealvortex said,
"twice as fast for half the price"
Compared to what? Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can see, it may even be twice as fast as a 90's mobile phone and for half the price of a laptop.
The statement is not complete and competent defence will be able to get any court to dismiss charges.

Good point. But we'll see . . .

Has anyone else read any of the actual response? Some of its a joke.

So far my favourite is the 15th affirmative defense - Apple had no knowledge that it was untrue or misleading... If they didn't know it was untrue they do not know it is true... and therefore should not be allowed to make such claims.

Actually reading this document to me looks like Apple do not stand a chance, as what the claimant is bringing forward isn't even relevant to some of the defenses.

"Apple doesn't want you to actually believe its advertisement"

I believe that, instead of sueing, this guy should make Apple put a disclaimer stating that after every commercial lmao.. That's what they said themselves, why not feed it to the masses.

> Apple doesn't want you to actually believe its advertisement

Of course they do--but only as long as you're not going to sue them.

Glendi said,
So why making an ad when you want people to not actually believe in it?


Trolling for suckers, duh. The suckers won't sue.

No one cared about Apple until they finally achieved some measurable success (iPod/iPhone) in the consumer product marketplace. Now that they have, it's time to play with the big boys.

Irrelevance had its advantages, notably invisibility. Not any more. Welcome to the majors, Apple.

ivdubvr6i said,
+ with more success they will see more problems. it's inevitable.

just one of the reasons why I don't want Apple to become even more mainstream...

Glassed Silver:win

I agree, it is misleading, but then again, so was the G5 add that said it was the fastest computer on earth or something like that. In the UK the add was banned.

That was Apple too.

Funniest thing was, I checked out their website the day before they announced switching to Intel processors (still using PPC). In the top right hand corner of their web page it stated something similar to:
PPC Processors 30% faster than Intel.

It was a link, so I clicked on it and it showed these diagrams of the speed of their PPC processors and the speed of Intel's x86 processors. It looked like a valid result because it showed Intel winning in one area, but PPC winning in all the rest (looked valid because Intel won one).

The next day I saw their announcement of switching to Intel processors. I thought: "This doesn't make sense, they were saying..."
So I checked their website again. Guess what it said now? It had a really hyped statement similar to:
Using new Intel processors, the fastest processors in the world*. *25% faster than PPC processors.

I had no idea what to think. Apparently, in one day, Intel processors got about 67% faster. I checked to see if a new processor was released by Intel. Nope, their last release of a fast processor was months ago.

Are we on Bizarro Earth?
Apple suggesting AntiVirus?
Apple Ads saying "Twice as Fast and Half the Price" and needing lawyers to explain in legalese that it is a joke?

Seriously... "Twice as fast" in the computer world isnt taken as a slogan or a joke, it is generally truth. Especially when a reputable company (like Apple) states such a claim.
Put it this way, if Sun MicroSystems put out such a claim on a new server line and it wasnt twice as fast AND half the price - they would be in court for a long long time.
Lets say if eBay took Sun to court because they were setting up for eBay2 and needed whole new server farm, purchased 100 new Sun Servers and it wasnt any faster - I dont think Sun's lawyers would say "Aww come on guys...it's a joke.... geezzz... Are you serious?... You really thought that.... Haa haahahaa oh my god you though we were serious... pheww now what is even funnier that you bought it because of that... hahahaa aww man"

atari800 said,
Are we on Bizarro Earth?
Apple suggesting AntiVirus?
Apple Ads saying "Twice as Fast and Half the Price" and needing lawyers to explain in legalese that it is a joke?

Seriously... "Twice as fast" in the computer world isnt taken as a slogan or a joke, it is generally truth. Especially when a reputable company (like Apple) states such a claim.
Put it this way, if Sun MicroSystems put out such a claim on a new server line and it wasnt twice as fast AND half the price - they would be in court for a long long time.
Lets say if eBay took Sun to court because they were setting up for eBay2 and needed whole new server farm, purchased 100 new Sun Servers and it wasnt any faster - I dont think Sun's lawyers would say "Aww come on guys...it's a joke.... geezzz... Are you serious?... You really thought that.... Haa haahahaa oh my god you though we were serious... pheww now what is even funnier that you bought it because of that... hahahaa aww man"
yarr this be true! nice (funny) way to put it

since when did flash count as the full internet? Its not like you cannot look at 100% of the net if you dont have flash installed!

But its not full internet with out the optional extras... U ever tryed to watch youtube without flash?? Ever tryed to watch them funny "shoot the golden iPhone" adds without flash... Its very hard :P

brent3000 said,
But its not full internet with out the optional extras... U ever tryed to watch youtube without flash?? Ever tryed to watch them funny "shoot the golden iPhone" adds without flash... Its very hard :P

Lol, there's this magical youtube app on the iphone which is able to browse youtube and even watch videos! Amazing!

Yeah Windows Mobile (and Symbian?) has that application too d4v1d05. What about the other 90% of flash content on the internet (not including ads)?

You must remember this is an advertisement. People will buy the product expecting the same web experience as on their PC. Then they won't be able to play their favourite flash games. Oh no.

TrekRich said,
since when did flash count as the full internet? Its not like you cannot look at 100% of the net if you dont have flash installed!


A lot of websites on the internet are plain flash websites so your point is not valid.

It's a slogan. That's like suing microsoft for their "Life without Walls" ad, since life without walls would require no Windows. I agree with LTD in the fact that there is no statement on the advertising saying: "The following you are about to see must be considered completely factual, please disregard all previous knowledge of anything."

Complete and utter tross. How did this get onto neowin?

Your missing the point. This doesn't come close to comparing with the life without walls, but this is not a slogan. They are using what appears to be real time video to display what their products do. Turns out it's a bunch of rubbish. Hope this guy wins.

sharp65 said,
Your missing the point. This doesn't come close to comparing with the life without walls, but this is not a slogan. They are using what appears to be real time video to display what their products do. Turns out it's a bunch of rubbish. Hope this guy wins.

From what I've seen, in fairly large letters at the bottom it says "sequence altered" or similar...

LOL.

"Life without Walls" is figurative.

"Twice as fast for half the price" is literal, it's about the factual speed and performance, LAWL.

If you make an advert claiming something to be half the price and twice as fast - as both things are associated with the product it is reasonable to presume the product does what they claim it to.

"Life without walls" doesnt refer directly to the product and it is clearly a slogan it is not claiming the product removes walls from your life.

Its like commercials which have a car surfing on the sea or turning into a robot - its obvious they are not claiming the car does these things. Whereas an advert which claims a car to be twice the speed of a previous car is directly related to the performance of a realistic item.

Do we really need adverts to state ""The following you are about to see must be considered completely factual, please disregard all previous knowledge of anything." at the start of them?

This sounds just like the crap MS got in to for saying "Vista Compatible". If MS got in trouble for that statement, you can bet Apple will get in trouble with theirs. Saying twice as fast and then the lawyers saying it shouldnt be taken as fact...well...thats false advertising. It is really misleading. A lot of people bought computers thinking they will fully Vista compatible. They werent "fully" compatible and this is why MS is being sued. Same reason applies for people buying the new iPhone thinking its twice as fast as the original.

the uk ads need sorting out too, you can't say 'look how easy it is to install something on your iphone' then remove parts of it and shorten the sequence!

Well, they did put "Steps removed and sequence shortened" in the small print, the very small print that was on screen for 0.5 seconds.

Yah, Apple ads are terrible.