Lawsuits involving Dell Inc.

Last updated December 20, 2022

This article lists lawsuits involving Dell Inc. .

In 1997 Håkan Lans sued Dell for infringement of his color-graphics display patent, U.S. patent no. 4,303,986.^[1] Dell won the case because Lans did not have any ownership interest in the patent, having assigned it to a corporation that he owned.
In 2005, Dell began the construction of a facility in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.^[2] Many claims emerged that Dell had used unfair practices to obtain huge incentives.^[3] Dell Inc. fought a lawsuit which the court system later dismissed.^[4]
In October 2005, Dell filed a lawsuit in a Paris court to sue Minorca-based independent website-designer Paul Dell of "Dellimages" for engaging in "parasitism and unfair competition". This related to his company website "DellWebsites".^{[ citation needed ]}
On January 31, 2007, some shareholders filed a lawsuit accusing Dell and Intel of conspiring, and accusing Dell executives (including Michael Dell) of backdating options and of propped financial reports.^[5] Specific allegations claimed that:
- Dell had received kickback from Intel to maintain Intel exclusivity
- Dell had used the funds to prop up its sales-figures
- Dell reduced the period and scope of its warranties and cut corners on manufacturing and testing in order to funnel additional funds to sales; causing the stock-price to inflate to around $40 per share
- once stock-prices had peaked, several Dell executives, including Michael Dell, sold massive amounts of their personal stock-holdings to benefit from the artificially inflated stock-price
On February 8, 2007, seven current and former workers at a call-center in Roseburg, Oregon sued the computer-maker, saying the company worked its sales reps "off the clock", failed to provide proper rest-breaks and improperly recorded their lunch-periods.^[6] Moves have begun to turn the case into a class action. Dell suddenly closed down the facility at Roseburg, Oregon on August 2, 2007.^[7] The facility had consisted of computer and electronics sales-agents and of customer-service representatives.
In March 2007 an article titled "Computer Giant Faces Consumer Lawsuit Consumers Allege They Didn't Get the Tech Support They Paid For" appeared on an ABC News website.^[8] "Part of the suit claims that though Dell gave the impression of an "award-winning service" available to consumers "24 hours a day, seven days a week", consumers faced "nightmarish obstacles" to get help and technical service for their computers. New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said that New York had received 700 complaints about Dell — more than the number of complaints for any other related subject.
In May 2007, Andrew Cuomo filed a lawsuit against Dell for "false advertising and deceptive business practices, including offering misleading financing, and failing to honor rebates, warranties and service contracts". Dell spokesman Bob Pearson portrayed the lawsuit as based on only a small portion of Dell's customers and as in no way reflecting the way the company treats its customers. Dell's hardware-warranty contract says that customers must troubleshoot over the phone — including possibly opening the computer — before Dell will send a technical service provider to replace a part. On May 27, 2008, State Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi required Dell to clarify its financing and warranty criteria, saying the computer maker engaged in fraud, false advertising, deceptive business and abusive debt-collection practices.[9] Parties have filed more than 1,000 additional complaints with the attorney general's office since the initial filing of the lawsuit in May 2007.^[10]
On December 5, 2007, Typhoon Touch Technologies filed a lawsuit naming Dell inc. along with other defendants, and alleging patent-violations over Dell's use of touchscreen technology.^[11]
On June 28, 2010, The New York Times described a civil case against Dell in Federal District Court in North Carolina, in which Dell shipped at least 11.8 million computers from May 2003 to July 2005 that were at risk of failing because of faulty capacitors made by the Japanese manufacturer Nichicon. The suit alleges that these faulty components in Dell's OptiPlex desktop computers, were known by Dell to cause problems or computer failure up to 97 percent of the time over a three-year period, and yet it is alleged that Dell knowingly concealed these component problems from customers.^[12]
On February 18, 2019, Cicilia Gilbert, a transgender employee, filed suit in New York federal court for discriminatory termination. Dell invoked an arbitration clause, and the case was sent to binding arbitration. On March 4, 2022, the Arbitrator ruled that Dell had terminated the employee because of gender identity and disability. Gilbert v. Dell Technologies Inc., 1:19-cv-01938-JGK (Southern District of New York), https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2022/03/30/dell-found-liable-for-discriminating-against-trans-employee/?sh=d62515052b95, archived at https://perma.cc/WK48-XB3R
On June 18, 2020, Merkamerica Inc filed a 9.6 million dollar suit against Dell Marketing on behalf of Dell Outlet. The claim is that Dell Outlet issued secret rebates to one of its resellers, harming competition. Merkamerica Inc. v. Dell Marketing LP et al 2:20-cv-05408 https://casetext.com/case/merkamerica-inc-v-dell-mktg-lp

Related Research Articles

Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology was a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primarily concerned with the enforceability of box-top licenses and end user license agreements (EULA) and their place in U.S. contract law. During the relevant period, Step-Saver Data Systems was a value-added reseller, combining hardware and software from different vendors to offer a fully functioning computer system to various end users. Step-Saver's products included software produced by Software Link, Inc (TSL), computer terminals produced by Wyse Technology, and main computers produced by IBM. The fundamental question raised in this case was whether the shrinkwrap licenses accompanying TSL's software were legally binding, given that different terms were negotiated over the phone with Step-Saver prior to receiving physical copies of the software. The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the court ruled that the shrinkwrap licenses were legally binding. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit subsequently reversed this decision, ruling that the shrinkwrap licenses were not legally binding.

InPhonic Inc was an American company which sold wireless services and devices online, both through its own electronic commerce sites and through private labeled websites it created and managed for online retailers. The company was headquartered in Washington, DC and maintained technology and operations centers in Largo, Maryland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">TigerDirect</span>

TigerDirect is an El Segundo, California-based online retailer dealing in electronics, computers, and computer components that caters to business and corporate customers. Previously owned by Systemax, which is known for its acquisitions of the intellectual property of the defunct U.S. retail chains Circuit City and CompUSA, and relaunching them as online retailers. The two brands were subsequently shuttered in late-December 2012 and consolidated into the TigerDirect site. In 2015, TigerDirect phased out all of its remaining brick-and-mortar retail operations, and PCM Inc. acquired Systemax's online North American technology retail business. In 2019, TigerDirect closed its online business servicing Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">BlueHippo Funding</span>

BlueHippo Funding, LLC was an installment credit company operating in the USA founded by Joseph Rensin that claimed to offer personal computers, flat-screen televisions and other high-tech items for sale to customers with poor credit. In an article published November 25, 2009 titled BlueHippo files for bankruptcy: Company blames its bank; was accused of violating settlement with FTC, Eileen Ambrose reported that the company "was forced to file for protection under Chapter 11." On Wednesday December 9, 2009, the company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy after having its funds frozen by their payment processor. A petition to a Delaware bankruptcy judge to release the funds was denied. The company's advertised toll-free phone number and website are no longer functioning.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

Newegg Commerce, Inc. is an American online retailer of items including computer hardware and consumer electronics. It is based in City of Industry, California. It is majority-owned by Liaison Interactive, a multinational technology company.

B&H Photo Video is an American photo and video equipment retailer founded in 1973, based in Manhattan, New York City. B&H conducts business primarily through online e-commerce consumer sales and business to business sales, as they only have one retail location.

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

Vivien v. WorldCom, Inc., No. 3:02-cv-01329 established a new legal theory permitting workers to recover for losses in their 401(k) retirement plans caused by investment in their employers' stock.

MonaVie is a defunct, American multi-level marketing company that manufactured and distributed products made from blended fruit juice concentrates, powders, and purées. The company was the subject of several controversies. Health claims for its products had not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities, and its chairman had been previously involved in false health claims concerning another beverage company. According to Forbes, MonaVie's business plan resembled a pyramid scheme. In 2015, the company defaulted on a US$182 million loan and went into foreclosure. Florida-based Jeunesse Global took over MonaVie’s assets when it purchased the note for $15 million.

MagicJack is an Internet-based telephone service (VoIP) provider in the United States and Canada. It offers nationwide VoIP and cellphone services.

<i>Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.</i> Private antitrust lawsuit

AMD v. Intel was a private antitrust lawsuit, filed in the United States by Advanced Micro Devices ("AMD") against Intel Corporation in June 2005.

Microsoft has been involved in numerous high-profile legal matters that involved litigation over the history of the company, including cases against the United States, the European Union, and competitors.

Nationwide Asset Services was a privately owned debt settlement company based both Phoenix, Arizona and Sacramento, California. Nationwide Asset Services is also affiliated with several other firms that provide nearly identical services and their own separate websites including American Debt Arbitration, Universal Nationwide and Universal Debt Reduction.

Vivint is a public smart home company in the United States and Canada. It was founded by Keith Nellesen and Todd Pedersen in 1999.

Rambus Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation was a patent infringement case between Rambus and Nvidia. The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

iYogi is a remote technical support firm based in Gurgaon, India, with customers in the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, Canada, and India. It has been the subject of lawsuits and numerous claims of misconduct.

Yahoo! has been a party to several instances of litigation.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers; between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2012. In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple and Motorola Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the mobile device "smartphone patent wars": extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing cases in nine countries; by October, the legal disputes expanded to ten countries. By July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U.S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. On June 4, 2013, Samsung won a limited ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent, but this was vetoed by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.

Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to antitrust laws related to third-party resellers. The case centers on Apple Inc.'s App Store, and whether consumers of apps offered through the store have Article III standing under federal antitrust laws to bring a class-action antitrust lawsuit against Apple for practices it uses to regulate the App Store. The case centers on the applicability of the "Illinois Brick doctrine" established by the Supreme Court in 1977 via Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which determined that indirect consumers of products lack Article III standing to bring antitrust charges against producers of those products. In its 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that since consumers purchased apps directly through Apple, that they have standing under Illinois Brick to seek antitrust charges against Apple.

References

↑ U.S. patent no. 4,303,986 , Data Processing system and apparatus for color graphics display, Dec. 1, 1981
↑ "Dell Delivers Computer Assembly Plant to North Carolina" Archived 2008-12-06 at the Wayback Machine , an advisory from Industrialinfo.com
↑ The Register: Sci/Tech News for the World Archived 2010-03-10 at the Wayback Machine
↑ "Dell wins incentives lawsuit" Archived 2009-01-04 at the Wayback Machine
↑ "Inside the Dell Shareholder Lawsuit: Did Dell and Intel Conspire?". 3 February 2007.
↑ "OregonLive.com: At Work". The Oregonian. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-08-09. Retrieved 2009-12-28.
↑ newsreview.info - Serving Roseburg & Douglas County, Oregon - News Archived 2008-02-04 at the Wayback Machine
↑ ABC News: Dell Sued Over Shoddy Tech Support
↑ Wakabayashi, Daisuke (2008-05-27). "NY judge: Dell engaged in fraud, false advertising". Reuters. Retrieved 2008-05-28.
↑ Fox News
↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, Captioned Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. and Nova Mobility Systems, Inc. v. Motion Computing, Inc. and Dell, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:07cv546. Online copy of filing
↑ In Faulty Computer Suit, Window to Dell’s Fall, The New York Times, 28 June 2010

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] U.S. patent no. 4,303,986 , Data Processing system and apparatus for color graphics display, Dec. 1, 1981

[2] "Dell Delivers Computer Assembly Plant to North Carolina" Archived 2008-12-06 at the Wayback Machine , an advisory from Industrialinfo.com

[3] The Register: Sci/Tech News for the World Archived 2010-03-10 at the Wayback Machine

[4] "Dell wins incentives lawsuit" Archived 2009-01-04 at the Wayback Machine

[5] "Inside the Dell Shareholder Lawsuit: Did Dell and Intel Conspire?". 3 February 2007.

[6] "OregonLive.com: At Work". The Oregonian. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-08-09. Retrieved 2009-12-28.

[7] wsreview.info - Serving Roseburg & Douglas County, Oregon - News Archived 2008-02-04 at the Wayback Machine

[8] ABC News: Dell Sued Over Shoddy Tech Support

[9] Wakabayashi, Daisuke (2008-05-27). "NY judge: Dell engaged in fraud, false advertising". Reuters. Retrieved 2008-05-28.

[10] Fox News

[11] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, Captioned Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. and Nova Mobility Systems, Inc. v. Motion Computing, Inc. and Dell, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:07cv546. Online copy of filing

[12] In Faulty Computer Suit, Window to Dell’s Fall, The New York Times, 28 June 2010

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[10]

[11]

[12]